@Enza3d I appreciate your response. Your first sentence mentions product design. This is a small segment of what 3dprinting is. The bulk of your paragraph then discusses several examples of the use of FDM, none of which are prototyping.
As for your second point, there are many material options for FDM, including TPU, Nylon, etc. My printers are not cheap sub-$200 printers. When I am done modifying them so they print perfectly, they are an investment that can buy 8 cheap printers. I guess I don’t fit into the new model. Be very clear, with 3dhubs changing the rankings by massaging the marketing so that bad prints get better reviews, they are directly minimizing my efforts on 3dhubs, and moving poorer quality competitors upwards in the rankings.
@Enza3D, I like that idea too, but can we trust 3dhubs to write the descriptions in a fair way? BTW, this is your idea, that is not what I was suggesting. I was pointing out that they used prototyping as the only “outcomes based” description of the materials.
HQ, Flexible, Prototyping. One of these things is not like the other.
--------------------
@imagine3dps Those are some fantastic prints you have on your hub! Those are some of the finest “low quality prototype” prints I have ever seen!
Nice hub, nice work!
This is most likely the result of including “retention” into the Hub rankings, see changelog. The checkout does not appear to influence overall FDM numbers (see my earlier comment). Feel free to nudge support@3dhubs.com to find out about the cause
@PepCo_Parker Excellent prints, excellent reviews, wonderful work. I see you are also a person who has posted over 100 times in TALK, which means you have probably put more time into 3dhubs TALK alone than you have made in profits.
I think 3dhubs should spend more time working on helping you make more money, since you are a good contributor and a good hub, instead of trying to steal your customers.
Thanks Perry. I wouldn’t say they’re trying to steal, mostly just redirecting. You’re right about the time by the way. If I counted my wage hourly my company would be in the hole ten fold. But that’s just part of the investment I’m putting in with hopes of receiving return later on. Would be a real shame if that never does happen because the majority of orders that should be fdm are scared off to more expensive methods.
From one of my repeat customers today, who is willing to speak directly to 3dhubs management directly if they are interested. This was unsolicited from me. He wanted to know why I was moving to cheaper materials.
He missed the whole point that this was a 3dhubs change, he thought I had changed to lower quality materials. I guess this is a a result of the materials now being called “Prototype Materials.”
This is the same customer that pointed out to me the new “Can I help you choose a material” dialogue. (A solid repeat customer that 3dhubs decided to try to upsell to another material! Which also would have lowered my rankings, since I get points for a repeat customer…)
I did not solicit the call. What is the funniest part of this? This is a customer I actually do prototypes for! (He then gets the models milled in aluminum)
Let me be very clear on what happened with this customer, a good 3dhub customer.
Last week or so, he went to create an order, and got a dialogue box that said “Can we help you select a material?”. This would have presumably tried to push the customer to HQ. Taking my repeat customer to another, higher margin hub. Literally stealing a customer from my hub, that I have worked with for over a year, and then dinging my ratings for not gettting the repeat.
Today that same customer called with an inquiry as to whether I have lowered the quality of my material.
Hi Simon, thanks for the suggestion, happy to iterate / debate. In your suggestion, what scenarios would you recommend customers to go non-FDM? Or do you feel the technical specifications should be leading there?
I’m pleased you pointed that out!!!
I put all my customers orders through 3D Hubs. My website points customers to my 3D Hubs page to upload their files so all website orders go through 3D Hubs system. I thought I would test the system as my orders have dropped off (since the changes) and I am disgusted at what I found…
Basically acting as a customer I added my files, then I selected my material and colour, the price looks ok so I go to the next page and see the attached!!! 3D Hubs pushing my customer away from FDM and towards SLA and SLS again!!! Needless to say the links lead through to choosing SLA or SLS hubs.
This is bad when a customer finds your hub through the 3D Hubs platform but when the customer comes from MY own website to place an order on MY hub only for 3D Hubs to redirect them to someone else is disgusting!!!
This doesn’t seem right indeed. I’ll look into it asap
Blind loyalty is Fandom. Like here in Cleveland, where we have the Cleveland Browns.
Actual loyalty is a two way street.
You can look through my posts in the past here on talk, where hubs ask “Why should I keep my customers on 3dhubs” and “If a customer wants another print, do I have to keep them on 3dhubs.”
I immediately wag my finger at the questioner. “How do you think 3dhubs gets paid?” “This is cost of sales”. “Supporting 3dhubs helps them improve the software.” “Always stick with whoever brought you to the dance.”
Hi Simon (@Steelmans), I’ve been told the links have been removed, can you confirm?
For SLS the main advantage has be not needing support material. I recommend customers go to SLS when models require complex support that cannot be removed easily, for example inside cavities.
I recommend customers go to SLA when they require very small detailed features that not easily produced on FDM, for example jewellery or dental.
(By the way, I am not suggesting you should rename “High Detail Resin” with “Jewellery Resin” as this would be unfair on SLA printers, Much the same as “Prototyping Plastic” is unfair to FDM printers.
Clear, will discuss your ideas here. I do think SLA deserves a ‘smooth surface finish’ highlight as well, as many customers use it to get a sense of what an injection moulded part would look like, would you agree?
For Q2 we’re also looking into possible splitting current material groups into a 2-step technology + material selection flow. In that scenario, FDM will probably just be called “FDM”, which might be the most objective of all ideas.
Yes SLA does deserve “smooth surface finish” but it is more a capability rather than a standard feature. Remember some SLA machines can print at higher layer heights too.
Calling FDM just “FDM” seems odd but it depends how it is displayed. Maybe is will be listed as just FDM, SLA and SLS. Why not revert back to “General Purpose Plastics”?
I have been pointing out for several days that customers are being shown a “Can I help you select a material” dialogue, including returning customers. At the checkout point, the screenshot you included tries to move your customer away from FDM.
Since we as hubs seldom PLACE an order, we have didn’t see it. A customer had to point it out to me. Its been there for weeks. I mentioned it several times.
----------
I follow “how to hub”, I work hard for customer, I advertise, customer places new order–3dhubs tries to steal customer.
Customer comes to 3dhubs, uploads part, reads reviews, chooses hub, chooses material and price, makes sales decision – 3dhubs tries to move customer away from hub.
Now I do all that, and to add insult to injury, the customer is told that I am doing Prototyping Materials.
Who sees this? Let me tell you who:
My repeat customers. (Then I get dinged on ratings)
Customers who are referred to my hub from existing customers.
Customers where I paid for the advertising!
Customers from my Facebook page.
Customers from my business cards.
HERE IS A THING TO NOTE HERE: The other non-FDM hubs have NO WORDING or warnings about the downside of choosing that.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH the guidelines, that last line “consider something else” is outright an F.U. to us.
Yes the links have been removed, much better. Whilst we are on this subject I still don’t like the term “disclaimer” would it not be better as “Material Information”?
You could also add that although FDM parts are printed with 20% infill by default, they can be printed at higher infills at an extra cost?
Also why is there no disclaimers for SLA or SLA? Surely “SLA can be brittle and is not suitable for mechanical parts” or “SLS has longer lead times” etc would be along the same lines as the FDM disclaimers?
Or perhaps the customers came to your site and found that you do protoyping materials, and went to a different hub.
Or perhaps the customers came to you and was shown a “can i help you choose a material” and went to a different hub.
Or perhaps the customers got the point of placing the order, and was told they should “consider a different material” and went to a different hub.
Hi Filemon, I also noticed a couple of other things you might be interested in…
The disclaimer appears with ABS and PLA but not Polycarbonate. The reason I noticed that is because other materials (PolyFlex, PolyWood, Taulman T-Glase etc) are missing from my listing. I Imagine this is because they are not classed as “Prototyping Plastics”. This is another argument to change back to “General Purpose Plastics” that cover all FDM used materials.
Ok, good.
Re: infill - over the next few weeks we’ll add support material calculation to our uploader, after which we’ll also do infill. At that point we can do this automatically. That’s also when we plan to introduce infill adjustments to the customer.
SLA limitations we’re currently working on (similar to FMD guidelines). Once finished we’ll make sure to add those as well.
Will put the word “disclaimer” up for discussion, but as I mentioned earlier, we’ve seen no decline in orders so far.
Thanks again!
True point, we’re touching upon a lot of things here 
We’re working on a complete overhaul of our material database (and thus grouping), which will address this issue. I plan for this to go live in May. That will solve this problem
You are correct here, but that view is only one application of the technology (much like prototyping is only one application of FDM).
The general flow (for engineering design) starts with FDM printing, which is used to print as many iterations as is necessary to reach a final design. The FDM prints are used to help gauge how the final product will “feel” and behave so the design can be improved upon as needed. This is why it’s not uncommon to have multiple prints which demonstrate multiple changes to each part at this phase (the prototyping phase).
SLA is used once the design is refined and finalized for injection molding because, as you mentioned, it’s surface finish mimics that of an injection molded part well (when it’s properly post-processed) and it gives a really good representation of what the final, market product will look like. This print will include all the injection molded pieces components (gussets, coring, ribs, draft, etc.), which are not necessarily included in the initial FDM prints. Generally, the final design is printed once in SLA but can be printed again if major design changes occur.
To be honest, I think labeling each technology by it’s name from the get go is a better approach. Yes, customers may not know what it means initially, but it’s a more holistic approach to doing this (in my opinion). Not only does it eliminate almost all the issues being addressed in this thread, but it helps the customers better understand the process if they want to. FDM has a much wider range of materials than PLA and ABS (which is what people think of when you say just plastic), and customers may not even know TPU, Nylon, wood based, metal infused, etc. are options. Breaking it down by process, then material is much better for everyone as each process has a lot of materials at this point. For SLA, you can choose casting, dental, flexible, standard, etc. all of which have drastically different properties, but none of that is well explained by the default selection process. The same goes for FDM; PLA is nothing like Nylon, TPU, or WoodFill (or any of the exotics), and that really should be better presented to the customer. It’s more work on your end, but we are rapidly approaching the point where the choice of material/desired end properties supersede the choice of print technology. Gone are the days where SLA was just for visual models and delicate prints, and when FDM was just for ABS. Material variety is growing more and more diverse by the month, and that’s not represented here.
Question - if my orders have slowed, it might be difficult to pull repeat orders, not just new orders. When the change went into effect, did you look back at a hub’s history to see what kind of repeat business they already had? I’ve had a few repeaters already.
One thing that is interesting here is that I actually push some of my customers to HQ hubs on my own:
1. When the customer needs really smooth parts, such as an art piece.
2. When a nylon customer wants a part , and the customer’s reason for choosing nylon really wont hold up well for FDM nylon.
3. When the part has a lot of really thin, complicated structures.
4. When a customer wants to know what the weight will be like when they have it pressed.
And more. My numbers of referrals from my own hub to others hub is probably very high. I am sure this has hurt my rankings, because it creates more “rejected” orders.
This is where voice of the customer comes in. We get dinged for pushing customers to higher margin prints when we should get rewarded. In fact, instead of lowering the bar, 3dhubs should have a way for us to get bonus points AND CREATE AN ORDER IN A PARTNERING HUB so that 3dhubs does not lose control of the customer in that step. That is, we have the ability to just move the order over to an HQ hub, POOF that order appears in an HQ hub, and a dialogue between that hub and the customer begins automatically. Rising tide! Not denigration.
Personally, I’d love a disclaimer for SLA that the “perfect” smooth finish a lot of SLA pictures have is only achievable with sanding and good post-processing. It is impossible to get that smooth finish with only basic support removal (I can get close but not all the way there), and some customers have the expectation that the print will be smooth everywhere by default. I am continuously explaining that that’s additional processing, and there’s no feasible way to build that into my pricing by default as each print is unique (and it’s not fair to the customers who don’t want the sanding).
@Filemon would you consider adding this?
I was under the impression that “rejecting” an order because it was better suited for a different technology had no impact on your rankings but who knows at this point. I do this a lot too, and haven’t seen a negative impact in my rankings when I check by uploading a part and poking around.
Hi @Filemon I’m not Simon, but having started this thread I feel obliged to participate a little more…
In my opinion, it’s important to differentiate between what 3DHubs could/should be doing pre-order to steer a customer towards a particular technology, and what an individual Hub should/could do once they receive an order. Once I’ve received an order I enter into a dialogue with the customer, find out what the part is, what it’s for, where it’ll be used and so on. Sometimes those conversations can be lengthy, and may involve redesigns of the part, uploaded photos of other pieces, etc. There’s no way 3DHubs could, or should try to, replicate that sort of customer liason. Even if you had a mighty team of people ready to interact at the pre-order stage, you could not cover the personal opinions and experience of the Hub that finally produces the print. If, in my opinion, I cannot print the object I’ll decline it, either suggesting another FDM Hub that can meet the requirements (though that’s rare) or suggesting SLA.
If we accept that the only reliable way of truly determining the needs of a customer is through one to one dialogue with an actual Hub, I’m not sure there’s anything that 3DHubs should do to influence customers in terms of their chosen technology. There are a very few absolutes that match certain technologies; full colour, for example, metal or certain other specialist materials, but when it comes down to the choice between FDM and SLA, I think it’s virtually impossible to make a recommendation without engaging one on one with the customer. For example, we know that FDM has a problem with isotropy (and here’s an excellent, if promotional, article by FormLabs on the topic), but how would 3DHubs know if that was important without knowing the exact usage of the object? The current beta is trying to “pigeonhole” technologies by firm boundaries that simply don’t exist; SLA is not “better” than FDM, it’s different, and those differences are not just quality. More importantly, how are cheap SLA machines going to affect this thought process? Will the $400 Wanahoo D7 SLA, really knock the $3500 Ultimaker 3 out in terms of print quality?
There’s another issue here that I think has not yet been raised. Most of the upset people on this thread are FDM only Hubs, like myself. We cannot print SLA, certainly not SLS, so if more customers order SLA they’re simply gone for us. However, how many SLA capable Hubs can also print FDM, how many SLS capable Hubs have both SLA and FDM at their disposal as well? For these Hubs, the change is irrelevant, if a customer’s order would actually better suit FDM (and they’re a fair and honest Hub) they can offer that technology, they won’t lose any orders.
I can fully, totally understand the problem of managing customer expectations, but for me that seems more of a problem at the individual Hub level than a problem with the technology of FDM itself. I’ve worked hard to try and ensure a 5.0 star rating and it really hurts when I drop a star here or there with a customer. If it’s possible to achieve that sort of review history with FDM, and it is because there are plenty of top-notch FDM Hubs here, then surely any action from 3DHubs should be focused on reducing the risk of poor quality output from individual poor quality Hubs, not to penalise FDM as a technology and bring risk to those of us who, it seems, have not caused the problem in the first place.
@FilemonCan I ask how are flexible fdm plastics handled? I have a variety of materials I can print some of them being flexible, but they don’t fall under your, now ‘prototyping plastics’ section. But they are also not found under your flexible materials section. What’s up with that? Also I would like to place another concern with 3D hubs algorithms. I’ve had slowdowns on a few orders recently. They fell behind schedule, but not because of myself. One of the orders had a pretty damaged part that I had to repair, and then the customer had doubts about their material. So I fixed the part and sent the samples in the mail for free, I then had to wait for it to ship and the customer to review and respond. This takes a bit so the order falls behind. The other was issues with the strength of a part, so I modified it for the customer and did some testing on it, so it too fell behind the initial date scheduled for it to be finished. Neither of these issues were because my printers were overwhelmed. And yet, since that order has fallen behind I have not received a single order!!! I’m aware this could be coincidence but I’m suspicious you have some algorithms that push back hubs with jobs that are currently delayed.
Yeesh, post one comment on this forum and suddenly my email explodes and crashes on my phone with 30+ emails instantly about replies xD
Glad everyone is talking about the issues at least, always good to hear collaboration.