Target Deadlines for Cuusoo? With Survey!

Posted by ,

I am a firm believer that every project should get a shot at getting to 10k but there are now 5000 of them on Cuusoo. Every quarter, less than 10 projects have reached 10,000, but in the last three months over 750 projects have been published. It's easy to see that the problems people already have with Cuusoo will only get worse with time if this trend is not addressed.

What follows is my proposal for a method that could be implemented to identify and remove 80% of the low performing projects while still giving every project a chance: Target Deadlines.

Under the paradigm of target deadlines, any project can be published, but it has to meet target support levels at given intervals or become archived. This paradigm thus integrates project velocity as a factor in the overall success of the project.

Proposed Model

  • 25 support within 30 days of publication
  • 50 support within 60 days of publication
  • 100 support within 90 days of publication
  • 200 support within 365 days of publication

These might sound startling low goals to some, but it would actually have a very significant impact. If these deadlines were put into place today, 4170 projects would be retired.

Benefits to Cuusoo

This would have several, potentially beneficial impacts:

  1. It gives a pressing goal to the project creators.
    First impressions are critical for project support and many project publishers do not understand this. If publishers went into Cuusoo knowing they had goals that had to be met, this would hopefully result in more thoughtful implementations. This idea of a deadline will also encourage project creators (and serious fans) to take a much more active role in promoting their project.
  2. People (Supporters) are inspired to action by deadlines.
    People are always more willing to vote and spread the word when there are consequences to not voting. I hope this statement is self evident, but it has proven effective on getting Cuusoo projects to 10k just prior to the review deadlines. I have found that online sites are more likely to give a shout-out when there are consequences to not doing so. Additionally Cuusoo could develop a page that emphasizes projects in their last days to help get the word out.
  3. Cuusoo would look better.
    If you remove 80% of the poor performing projects on Cuusoo, then what remains, by definition is the 20% that perform well. So, any random project you encounter on Cuusoo is much more likely to be impressive. The suggestion and search systems will "work better" because the content they bring back will be from a healthier collection of projects.
  4. The Combination of all the above.
    With projects getting promoted more by their creators (1), and people coming in to support before the deadline (2), that means more traffic coming into Cuusoo. With the suggested projects looking better (3), there is likely to be more draft support for projects from new visitors and more chains of support occurring.
  5. Broken Window Theory
    If you are not familiar with this, well, that is why the link is there. But basically, if people see "junk" they make more "junk." So, if Cuusoo is cleared out of much of its "junk" people will be less likely to introduce more. I don't expect this to work miracles, but it very well could change people's opinions on what you need to have a successful project.
  6. Automatically Cleans up Abandoned and Timely Projects
    It is evident that many of the older projects on Cuusoo are neither being supported by fans or even tended by their creators. In more extreme cases, these projects are based on events, like the 2012 Olympics, where the timeliness of the project is a critical aspect. Putting these deadlines on all projects will give Cuusoo a method to clear out these abandoned ideas and make room for the new and impressive ones to shine.

But what about the archived projects?

If the project creator so chooses, they can be reposted. There is no reason to burden the Cuusoo staff with trying to decide if a project is "new" enough to get posted. All they need to do is evaluate a re-submitted project on the current merits for publication and put it up if it meets them.

People who are serious about their ideas will lick their wounds, assess what went wrong, and try again. The really good ideas that have gotten lost in the shuffle the first time around will even have a better shot at finding its audience in this slimmed down Cuusoo.

Regardless, I think many projects suffer from jumping the gun on publication. They publish a weak presentation while they have the "new project audience" and then develop a strong presentation when nobody is looking. Starting over is the best thing for many projects.

There is one caveat I would put on this however (I realize this is a digression). I would allow anyone to put anything up on Cuusoo (that meets the standards), but I would limit how many low performing projects they can put on Cuusoo. I would bar people from posting a new project on Cuusoo until their least supported project reaches a threshold of support, perhaps 25 or even 50.

With the new limitation, project creators would either have to wait for their weakest project to get up to 25, actively promote their project until it is at 25 support, or delete their weakest project to launch a new one. Personally I hope they will take the option to promote their project to 25, but the options are up to them.

Many of you might question the need for such a rule, but those who turn a more critical eye on Cuusoo will see that many poorly supported projects are from chronic project creators. I myself am guilty of this... I have several projects that I "plan to upgrade later" but while that is true, these relatively poor projects are taking up space on Cuusoo and I should probably delete them now and repost them if I do make improvements later. There is no incentive for me (or anyone else) to actually do this though and this would be a very compelling one that still gives the Cuusoo publisher control of their projects.

Are the cut-offs set for best effect?

That is a great question. The model I am proposing is based on my personal review of Cuusoo projects. I imagine if Cuusoo instituted such a model, that it would need to get re-evaluated from time to time. If streamlining helps the projects that have a real chance at production get more support, then the bars could get moved around quite a bit.

Wouldn't this system favor IP based projects?

I will start off by saying personally, I don't have a problem with the fact that IP projects are more prevalent on Cuusoo. I might feel different about this if there was evidence that non-IP projects would get more support if there were less IP themed projects but I have seen that the really good non-IP projects can easily reach 100+ support.

That being said, the initial thresholds are not difficult to meet for a quality project of any variety. That can be difficult to see by just going to Cuusoo so I have provided this view of Cuusoo. This shows all projects from the last thirty days sorted by their support level. Of course this is a moving target, but at the time of publication, 15 No IP projects have reached 25 support in the last 30 days, 5 of these have even reached 50 support in 30 days, and 1 has reached 100 in 30 days.

So...what would this look like?

Well, you can see for yourself. I have created two new sort order views for Cuusoo projects. Here is a page displaying all Cuusoo projects sorted by their "lifetime" support rate and here is the same sort but with projects that have not met the proposed deadlines removed. Additionally, as it is important to many FOL, I have added a rate view that is exclusive to non-IP projects which can be found here.

This method of sorting does have an interesting quality in that new projects show up high in the sort (5 per day for ONE day is pretty easy) but the low supported new projects do tend to drop off quickly as their support level tops off but the number of days continues to increase, quickly bringing down their average.

So, what do you think...

Should Cuusoo implement Project Support Deadlines:

What can you do?

Well, obviously most of the people reading this article are not LEGO employees and have nothing to do with Cuusoo. But you can make a difference by telling Cuusoo what your opinion is. The easiest thing you can do of course is to respond to the survey above. If you feel stronger about this subject, for or against, you can show your passion by emailing Cuusoo at: [email protected] or you can use the "Contact Support" link on Cuusoo's Knowledge Base.

53 comments on this article

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

A very good idea, but we're not the ones you need to convince. As the owner of the biggest Lego fan site on the web I assume you have the ear of someone at TLG. Let them know.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Very interesting... And when is the fall review supposed to happen BTW?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I agree whole-heartedly. I've stopped frequenting YouTube because anything made by someone with talent is now hidden amongst the overwhelming amount of tat... and Cuuso is heading the sane way for me. A system is definitely needed to slim down the 'weak'.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

^^^I imagine the survey is so that this can be put to TLG with some weight behind it.

^The internet and ease with which many things can be posted does tend to bring things down to the lowest common denominator. I imagine this is a fate that will plague just about everything in the end, if this can help prevent that I'm all for it.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I would love to see this idea, or a variation of it, implemented by Cuusoo. I'm tired of looking for good projects to support among the loads of stuff with that "5-minute build" look.

Also, what's an IP based project?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

IP based means based on an existing 'Intellectual Property' - recent cussoo example are ghostbusters, Jurassic Park, Macross etc...

Gravatar
By in United States,

I agree with this for the most part. I would also like to add the following: remove and disallow cuusoo ideas that will never be made. Obviously they couldn't give each and every project a thorough review but they already have a list of things they do not allow such as: IPs or projects that are graphic, mature, religious, competing brands, modern warfare, etc... They need to expand this list to disallow ANYTHING Star Wars, Super Heroes, Lord of the Rings, Simpsons, etc... Anyone that thinks that they will use a cuusoo project that represents a massive IP they are already handling to create a small run of LEGO projects is delusional. LEGO is working closely with creative companies to take care of these and they have years of products already. Cuusoo will simply NOT do any Star Wars, Batman, Iron Man, etc... projects and its a waste of space.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@ Demarco Murray

I think there is a very likely chance you are confusing me with "Huw." Huw owns and codes the side but the content is generated by a wide array of volunteers ( http://www.brickset.com/about/members/). The person who pens an article is in the "Posted by" section at the top of each article. Not to mention the many great reviews by users.

Your statement is 100% correct. Every fan in the world can agree to this, but it means nothing if it does not get back to TLG.

That being said, Zipsforbananas is also correct. Should we have the ear of Lego or not, it is one thing to say "I think people would like it if you did this" and quite another to say I put this idea out there and X% of Y FOLs supported it.

Also, until now I had no idea if people liked this idea or not. At the moment, 94% of 150 FOLs are saying yes, so wow, I guess they do. I wonder if this will continue to trend as more voters come in.

Finally, to circle back around, given that Brickset is one of the biggest Lego fans site on the web, I assume someone at TLG is reading it ;)

Gravatar
By in United States,

Something else that may help Cuusoo, although not directly related to @glenbricker's proposal (which I support):

TLG should create an embeddable widget for website owners, that allows Cuusoo projects to easily be included on AFOL websites. This could be a lot like the widgets you get at Amazon, where it could show any combination of active projects, based on what the website owner wants to include - final stretch, newest, shooting stars, a specific project, or something completely random.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Don't get me wrong, but I can't for the life of me figure why projects that are low quality and get support slowly are even a problem to anyone. It's not like there's limited space on LEGO Cuusoo... no more than on, say, Brickshelf or MOCpages, or for that matter the LEGO.com galleries, which have never needed to eliminate poor-quality uploads for the sake of space. Would we ask Brickshelf, MOCpages, and Flickr to start archiving unpopular images and galleries just to make browsing less unpleasant and ensure we only see "hits"?

And here's the other thing... the lousy, hopeless models don't even get in the way of anything! If you search projects by "most supported", "most commented", or "most viewed", the projects that aren't worth the community's time effectively disappear until you get enough pages back to be dredging the bottom of the bin. If you're only looking at randomly-generated projects, then it's your own fault if some of those aren't to your liking. You have the option of being selective and you are ignoring it.

In the meantime, Cuusoo would become even more of a popularity contest than it already is, because if you can't generate hype at a consistent pace, any hype you've previously generated could go to waste entirely. And suppose you post a decent project at the same time that someone else posts a really amazing and unrelated project? Your project will suffer for no reason other than poor timing. Cuusoo users would quickly get frustrated at a system that keeps killing off projects just because they don't generate hype fast enough, and the entire environment of the site would become less pleasant as people blame competing projects for "sabotaging" their own projects or projects they supported.

In general, I see no benefit to this proposal whatsoever: any potential gain can easily be achieved with negligible effort just by ignoring projects we don't think are worth our time or sorting our search results by three out of the four available search filters. If two many lousy projects are still showing up, then Cuusoo needs better search filters, not a more cutthroat competitive element. Like a lot of AFOL-generated proposals for "improving" Cuusoo, it seems pointless and somewhat elitist, because it perceives a problem where there really is none, and attempts to correct it by deeming some projects less worthy of appearing on the site.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I think this sounds like a great idea. It would really help clean up the site. I voted yes! Hopefully word will reach the CUUSOO staff.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I am not to sure about this. Sure, it would clean up the site, but there are many sets out there that need a chance. In five days, my SWTOR Jedi Temple got up to 40 supports. In two months, it has only received an addition of 16 supports. There are also many other sets out there that deserve a chance, but no one looks at them. On my opinion, these deadlines should be extended to three times their size, or not applied at all. There are still those small, little known people like me who want to show what we can do, and we can't do that if we are shut down every 30 days. So I have to say no. Judge how you want, but we need a chance. REMEMBER US!

Gravatar
By in United States,

I like this idea for two reasons already mentioned: Clean out the "junk" and Promote higher quality creations. A lot of the builds I see up there are more like "MOCs" being shown off, without much chance of ever being created. When I do a search for something and see a dozen projects that all look "meh", it can be a bit frustrating.
Hopefully this post will get some attention by people who can make a change.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

I agree with some of your ideas; I think there's far too much crap on CUUSOO. However, I disagree that you should block people from adding new ideas simply because their previous ones were unpopular. Maybe they deserved to be more popular and even if they didn't, that doesn't mean the new idea will also suck. Edison was granted more than 1,000 patents and most of them were junk.

Gravatar
By in United States,

this would be great for removing cruft. Like the joke dark bucket and other projects lego cant do because they will not pursue the license for it, for obvious reasons.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Wow.

So much for including everyone in the LEGO Hobby. This idea is horrible and I hope LEGO replies laughing at your face with a big "WTF are you thinking?!?!"

The only idea I like is that IPs should be grouped together somehow.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I like the idea of there being some mechanism for cleaning up CuuSoo. People seem to often confuse it with a site for MOC's, which it isn't. It is meant for project proposals, and should be managed as such. But the suggested cutoff points and deadlines seem a little harsh. I would at a minimum take it out to 60 or 90 day points. But honestly perhaps the biggest way to clean up CuuSoo would be some better mechanism for age verification. There is supposed to be a hard age limit of 18. (Under 18 cannot participate in the contracts or receive royalties.) simply screening for that a little bit better would go a long way to reducing the hopeless clutter and what we describe as "5 minute builds" or "little Billy's first LDD". Maybe paired with a 3 or 6 month "no activity" archiving?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

If the point of this proposal (and ensuing discussion) is a desire to "clear the crap" out of Cuusoo, why not have a 'dislike' option as well as a 'support' button? Voters would have to select from pre-determined list of reasons why a project should be listed ("existing IP partner", "5 minute build" or "little Billy's first LDD" etc). At least that way the builder would get feedback as to why the community doesn't want Cuusoo to assess heir creation, how they need to improve etc, rather than just because they didn't hype the hell out of so that they won the popularity contest.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

^ sorry! that should have read "why a project shouldn't be listed"

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I think all Cuusoo needs is a better method of project discovery. It's too hard to browse and search through projects right now so it's more an issue of display and categorisation of projects that's the problem rather than an inherent issue with the number of projects.

You should be able to, say, browse to a video game category, and in there have things like "Sonic the Hedgehog" and have all Sonic projects lumped together under there ordered either by popularity using votes, or popularity using page hits.

The number and cruft problem goes away if projects are better sorted and categorised, it's entirely a problem of categorisation and searching rather than an inherent problem with numbers and quality.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Hmm, Wow, I think it's really cool that you've amassed enough raw data at this point that you can actually give us virtual views showing "What if Cuusoo did X?" or "What if Cuusoo did Y or Z?"

It would be fun to see more simulations like that. Another one that might be instructive to see is "What would Cuusoo look like if all of the "inevitable discovery" projects were to disappear?"!

At the very least, that would hide all the MineCraft Biome Expansions and Iron Man Halls of Armor for a moment! =D

And it would give us more of a "TLG's-Eye-View" of things, showing how they scan over Cuusoo ideas from their POV.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I supported your system, but also reading some of the comments, the people uploading the stuff that has been in the way are not going to like TLG anymore. It would be another Brick Queen fiasco. "These guys suck for kicking me off and not giving me a chance" YouTube videos will be everywhere.

I still like the idea of regarding deadlines though because that will make people serious about posting and supporting ideas. They already have a thing where if somebody is not 13 or older, they cannot vote and if some is not 18 or older, they cannot post ideas. Obviously people lie or throw their baby cousin's stuff up for them, but what is one more system that weeds out the stuff "illegally" uploaded? Perhaps the intervals are too short or maybe the number of supports are too high, I don't know, but I haven't visited Cuusoo in months because there is nothing interesting to look at anymore.

Perhaps some bits of the system you have created can help the site and in other ways hinder it. There are some things that just should not be up there anymore, and that is why I supported your system. Besides, if TLG and Cuusoo agree with the idea, they can always modify things, and if they don't, modify it and try again. It's always going to be a work in progress for Cuusoo.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

how about a tier system of elimination like this:

anyone can submit still;

top 10 of the week stay, all others = removed

if it gets <2500 votes in a month = removed

if it gets <5000 votes in the quarter = removed

if it passes the 5000+ mark, can stay until cuusoo team reset the submissions.

all 10K votes enter a "hall of fame"

it's not a MOC dumping ground, it's for the truly noteworthy to be considered. only the best will survive

Gravatar
By in Puerto Rico,

Agree, tired of people posting one X-Wing per month.

Gravatar
By in Philippines,

I tried the link with the proposed deadlines set up...and I still see projects which, to me, are not interesting at all, so I'll agree with @Aanchir on this one.

And I still don't know why when I type Star Wars on Cuusoo, I still get to see the Apple Store, which peeves me a lot not because that particular project is not good, but because I don't expect to see it in the first place. And it's not even the creator of that particular projects fault, because the words "Star Wars" do not appear in the tag words...unless I'm missing something.

Gravatar
By in Portugal,

Something that bores me is the time we have to wait for the Cuusoo Team review... It should happen more often, and they could talk as well about projects that are getting support like +5000 that will never be accepted as a Cuusoo set.

This way people would get feedback sooner, other AFOLs would be informed with more frequency about the platform intentions and most of all the Cuusoo Team would be able to shut down hopes of projects that they think don't fit the pattern.

Gravatar
By in Denmark,

I really don't see the problem you address. Whenever anyone at anytime visit cuusoo and does a search they can sort their search after RECENT or MOST COMMENTED or MOST VIEVED or MOST VOTED!

The first one is mostly interesting for the regular visitors who want the news, the next three options sort out much of the junk stuff you refer to.

So I dont see what's the actual problem with the many projectes being present at Cuusoo is. :-)

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

It is only immature to assume that "there is no problem as long as there is capacity". We should not let the projects pile up, because at some point it may even lead to CUUSOO being shut down. Technically, it is TLG's problem, but we are the community and we should be the driver to remove clutter. Filters only visually hide the unwanted and never-to-be-released content, but it doesn't change much. And just like everywhere else, there has to be some sort of competition on CUUSOO, because after all, only the best creations are meant to be produced.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I think the proposal above is completely fair. If you can't convince 200 people that your project is good within a year, then it shouldn't be made by LEGO. If there is no chance LEGO is going to make it, then it shouldn't be on Cuusoo, put it on MOCPages, Flickr, or Brickshelf. Less than 30 supporters a month isn't a slow start, it's a non-starter. The point of Cuusoo is to suggest projects for LEGO to develop. With thousands of submissions, but LEGO making only a few sets per year (if that), at some point LEGO needs to clean up the crap and put more focus on the high quality, popular material.

If the stuff a few of you above put up is as good as you think, getting rid of the garbage on Cuusoo can only help you because there will be less stuff for people to browse through to find your quality ideas.

Gravatar
By in United States,

"It's easy to see that the problems people already have with Cuusoo will only get worse with time if this trend is not addressed."

But eliminating lower performing projects (after thirty days, particularly) would have another problem, which I see as being even worse: alienation of the CUUSOO support base.

Sure, there are a lot of projects that look like no thought went into them, but there are many (I would say even more) projects that do represent members' best creative attempts. Despite the effort behind them, many of these projects still don't garner much support, which can be frustrating to their creators. Yet, there is always hope that support might pick up someday. Even if that hope is misplaced in a doomed project, it keeps them checking back into CUUSOO, looking at new projects, and supporting them.

Eliminating these projects in such a short timeframe also eliminates that hope, and takes away the reason several members have for coming back to CUUSOO. It is already frustrating to pour a lot of effort into a project that goes nowhere, but having that project automatically removed would be even more so. This effect would be doubled because many projects that members had already supported would also be eliminated. Members would be justified in feeling that all of their work to create and support projects were wasted with each project removed, and they would stop coming back. This might keep overall project quality up, but at the cost of the disenchantment and disenfranchisement of several members. Say what you will about sub-par projects, a shrinking community helps no one.

However, I can see a lot of reason to the one year cut-off; at that point members should have a good idea of where their projects are(n't) going, and a reasonable expectation could be set that fewer than 200 supporters in a year means your project is archived.

Alternately, you could have a deadline where after the first six (nine? twelve?) months, if your project goes a month with no new supports it becomes archived.

In these ways, the deadlines would not have the alienating effect that say, a thirty or sixty day deadline might have. After a year or a long period with no support, it is pretty clear the path a project is on and reality sinks in, which a shorter deadline doesn't allow time for.

Overall, I think that categorization of projects would be better solution. Whoever at CUUSOO that publishes the projects could (even upon a very quick review) see whether this was a new licensed project, an existing license or theme, a parts project, or an original IP, and then catalog them as such. Within each category it would not be hard to create sub-categories (or even sub-subs) so that if you are looking, for example, for new constraction projects to support, you don't have to muddle through eighteen Iron Man Halls of Armor to find them. This would work better than the current tags system, and could still allow sorting by age, support, comments, etc. Another option would be to have standardized tags (as most well-organized libraries have), which would accomplish nearly the same thing.

The only drawback to this I can see is that it would be time consuming to re-catalog all the existing projects, but glenbricker's solution encounters the same problem.

Long Story Short: I support the notion of long-term deadlines, but in the short term I am afraid it would be too great of a barrier to entry and discourage a lot of potential supporters and CUUSOO fans. On top of that, I think CUUSOO could benefit a lot from better cataloguing, which alone would take care of most of the clutter problem that members complain about.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

This is a really good idea, but it means two of my favourite projects (422 and 5980) would be deleted. It would be better if the projects were unpublished, like how many (Including KoalaExpert's Minecraft project) were unpublished last year when the 18+ age changes came.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I like this idea. It lets good projects be shown without all the idiotic clutter that takes up pages. Personally, I think if your main image is just an LDD screenshot, you should not be allowed to post your project.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Commenters who don't like this idea, what is wrong with ridding Cuusoo of the uninspiring LDD projects that don't have any artistic flair, clever design, or any particular detail? There are so many that are massive bases of some sort with repetitive geometry. Should they be kept just because of some overly polite notion that everyone's ideas are important, or can a spade be called a spade and the chaff be sifted? And I'm trying not to sound too harsh, but would alienating the support of the sort of Cuusoo user who doesn't have the discernment not to post drivel be such a bad thing? TLG sure wouldn't employ a designer who produced sets like these.

(Sorry Xendor (comment waaay back near the top), but I searched your SWTOR Jedi Temple and I'm afraid it's a prime example of the sort of projects I'd class as uninspiring, repetitive and pointless.)

Gravatar
By in United States,

Just for clarification, what is the story with projects that already have existing themes that are already being made by Lego...? Like Star Wars, Super heroes, etc..

Are these considered or not..? I have heard a multitude of opinions about this, but no actual answer...

Gravatar
By in United States,

This idea doesn't make sense. All set ideas should be considered. Because even if the concept models are not the best, if they were to get 10,000 supporters, reviewed, and accepted, LEGO would make the final decision on how it would be made, designed, with what parts etc, so in the end, does it really matter?

Gravatar
By in United States,

No one is saying not to consider any and all projects. Just that there be target goals for support in order to clean things up a bit. Everyone still has a chance to make their mark and garner support and get to the big leagues so to speak. But after it sits there for 6 months with 5 votes, no updates and no evolution or marketing from its creator, maybe it's reasonable to let it roll off the back end. CuuSoo was never meant to be a site for archiving MOC's.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@ Paul Boratko

Anyone saying Lego will not consider existing themes is stating opinion or speculation as fact in defiance of Cuusoo posted statement on the matter:

You can find their statement here: http://legocuusoo.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/213076-does-the-ucs-sandcrawler-rejection-mean-you-won-t-

It is my opinion that what we can derive from this is what has been coined as "inevitable discovery" Basically if it License Lego has the rights to AND it looks like something they WOULD come up with on their own, then it is unlikely Lego will produce it. In my opinion the clearest example of this is all the minecraft biomes that came out right after the original minecraft set. They all look like Lego's method of turning minecraft's biomes into Lego models...so...why would Lego give someone credit for copying THEIR process.

I have elaborated on the concept here, but again, this is all just my opinion. We only have the one example to on.
http://blog.brick-hero.com/p/cuusoo-users-guide-part-7-what-makes.html

@GreenNinjaCP

You are saying my idea doesn't make sense and then make reference to a concept model. I reference ideas, projects, concepts and presentations but I have not stated anything about a concept model. The article is base on evaluating a project on its performance over a period of time, not how a concept model looks, which is up to the beholder's preference and taste, thus making it a very poor factor for pure mathematical evaluation. Not to mention being the responsibility of a review post 10k

In total seriousness I may have overlooked an unintended reference to a concept model, however as I am sometimes "blinded" by double checking my posts and if you can point to such a reference I with delete it with apologies.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@glenbricker

What I mean by concept models is the fact that every single CUUSOO project includes a concept model, for what a set would be like if it were to be released. Depending on how good it is, or how popular it's subject matter is, helps a project rocket to 10,000 supporters. So just because ideas don't appear to be good, if you give them a chance and have people aware of them, maybe some further support could help the model get to 10K and made into a set. Likewise, if these projects you speak of that do not perform well were to be conceived, well, LEGO would make the final judgements on what to include, how it is to be built, etc., and it may end up being a very popular set. You just never know.

Most people would want many of the projects on CUUSOO to be made into sets, or at least support to help the creator have their dream get made. It just takes time for people to find out about them, and for the projects to get some publicity. So what I am trying to say is, give these projects a chance, and they may surprise you. We do not need to get rid of them.

Sorry if I am not making any sense. I totally respect your proposal, but I am just not a fan of it. Considering that CUUSOO is still in beta, we just need some better search options to hide these underperforming projects. That would let the people who want to view and support these projects go ahead with that, and those who don't want to be bothered with them don't have to. It would be a win-win for all.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@ Glenbricker

Thanks for the clarification.. I had read various things over the past 2 years about what was going to be allowed and what was doomed from the start as far as ideas that were using ideas that already existed.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Zips I'm not trying to be critical, but I from what you said I can see that I should clarify part of my comments:

"Would alienating the support of the sort of Cuusoo user who doesn't have the discernment not to post drivel be such a bad thing?"

It wouldn't be, if the same people who published bad projects weren't also the same people that supported good projects. It is possible that creating deadlines to weed out bad projects could make it hard for even good projects to pass those same deadlines.

Take glenbricker's numbers, where the proposed deadlines would remove 80% of projects. If even half of those users whose projects were deleted (assuming a one-to-one ratio for project to user, which I know is unrealistic) were to decide that CUUSOO were no longer worth the effort, could the community afford to lose that many members? How hard would it be for any project to reach 10,000?

My worry is not that the community would miss their projects (the bulk of comments here is evidence that it would not), but that it would miss the support they bring to other projects.

Gravatar
By in United States,

^ The majority of the projects that fly through the Cuusoo supporting process are not getting support from people who have projects at Cuusoo and mostly only join up and support out of fandom... The "bad" Cuusoo projects are most likely only going to get support from people who are regulars at Cuusoo because they are never going to get any attraction anywhere else...

Cuusoo has become about getting attention from outside of Cuusoo...

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Paul Boratko

"Cuusoo has become about getting attention from outside of Cuusoo." Nailed it right there.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I voted yes on this proposal. I will confess to posting a project without having my best design up there yet, and not thinking through how all of this would work (e.g., I'm DarthWalle here but Colin23 on Cuusoo - that doesn't make any sense...). I think we sometimes get caught up in the excitement.

@GreenNinjaCP - I think you and Paul Boratko are making a good point. It does seem very hard to get to 10,000 without fandom support. Maybe if there was some system in place to separate that out - 10,000 gets you considered, but if you get to some other figure (2000?) solely based on longterm Cuusoo members, maybe those should be considered too.

I did an exercise after I read this article and before I voted - I went into Cuusoo and sorted by most supported, then went to the last page of 18 projects (page 292 as of this entry) and looked at the least supported projects 18 at a time. I did find a few that I could support, but almost all of them had been on there a very long time without any additional support.

@Aanchir, I understand where you are coming from, but there are so many projects on there that it does make it hard for the regular Cuusoo viewer to go through them, which means they get buried and only have a chance if they have that outside fandom support. If this proposal is adopted, I think that some of those in the 50s, 100s, etc. will have a better chance of getting noticed and supported. I feel like in order to get my projects supported I have to become an expert in social media, when all I really want to do is make something with my Legos.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I have a project with just over 3k supports and you have no idea what I have gone through just to hit that number...

And I'll be the first to admit that I know for a fact that I have supports from people that would never buy my project if it were to ever become a set... So I can suspect that these fly by night projects that hit the magic number in a week getting supports from every Tom, Dick, and Harry that read about it on Reddit are even worse as far as people supporting vs people actually buying goes...

The Cuusoo team would have no problem what so ever weeding out the projects that are dead from the start, but you have to be fair to everyone to avoid the negativity...

Gravatar
By in United States,

I haven't checked in on Cuusoo for a while. Haven't felt a need to.

You see, the last time I checked on it, it was a big mess.

Voted yes. Maybe not the deadlines stated above, but we need to do a better job controlling the site.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@ Green Brick Giant - Cuusoo isn't about "LEGO as a hobby" or posting kids' well-meaning but inferior MOCs. It's a commercial site. The idea is to create actual marketable products. By definition, that will exclude many people. I mean, if someone is running a graphic design contest and all I can do is hack around with MS Paint, I'm probably wasting time.

On the other hand, even if someone lacks building skills, they still have a chance to get enough support regardless--either because they have a great idea, or are adept at social-media promotion.

If Cuusoo's mission is being frustrated by the growing sea of chaff, or if participation is waning as a result, then the problem needs to be addressed. If people just like seeing their creations on the Web, or just appreciate getting support at any level, then there are plenty of non-commercial outlets for that such as Flickr or Facebook.

Gravatar
By in United States,

No worries... I have a feeling that they are planning to archive a lot of unattended projects right before they go to The "Live" Phase. In fact, I think they did archive a large number of projects when they went from the Alpha Phase to the Beta Phase, didn't they? That would explain why so many of the lower serial numbers are missing.

On a related note, the first thing they need to do immediately is to change the word on the big green button from "SUPPORT" to simply say "VOTE", so people realize that it's totally free. The first question people always ask me is, "Ooh, how much does it *cost* to support?" That is probably what is stopping 50% of the potential voters right there!

I think that is a mistake that was inherited from the original version of the Cuusoo platform, where people paid money up front to support electronic and household gadgets, very similar to KickStarter. I think that TLG's initial plan was to start with a platform that was proven to work well in one context, and then to fix it up as time went by...

So GlenBricker's timing is perfect here. These ideas will probably be implemented within a year and a half, so now is the time to discuss them...!

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Rodiziorobs, thanks for that clarification. I get that the posters of the poorer projects are also supporters though, and I suppose it's a touchy question to raise in the West where democracy is so prized, but in business not all opinions are equally valuable. The RRP and reason for support that you enter show that there is more to supporting on Cuusoo than just the number of votes, though yes, the votes are by far the most important part.

I'm also not all that involved in Cuusoo, but looking mostly from the outside it does seem like it has its own subculture that is in danger of becoming quite insulated. In that case you'd almost have to judge that the cross-pollination of support between serial project-raisers wouldn't count for much in TLG's opinion anyway. (I half wonder if TLG analyse Cuusoo in that way anyway, in fact now I come to think of it I kinda hope they do.)

And I'd also think the biggest hope with this is that not all those who are caught by this would be alienated. Perhaps it would make them put a little more effort into their projects.
Just some thoughts to throw into the mix! :)

Gravatar
By in United States,

@therealindy I think those project numbers disappeared when they did a massive cleanup a year or so ago. They tightened down on impossible licenses and inappropriate projects and cleaned them all up. They removed any licensed projects where the license was either already held by a competitor or outright owned by one. So a ton of Dr Who, Star Trek and My Little Pony projects, etc got archived. I don't think they have done any other clean ups?

Gravatar
By in United States,

@ Faefrost, Ah yes I do remember that. But in addition, I remember reading that they also did a general clean-up of a lot of the original older projects that were in the Alpha Phase, which was limited to Japan. So I am talking about the ones that are so old that they have 2-digit and 3-digit serial numbers. I think that they just sent a friendly e-mail out to everyone asking if they wanted to persist into the next phase, and warning them politely that it would be even more competitive, and so I think that a lot of them just gracefully bowed out... Of course, those were all mature adults, so they took it in stride.

So that's the real issue with all the "junky" projects... They're made by kids, and posted on a parent or uncle's page... TLG definitely realizes that, and they want to be careful about not crushing a little kid's dreams! =)

P.S. - Also, please forgive me for repeating myself to the world, but they REALLY DO need to change the word on the green button from "SUPPORT" to simply say "VOTE"... I bet you that half of the potential voters/supporters balk because they assume it will COST MONEY like on KickStarter!

Gravatar
By in United States,

@therealindy,

I agree with you that the Support button may be confusing the issue.

When I post places to get support I always say vote or emphasise that it is free.

I hope that you, as I, have used the knowledge base contact email to convey your concerns to Cuusoo.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Ah, yes, I will send them a note on the help line... I have done it before, and they always acknowledge my input with a nice personal thank you note. If several more people send the same message, maybe they will fix that straight away. If something is free (especially online), then say it's free! I agree 100% that they need to get away from strictly imitating the original Japanese version of the Cuusoo site, and just let it be a Lego site.

I think they moved their help line to http://legocuusoo.uservoice.com/

This is what I said, if anyone wants to copy and paste it, and sent it to Cuusoo:

Hi Cuusoo Team,

Since voting on Cuusoo is entirely free, you really do need to change the word on the green button from "SUPPORT" to simply say "VOTE"... From publicizing my project, I know that a huge proportion of people (maybe even 50%!) are getting confused and refuse to participate because *they think it will cost money* to support, like on KickStarter, or like the original Japanese version of the Cuusoo site, which sold electronic inventions in a similar way to KickStarter.

Please correct that one little graphic, and Cuusoo will be instantly more active!

Thanks! =)

Gravatar
By in United States,

P.S. - Talking to people, they reminded me that in Europe, the word "support" can mean "to be a fan" (e.g., of a Soccer or European Football team), but in the USA, the word "support" always means to give someone money.

So it is definitely an error that needs to be corrected. Please write them and nag them to change that, since it's probably the #1 thing that's scaring people away from Cuusoo, and they could change it in two minutes!

Commenting has ended on this article.

Return to home page »