What should or should not be on Lego Ideas?

[Wodanis]

Hi all,

I was hoping to get a discussion going on this topic as I having been seeing a bad trend lately, people who create something in LDD and wish to place it on the Lego Ideas website without any consideration for whether the project should be there, performed any research, a business case or if it will succeed. Moreover I've seen some ideas that Lego has already produced such as a wind turbine (2008) and construction dump truck (2009). I'm of the firm opinion that the Lego Ideas programme is for crowd sourcing projects that are interesting and original, has had a business case thought out and offers a unique building experience (it's stated in the literature on Lego Ideas). The site is already indunated with projects from television shows or movies that frankly I think we could do without. Jurassic park was one example of this (considering Lego had already been working on this).

I understand in some cases it is about recognition but if that is the case then it is something that should be posted on the forums and commented on; NOT posted on Lego Ideas. I know there is a year time frame to weed creations out but at the same time I see many projects cluttering up the discover page that it makes it difficult to find decent starting projects.

What do other people think?

Case in point https://ideas.lego.com/projects/92627 - TLG just produced this set last year, why is this on there?

[Sarah]

How would you propose keeping off the sets that don't belong? More policing by Lego to pre-decide which ones should not even be given a chance to be voted on?

[Andy D]

There could be a reduction in submissions if there was a charge to submit an idea.

Also instead of a popularity contest I think LEGO Ideas should be crowd funded, not just a vote of support, but a commitment to buy, like Kickstarter. If the project makes it you get one, if not you get a refund.

This could slow the rampant LEGO Ideas explosion of everyone who creates a MOC thinking it should be a set.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

[fred67]

Agreed. When I've complained in the past, a lot of responses defended what people published there as giving people a chance to show off their work, even if not a viable Ideas set... but there's all sorts of places to show off your MOCs, I don't think Ideas is the place.

I think projects related to any existing licensed themes (mostly Star Wars) should just be removed and disallowed; at the very least, submissions that are essentially rehashes of existing (or soon to be released, but publicized) sets should be disallowed.

I'm also tired of wading past (often LDD) images of a baseplate with a minifigure and a handful of bricks on it with some made up "theme," and it's baffling to me, when I see these, they have multiple votes...

How many tumblers are there? How many people are going to keep submitting Minions, despite the fact that someone else has the license? I want to see real possibilities without having to wade through stuff that we know will not get made, or stuff that looks like it was made by a five year old.

Well, we know what the pick-a-brick wall had that day...

No... really?

Seriously? Did this submitter really think this was a good set that people would buy, or did he just need to submit anything?

I remember my first day with LDD, too.

How would you propose keeping off the sets that don't belong? More policing by Lego to pre-decide which ones should not even be given a chance to be voted on?

Yes... as long as the policy is firm and consistent. The first thing is NO existing licensed themes, and NO themes owned by other companies. That would solve a lot of the stuff we need to wade through. As long as there were consistent, objective, go/no-go rules, it would be a lot better. Granted, some of the projects that are just wastes of space (like the ones I linked to) are harder to objectively filter out, but we're just talking here, right? Having a discussion about it.

There could be a reduction in submissions if there was a charge to submit an idea.

Also instead of a popularity contest I think LEGO Ideas should be crowd funded, not just a vote of support, but a commitment to buy, like Kickstarter. If the project makes it you get one, if not you get a refund.

Both ideas have merit... I only vote for projects I would buy. The problem with the second one is that we have no idea how much the final set will cost. Ecto-1 for $50 is good considering it was a one off (supposedly) license, and really well done (IMO), it was worth it. The birds, for $45... no. I'm not rich, I need to pick and choose, and that's not happening. I like them, but not at that price.

Perhaps if you get some minimum number of votes you'd get refunded your submit price.... something reasonable, like 100 or 500.

Edited January 23, 2015 by fred67

[Saberwing40k]

i think while we're at it, there should be a limit to the number of parts you can have in your submission, as in less than 500, because that is the largest set size they will make.

[fred67]

Ecto-1 exceeds 500 pieces, as does the birds set.

[Wodanis]

There could be a reduction in submissions if there was a charge to submit an idea.

Also instead of a popularity contest I think LEGO Ideas should be crowd funded, not just a vote of support, but a commitment to buy, like Kickstarter. If the project makes it you get one, if not you get a refund.

This could slow the rampant LEGO Ideas explosion of everyone who creates a MOC thinking it should be a set.

Andy D

The idea has merit but I think it would disincentivize too many people. Rather the approval process before our project would be posted could enforce better screening of projects.

Agreed. When I've complained in the past, a lot of responses defended what people published there as giving people a chance to show off their work, even if not a viable Ideas set... but there's all sorts of places to show off your MOCs, I don't think Ideas is the place.

I think projects related to any existing licensed themes (mostly Star Wars) should just be removed and disallowed; at the very least, submissions that are essentially rehashes of existing (or soon to be released, but publicized) sets should be disallowed.

I'm also tired of wading past (often LDD) images of a baseplate with a minifigure and a handful of bricks on it with some made up "theme," and it's baffling to me, when I see these, they have multiple votes...

How many tumblers are there? How many people are going to keep submitting Minions, despite the fact that someone else has the license? I want to see real possibilities without having to wade through stuff that we know will not get made, or stuff that looks like it was made by a five year old.

Yes... as long as the policy is firm and consistent. The first thing is NO existing licensed themes, and NO themes owned by other companies. That would solve a lot of the stuff we need to wade through. As long as there were consistent, objective, go/no-go rules, it would be a lot better.

I like the idea of limiting or eliminating licensed themes. Frankly TLG knows what they want to look for, Star Wars for example. I would be happy with a firm no/go policy. (We can get rid of things like this:

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/91318)

i think while we're at it, there should be a limit to the number of parts you can have in your submission, as in less than 500, because that is the largest set size they will make.

Not a bad idea but I don't think it absolutely necessary. A project if it were to make to the review stage would be reassessed on part count/design features etc. for instance my project is roughly 2600 parts. That would obviously change should it make it to review and accepted.

I would like the site to become more serious/adult about its projects that exist. There are a number of projects with merit getting drowned out.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Wodanis

[mpfirnhaber]

What does anyone stand to gain limiting submissions? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the site? The whole purpose of LEGO?

"Sorry kid, I know you tried hard and you're proud of what you built, but your idea isn't good enough for LEGO Ideas. This place is for serious AFOLs only. Take your amateurish MOC and go someplace else".

[Wodanis]

What does anyone stand to gain limiting submissions? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the site? The whole purpose of LEGO?

"Sorry kid, I know you tried hard and you're proud of what you built, but your idea isn't good enough for LEGO Ideas. This place is for serious AFOLs only. Take your amateurish MOC and go someplace else".

No, it doesn't. Lego Ideas sole purpose is to find a product that is marketable to an audience. If a someone wants to show off a creation there are plenty of platforms to do it on. An amateurish project could have merit if the idea is sound. It doesn't have to be designed by an AFOL either. However since we are talking about turning something into a potential product there is a level of seriousness to the issue.

[mpfirnhaber]

I ask again, what does anyone stand to gain by limiting submissions? Why stifle creativity? Is it so you don't have to click through as many submissions that you don't like?

The voting system assures that the good stuff floats to the top. I don't understand how these proposals improve the system for anyone involved.

[jimmynick]

No, it doesn't. Lego Ideas sole purpose is to find a product that is marketable to an audience. If a someone wants to show off a creation there are plenty of platforms to do it on. An amateurish project could have merit if the idea is sound. It doesn't have to be designed by an AFOL either. However since we are talking about turning something into a potential product there is a level of seriousness to the issue.

The LEGO Ideas guidelines basically prohibit political, religious, sexual and other content that is crude or could be contentious for whatever reason. They already have a standard of quality in place for photos, and ask for novel and creative projects.

Aside from the guidelines, which I've already said set a basic benchmark for quality, the users on LEGO Ideas and the LEGO review teams will find and produce the marketable Ideas. There don't need to be more policies to do that. I know if I ran LEGO Ideas, I would be loath to stifle the creativity that is the project's driving force.

[fred67]

@jamesn and mpfirnhaber - limiting submissions would not only NOT stifle creativity, it would require people be MORE creative in order to have something submitted.

It's NOT a place to show off MOCs or that you learned how to place bricks using LDD. What's to gain? Filtering out the stuff that stands no chance makes it easier to find the stuff that will. If I have to wade through 1000 submissions in order to find something good, when I could rather be wading through 100 entries makes it a lot easier for people to pick the things they actually want.

[lightningtiger]

They ask for novel and creative projects........yeah, I think some of those missed that boat !

Serious now, where do you think Lego's design teams get inspiration for some sets from eh ?

Once you post a project on Lego Ideas you have handed over your legal rights to it......doesn't mean they are going to steal your actual idea but they might gee, I wonder if we can come up with our own version eh ?

[mpfirnhaber]

Well fortunately for the masses, I don't think the open philosophy behind LEGO Ideas is going to change. But you all can go ahead and exercise your right not to vote on submissions that you feel aren't worthy

[Andy D]

Maybe we just need a special section here on EuroBricks for people to tout their LEGO Ideas projects. I can't tell you how many times I have selected a link to someone's MOC (which I thoroughly enjoy looking at) only to find it is only someone begging for votes for their project. Some projects are OK but many posts are one photo and a plea for support. If there was a special section here on EB I could choose to look or not and not see a MOC which is just a plea for support.

My complaint is not about the Ideas project, but how it is handled here on EB. Evidence of this problem is someone who just today posted a topic... It sounded interesting but when I got there I found only a link to an ideas project and a request for support. It seems that some are just using EB as a place to beg for support. A special section would solve a number of problems. People who like to look at Ideas projects could and people who don't would not be misled by topic titles.

Good for people who build projects for Ideas, but I would like it better here on EB if I knew what was an Ideas project with a request for votes or a MOC just asking for C&C.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

Edited January 23, 2015 by Andy D

[Vorkosigan]

Honestly I agree there should be some minimum quality filter. I also think it is annoying when it seems like a lot of MOCs are posted on Ideas that may be a nice build but are not practical or marketable as a playset. Really people should self filter on this aspect. A fee could possibly help but I think it should be pretty low if implemented.

[Blondie-Wan]

Hi all,

I was hoping to get a discussion going on this topic as I having been seeing a bad trend lately, people who create something in LDD and wish to place it on the Lego Ideas website without any consideration for whether the project should be there, performed any research, a business case or if it will succeed. Moreover I've seen some ideas that Lego has already produced such as a wind turbine (2008) and construction dump truck (2009). I'm of the firm opinion that the Lego Ideas programme is for crowd sourcing projects that are interesting and original, has had a business case thought out and offers a unique building experience (it's stated in the literature on Lego Ideas). The site is already indunated with projects from television shows or movies that frankly I think we could do without. Jurassic park was one example of this (considering Lego had already been working on this).

I understand in some cases it is about recognition but if that is the case then it is something that should be posted on the forums and commented on; NOT posted on Lego Ideas. I know there is a year time frame to weed creations out but at the same time I see many projects cluttering up the discover page that it makes it difficult to find decent starting projects.

What do other people think?

Case in point https://ideas.lego.com/projects/92627 - TLG just produced this set last year, why is this on there?

I think there are already sufficient controls in place, and we as users already have the option of not voting for those projects we don't like. LEGO itself already handles such considerations as the business case; it's a fundamental part of the process. And we as users can't all agree on what "should" be there, nor can we always know what LEGO itself thinks it should look at. For example, I never thought The Big Bang Theory was likely to pass review, but LEGO itself obviously thought it was fine.

With regard to some of your specific examples, LEGO itself does automatically weed out certain license-dependent projects that are known not to be viable, such as all the Jurassic Park things that got shut down during the period when Hasbro had the license. We do know that Star Wars projects in general aren't likely to get through, but obviously there must be some circumstance under which one could; otherwise they'd take them all out, too, rather than allow multiple such projects there, to say nothing of going through multiple review periods with such projects having made it to the review phase, and each getting their due consideration. The fact that we don't know exactly what sort of Star Wars project might make it through doesn't mean fans shouldn't keep trying. As far as things they've done in the past go, why should there never be another wind turbine even considered, just because LEGO already made one six or seven years ago?

Beyond all that, posting even the simplest, laziest project requires more effort than simply sifting through such projects to find ones to vote on.

There could be a reduction in submissions if there was a charge to submit an idea.

Also instead of a popularity contest I think LEGO Ideas should be crowd funded, not just a vote of support, but a commitment to buy, like Kickstarter. If the project makes it you get one, if not you get a refund.

This could slow the rampant LEGO Ideas explosion of everyone who creates a MOC thinking it should be a set.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

Oh, dear. No. Just... just no. Andy D, I hope you don't take this personally, as I'm sure you're a smart and well-meaning fellow, and like all of us I'm sure you have great ideas sometimes and bad ones other times, as all humans do, but with all due respect IMHO that is an incredibly terrible, terrible idea. It would run counter to the very fundamental idea behind the whole program, and transform it from the egalitarian meritocracy it now is to a closed-door, elitist thing I'd be ashamed of for LEGO on their behalf. Frankly, I think it would turn off a lot of people - even many of those who merely vote without submitting might be so put off by such a policy that they'd refrain from even voting on the site, so that whatever ideas remain might have trouble getting to 10,000 votes even if they're really good. And it would just plain close the site off to any number of fans who might have really good ideas but not much money. Far, far better that a few (or even a few hundred, or thousand!) lousy ideas be allowed to be posted than just one really great idea not be, I think.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Blondie-Wan

[Off the wall]

The natural history museum reached the 10,000 level and is currently under review. Some are of the opinion that since it's over 2,000 pieces, it's chances are about nil of ever being produced. If Lego does have a limit on piece count for Ideas sets, then it's largely a waste of time to include them in the Lego Ideas process. And, by waste of time, I mean my time. I also hate getting my hopes up (natural history museum) if it doesn't have a chance from the get go. The upside to allowing everything into the mix is that at least we get to see a lot of great designs even if they don't stand a chance of ever being produced by TLG due to restrictions that may not be public knowledge.

[fred67]

I disagree, Blondie-Wan, and completely agree with Andy. I'm not sure exactly which part you're complaining about (or both), but I really don't think a small fee would be burdensome, like $5 to submit an idea. Submitters are supposed to be adults, they should be able to afford $5 for an idea they actually believe could work. Offering a refund of that fee if the project reaches 250 or so makes it even better... and then those people that submit the same ideas over and over again, or the ones who've submitted dozens of ideas that never even broke 100... those ideas are obviously not viable, we'd all be better off not having to wade through them to pick the best ones.

As for the kick-starter like idea, I have no problem with that, either, as I don't support anything I wouldn't buy anyway myself. Again, since it would get refunded if the project doesn't make it, I don't see the problem there. The problem I do have with it is that the submissions aren't the finished product, and you don't know ahead of time how much it'll cost.

Yes, both of these ideas would slow things down... but I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd rather only have to peruse the cream of the crop to select the ones I'd like to see made.

The natural history museum reached the 10,000 level and is currently under review. Some are of the opinion that since it's over 2,000 pieces, it's chances are about nil of ever being produced.

I don't know what the rules are, written or otherwise, about piece count, but 2000 isn't an extreme, IMO. I voted for the museum, also, and the Ghostbusters HQ.

Edited January 24, 2015 by fred67

[deraven]

I agree with those here who have said that limiting access isn't a good idea, but I also think some of the things up there that are really bad shouldn't clutter up the place for a year. I mean, if you go to the site and use a filter under the Discover section of projects "Ending soon" you'll see the oldest entries on the site since they switched to the 1-year thing, and there's a pretty big number that have been up there for 9 months and have garnered less than 10 votes! SO- a simple way to clear out the chaff without adding barriers to entry or negativity (like adding down-votes) would be to require an entry to get something like 100 votes in 30 days or be removed. If the idea has any merit at all, 100 votes should be easy to get in the first month even when it hasn't started snowballing in popularity yet.

I will say that the Kickstarter-like idea would add an interesting dynamic to things! I think the biggest challenge there is determining what price to ask for a given design without doing a lot of pre-review to figure out what it would likely be. Now, keeping with the idea of relative levels of merit, maybe that option gets switched on when something hits, say, 2500 votes and at that point a general estimate for price is made and if X number of people actually pony up the cash before it hits 10,000 votes (as I assume a smaller number of people actually paying would be weighted higher than just a vote) it jumps right to the final review phase.

Not that anything will change based on our discussion here, but it's interesting to throw the Ideas around!

[Andy D]

... Snip

Not that anything will change based on our discussion here, but it's interesting to throw the Ideas around!

The only thing EB can change is how it is presented in the forums. When I select a topic link only to find one photo, or worse yet just a link to an Ideas entry and a beg for support I am disappointed. If there was a special section for Ideas postings, or a special indicator in the title like there is for MOCs and WIPs that would help, maybe a title of "Please support my Ideas project" instead of a title of the entry.

Just like EB had a special section for buying and selling, maybe a special section for Ideas postings.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

[Off the wall]

The only thing EB can change is how it is presented in the forums. When I select a topic link only to find one photo, or worse yet just a link to an Ideas entry and a beg for support I am disappointed. If there was a special section for Ideas postings, or a special indicator in the title like there is for MOCs and WIPs that would help, maybe a title of "Please support my Ideas project" instead of a title of the entry.

Just like EB had a special section for buying and selling, maybe a special section for Ideas postings.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

My special annoyance is the posting of 16 stud wide modular MOCs that are three stories, white 1 x 1 windows, flat fronts, and no texture. They're even selling plans for these things on eBay.

[rollermonkey]

Don't buy them.

Don't vote for the ones you don't like.

But telling other people that they can't share their MOCs on Ideas?

That's for TLG to decide, not us, thank you very much.

[Jared]

It's true, but simultaneously the same things could easily have been applied to BTTF and Ghostbusters and if so we would've never gotten those sets. So I guess you just have to take the "good" with the "bad", though personally I don't think most mocs on there are "bad" or "create clutter", though I will admit there are mocs on there that... probably don't need to be there...

[Blondie-Wan]

I don't want my choices of what I can or can't support limited by other voters who want stuff gone because they're lazier than the creators of the projects they don't want to see, thankyouverymuch.

There are already limits and guidelines and rules in place that address some of the things being complained about, while other concerns here are really non-issues, at least to most reasonable people. TLG already moderates things when they're submitted, and projects with inappropriate subject matter don't go up. Nor do ones from licensed IPs they know at the outset they can't do (when Star Wars projects get allowed, it's apparently because even though the license precludes many or even most projects, it obviously doesn't preclude all of them, and they have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis). Nor do projects with images that fail to meet minimum quality standards. Heck, the Ideas team even disallows posting projects from phones because they've found that phone submissions tend to have poorer grammar, spelling, etc. than projects posted from desktops, laptops and tablets.

And of course, the whole entire site is in and of itself already one big, huge moderation system. Note that most of those projects being cited as examples of things that "don't belong" on the site don't have many votes (though at the same time, note that they do at least have a few, indicating they were of interest to someone).

LEGO Ideas is a communal enterprise in which the better and/or more popular ideas will naturally gain prominence. There's no need to gate the community and prevent less-skilled participants from participating; the system already provides natural encouragement to present one's ideas as best as one is able. And while the kinds of restrictions being proposed here will surely prevent the posting of many not-very-good projects, they will also surely prevent at least a few good ideas from being posted as well, and I for one don't want to see that happen.