Recent Forum Feedback...

I don't think I've noticed much difference although it never struck me being slow in the past. Competitor sites seem much slower now that I've started to snoop around to see what benefits they might offer. It's not like I would miss out on 100 sales for every minute of upload delay. I would guess they are motivated to speed up such things for background efforts like repricing since so many millions of models have been uploaded.

@Echoco

Clue: "Although I did also upgrade my internet"

Major fix to the website! Putting the Tools link on the actual part itself. TY SW!

Fantastic! Thanks Sw
Some hopes for 2019 ....

That is nice, but still inferior to the original system. All autocheck results, by material, in one place. Avim, if you can pull that off, preferably all on the first page, just a green checkmark or a red x in the box next to the cost-quote, then the backend's basic functionality will be mostly repaired. This isn't just for myself and my workflow, it is alarmingly apparent that the lack of immediate auto-check feedback is going to cause the less experienced users to order more non-viable items, resulting in frustration, lost sales, and negative associations with Shapeways. This means that the model-checkers are going to be more busy, which I'm guessing is why feedback times went form a few hours to multiple days.

I have to spend a lot of time convincing people of the quality and reliability of Shapeways made parts. Please help me help you, here.

Now, is there any word on getting us transparency to the pricing formula? It isn't just that the formula has been hidden, it is that it has been disguised so that we can't figure it out on our own, that is unethical. At least show us the cost before things being bumped up to the price minimums so I know how to sprue things/adjust to maximum value. If the minimum cost for versatile is $5, and my part is $4.50 before that, I'd like to know before spending time spruing duplicates or associated items.

Two thumbs up!

Excellent. All we need now is the return of product history, ability to set absolute and/or percentage mark-ups, and that list of 10 to 20 other minor things.

@MitchellJetten: A good move in the right direction. I think @TrentTroop has the right of it, though, the lack of immediate feedback will definitely lead to more orders of "maybe-printable, maybe-not" models that will result in failed prints and frustrated customers.

From what I understand, if a model is definitely not printable in a specific material, that material will simply not appear on the model page when it is uploaded. This can be confusing to new users who don't expect that, however - it might be more immediately understandable to present the material in a "greyed out" manner, unselectable, so that users don't wonder what happened to the material.

A simple mark that there are problems that might cause the print to fail, as we used to get with the "yellow triangle" mark on the upload page, would also help to indicate that users should check the 3d tools to see what the problem might be and correct the model.

I can see how the current site design is meant to be a minimalist, streamlined thing, but as we've seen testified by so many users already, it actually ends up complicating workflow and failing to present vital information that the old interface handled perfectly well. You've made some good strides towards restoring that functionality, it shouldn't be hard to finish the job.

They do gray out materials for gross violations like number of parts or sizes that are out of bounds. Not sure about other design rule violations.

Yes thanks that was really missing.

I would still appreciate it if the cubic mm metric could be reinstated on models. It enabled me to fine-tune models to reduce mass when the gold or silver cost would be too expensive. Now I have to guess, not good.

I also "appreciate it if the cubic mm metric could be reinstated on models"... Essential for designing earrings... or any other piece of jewellery like pendants where you need to know how heavy they are to be able to wear it...

The work tools are finally back and easily found? Wonderful! It only took a weeks longer than it should have. Now all we need is (among a couple dozen other things) THE PRICING STRUCTURE!!!
I understand that you're changing it around to make it more profitable for you but GIVE IT TO US. We will understand if it's changing week to week as long as it is VISIBLE to us! @gregorykress @MitchellJetten @avim Don't you guys see that the major request here is for the pricing structure?

I see I received a gentle reminder on my post. Ok, point received. It becomes a tad difficult to hold back a temper when it feels as though you aren't being taken seriously and your concerns are being dismissed en masse.

I for one bet pricing transparency isn't coming back. Not that I don't miss it too, but the problem is that it invites arbitraging, and I can see why Shapeways doesn't want to engage in a continuously escalating battle of wits with 10000 shopowners. Even if they succeed in keeping their margins above water on average, the contest is itself a resource sink, and they can't afford those.
From their side it's better to get rid of transparency once, take the blowback and be done, than to have a transparent structure that has to be tweaked every few months, will never make everyone happy, and causes renewed flak every time it's touched for all eternity.

@MikeyBugs95 I don't think you're being ignored; I think they're simply saying, "no". It's not like they had a temporary glitch in their web pages. Shapeways has resolutely and consciously removed transparency from their pricing models, despite the objections and concerns of designers, and I don't see that changing unless they have a complete reversal of corporate strategy.

I have asked if they could at least publish the factors that go into pricing of each material even if they don't publish the associated numbers. For instance, it's important for a designer in Detail Plastic to know we're being charged for the support material, and how the amount of material might vary greatly depending on the orientation of the model. That is useful information even if we don't know whether we're being charged $0.01 per cc of support material or $1.00. Designers in Versatile Plastic need to now we're being charged for "machine space" as well as the actual plastic used. And so on...

Most programs probably supply that function although perhaps not in your preferred units. Netfab and Meshmixer are free and can be used for that. I bet others like Meshlab do the same.

Many competitors have added a quick price quote upload feature without even needing an account. My guess is that making pricing algorithms less transparent simply invites everyone to price check on other sites. Of course that may not apply as easily to a store front unless the shop owner duplicates products across several vendors. At that point the baton would be passed to the consumer to do the comparison shopping. Some shop owners might standardize a final price across platforms to eliminate comparison shopping while others (like myself) will tend to add a constant markup regardless of where the digital shop resides. It's not my problem if a vendor can't be competitive in the market.

As far as what factors might feed into pricing a model other vendors have prominent pages that state what contributes to price, even if it doesn't state exact proportions or values. I don't think SW has that although it might be tucked away in a document somewhere that may or may not have been updated recently. If you're in a pinch and need to shave a few dollars or cents off the price you are again more apt to play in another sandbox where you have a clue what's going on. Having said that price isn't always going to be a primary factor. Service, quality, ease of use, stable platforms, etc. all figure into consumer preference.

*MrNibbles pricing thoughts subject to change in early 2019...

Sure, when I say transparency isn't coming back I don't mean they shouldn't offer fast quotes or clarify what's involved in making a print, but that I doubt they'll return to publicly stating a pricing algorithm.