| Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61723] Sun, 10 February 2013 06:57 UTC |
 |
|
Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error that can be resolved in a few minutes whilst shapeways
are doing tests on printability.
That's what we're here for yeah? To fix the model and provide for the customer. 
Paul
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61739 is a reply to message #61723 ] Sun, 10 February 2013 15:16 UTC |
 |
|
This is what I call the "Shoot first. Ask after." attitude.
And this is all the more true when there is no error at all:
"CS: Sorry, we cannot extract the support material of your die through the 0.01x0.01mm hole you designed...
me: Oh really?"
So many things to design, so little time...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61843 is a reply to message #61740 ] Tue, 12 February 2013 06:11 UTC |
|
|
There's one huge big glaring reason why I see Shapeways refusing to print that item.
FAQs
Are there prohibited products?
Explicit sexual content and weaponry look products are not accepted on Shapeways, neither private, nor public. Any file containing such content will be removed without further notice. We are allowed to make an exception for miniature weaponry (maximum size 10cm).
Asides from that, your model passed all the automated checks, so the only worry might be wall thickness.
A great tool for error checking, repairing and measuring models is NetFabb Basic.
Paul
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61859 is a reply to message #61853 ] Tue, 12 February 2013 10:26 UTC |
|
|
| Quote: |
We saw through your trick of adding extra volume for free by providing an impossible escape hole
|
I am guessing that Magic wanted to try the trick of trapping opaque support material inside the semi-transparent FUD.
Successful attempts at this are usually applauded in the forum, but it is a bit unclear how one gets this past the team.
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61860 is a reply to message #61859 ] Tue, 12 February 2013 10:27 UTC |
|
|
Ah, in FUD! I'll ask around, thanks!
Community Manager Europe | Shapeways
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61923 is a reply to message #61860 ] Wed, 13 February 2013 04:19 UTC |
|
|
@bart: yes you are right I use this "trick" also for opaque materials. Indeed this allow to lower the price. But I don't think Shapeways is loosing money through this technique. I am currently travelling, but as promise to the CS, I will explain that point next week in a seperate thread (I don't want to highjack this thread).
Here the initial topic from Paul was more: if I can fix an issue in 5 minutes, won't it be better to warn me (designer) of the issue and give me a chance to fix it, instead of cancelling the order? For me, it is all the more relevant if the order is not for myself but for a customer since the customer pay for the expedition fees, so cancelling an order will make those fee higher (in average) for the remaining objects, and this will probably upset him enough to stop ordering from your shop (or from Shapeways). The only problem I see is if the fixed object has more volume (and thus is more expensive) than the previous one, but in this case, I am sure that any designer will lower his markup to keep the final price unchanged.
So many things to design, so little time...
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61929 is a reply to message #61923 ] Wed, 13 February 2013 05:25 UTC |
|
|
I too would like to see this option, but I can also see why it's problematic:
The newly uploaded model (in theory) could cost many times more than the original. (even more than what could be covered by reducing the markup)
That would be fine on l my own models.. I could just pay for the difference.
But.. what would you expect to happen to a customer in this case? They might not be willing to cover the new cost.
======
I still contend that the key here is communication. If you order a test print of a model, the production team needs to know that they should check the test print more carefully for "high volume production", and let us know if they think the model will cause trouble. There's a big difference between a model that will be ordered ONCE, an models that might sell hundreds of times.
Patience, Persistance, Politeness - the 3Ps will help us get us to Perfect Printed Products
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61946 is a reply to message #61929 ] Wed, 13 February 2013 10:50 UTC |
|
|
@Magic - correct, we're not losing money on these orders. The support material is 'waste' and cannot be recycled. The problem is that our planners do not always know the intention of the designer, and that they may reject it. Stony is giving us some good input on this. The same goes for your remark about correcting items in an order - we're already thinking on how to facilitate this.
@stonysmith - yes, higher production cost would be an issue, although I doubt that an object would ever cost THAT much more after applying a simple fix? This is another strong argument for test printing objects before you sell them (as long as we don't reject them afterwards :-/)
About your volume remark: as soon as a model is available for sale in a shop, I don't think you can really predict how it's going sell. It might go viral! So this would only be applicable for personal orders on products that are not for sale?
Bart
Community Manager Europe | Shapeways
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61950 is a reply to message #61929 ] Wed, 13 February 2013 14:04 UTC |
|
|
| stonysmith wrote on Wed, 13 February 2013 05:25 |
I still contend that the key here is communication. If you order a test print of a model, the production team needs to know that they should check the test print more carefully for "high volume production", and let us know if they think the model will cause trouble. There's a big difference between a model that will be ordered ONCE, an models that might sell hundreds of times.
|
| bartv wrote on Wed, 13 February 2013 10:50 |
About your volume remark: as soon as a model is available for sale in a shop, I don't think you can really predict how it's going sell. It might go viral! So this would only be applicable for personal orders on products that are not for sale?
|
I think @stonysmith is correct here and goes to the heart of creating models via SW. The setup currently seems biased towards making your own stuff, primarily, with the production team working really hard to produce every model every time in an effort to satisfy the us the designers. This is a great thing and not to be criticized in any way.
But, if going forwards, people want to sell things in volumes large or small, and sell them to other people then an extra mode of production or of judging the printability of models has to be added, one where the criteria are not 'can we print it (at all)?' but 'can we print this every time and to an acceptable, repeatable standard?'. As @stonysmith implies, as a designer you can take a little rejection, make the mod and reorder, as an external customer this type of setback might just mean 'Oh, I tried that Shapeways/3d printing thing and it didn't work.' Customer lost, future customer lost.
So, yes I would say that enhanced printability checks should be the default for all models - after all SW doesn't know what is a one-off or a prototype for a production run. And then with the feedback (i.e. more communication) from these enhanced (stricter) checks, perhaps the option could be given to request to print on a 'best efforts basis', i.e the more on the limit designs, with the understanding that if they go on general sale 'unpredictable results may occur'.
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #61959 is a reply to message #61950 ] Wed, 13 February 2013 15:09 UTC |
|
|
| Quote: |
So, yes I would say that enhanced printability checks should be the default for all models
|
This might make sense from the perspective of someone wanting to sell items,. but it would probably drive
off people like me who mainly order single copies for their own use. The "increased communication" would
also increase workload for the service crew, so in my opinion it should be the designers flagging their models
as "shop items" to request stricter checking (and conversely, an option "minor printing defects acceptable"
could be added to decrease workload for early prototypes and such)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the customer really need to be refunded if there is an error... [message #62556 is a reply to message #62554 ] Thu, 21 February 2013 21:54 UTC |
|
|
Not sure which "STL viewer that has been added recently" you could mean. Are you talking about netfabb studio basic
by any chance - a free download from www.netfabb.com ?
|
|
|
|
Search
