What should or should not be on Lego Ideas?

[fred67]

Well, it's true, I don't want to disagree with you on those points... the submissions I linked to are terrible, but I don't think there's an objective way to keep them from being posted. But there are some things that I think they could do... they don't makes sets based on existing licenses. That one simple exclusion would eliminate a ton of stuff that simply is not viable and won't be made. No more Star Wars, no more DC or Marvel superheroes, no more Tumblers to add to the gazillion tumblers that have already been submitted...

Ideas is NOT a place to show off MOCs, it's a place to submit ideas you think could be successfully sold.

[Blondie-Wan]

But there are some things that I think they could do... they don't makes sets based on existing licenses. That one simple exclusion would eliminate a ton of stuff that simply is not viable and won't be made. No more Star Wars, no more DC or Marvel superheroes, no more Tumblers to add to the gazillion tumblers that have already been submitted...

Sure, but... we don't actually know for sure (and they no longer get specific about the reasons things get declined). They do just automatically decline certain submissions right up front, when they know they won't be able to produce them - and yet, they keep on accepting Star Wars, Marvel and DC submissions (among many others from franchises LEGO has already licensed). Since they do accept those proposals while rejecting others right off the bat, it could well be that there are some possible circumstances under which they might approve a project from one of those franchises. It's simply up to us to discover what those circumstances are.

[fred67]

I'll admit ignorance on this... since automatically rejected sets don't get shown, how do we know what sets they are automatically rejecting? Do we have any examples? Anybody here have a set rejected?

[samurai-turtle]

I'll admit ignorance on this... since automatically rejected sets don't get shown, how do we know what sets they are automatically rejecting? Do we have any examples? Anybody here have a set rejected?

You asked for one. This idea project got rejected for having too many mini-figures. It only had two "figures", personally I think because the car was not to original.

But, I submitted another one and it got approved. The main difference is I made two brick "animals" and a new "bad guy". I guess the reason I made the idea up is I wanted a "Green Lantern" set. (It seems pointless now with the new one out.)

Now for the shameless begging. Please vote for my project on LEGO ideas. (The link is in my signature.)

[Blondie-Wan]

We also know they won't take projects based on properties owned by other toy companies (e.g., Transformers, G. I. Joe, and My Little Pony).

[Wodanis]

They do just automatically decline certain submissions right up front, when they know they won't be able to produce them - and yet, they keep on accepting Star Wars, Marvel and DC submissions (among many others from franchises LEGO has already licensed). Since they do accept those proposals while rejecting others right off the bat, it could well be that there are some possible circumstances under which they might approve a project from one of those franchises. It's simply up to us to discover what those circumstances are.

That isn't true Blondie-Wan. There are plenty of submissions that aren't rejected outright even though there is no way they would produce the set. The latest is a LoTR Rivendell MOC. It is an impressive build but not practical as a set. It would also fall under licensing and I believe the LoTR license is expiring this year as its reached End of Line. However it doesn't cross any guidelines and can be submitted. What I have issue with isn't such a submission but rather the submission that is 'clutter', projects that already exist as a Lego set (honestly if you have time to Pov-Ray and design a star wars set then you should do some research about whether it exists already).

People can submit a project that would use a license such as Star Wars but it is problematic as I have yet to see any Star Wars projects be produced into a set (that wasn't already in the pipeline). This doesn't mean in my view one can't submit a idea based on Star Wars. However my main point is that some projects should be screened more thoroughly such as the one above. The problem with that submission is that it uses mainly mini-figures and it is reusing an existing design. The idea of a Green Lantern race car isn't at issue. It is how its presented.

The non licensed submissions that would be rejected outright are ones that do not conform to the guidelines or TLG policy, such as war or religion themes, as they should. You are correct that if another company already has a license to produce Transformers then Lego would not produce one.

The restrictions don't necessarily hamper creativity either. Even if there were more of them. This is how the creative process works. Open ended conceptualisation is great but guidelines or restrictions forces a more concentrated approach to a execute an idea successfully.

[ootkaman]

Very interesting discussion! I also like the idea of having to get 100 submissions in a month. That fits well into the scheme that Lego already has in place, and seems like a logical amount. I wonder how much that would cut the projects down? Probably by a lot.

I also think it would be helpful if Lego Ideas had more searching and filtering options, to be able to discover projects in different ways. Perhaps you could have submitters include additional information when submitting via drop down boxes, such as approx. piece count (0-50, 50-100, 100-500, etc.) or whether it is a digital or physical design. Things like that would let users control more what they sift through. Other ways of helping projects get more votes could be "most supported in the last 30 days", "highest rate of support", and so forth.

I am not so sure about the Kickstarter idea, since that would make people pay and then wait a long time to get refunds. It would also discourage voters, so Lego would probably have to drop the amount of supporters needed.

[Giantorange]

Personally, I don't think stifling submissions is a good idea.

I do think rather that there should be more hurdles in regards to getting a certain number of votes in time scales to keep your submission online. If you haven't got 100 votes within a very short time, you aren't likely to get anywhere near 10K votes. There are dozens if not hundreds of sets sat at 4 or 5 votes for months that you just click past when browsing the site.

I also don't agree with extending the time limits for getting votes, or encouraging re-submission.

[alanyuppie]

We also know they won't take projects based on properties owned by other toy companies (e.g., Transformers, G. I. Joe, and My Little Pony).

That severely restrict me and I have come to terms bout that for a while now (let's just say I have willingly SUBMIT to whatever rules LEGO Ideas are imposing). I might just need to re-brand my works into [enter generic MOC name here] and perhaps rebuild them into some of different color schemes.

What suprises me though there are still some LEGO Optimii Prime approved by them to be voted.

[Robert8]

I think there should be some sort of restriction about the amount of pieces.

There is an unspoken rule about the size, it's pretty obvious at this point.

[Naijel]

I think there should be a button, not a dislike button, but something that people can click to say they think this submission should be looked at for removal. Like the report button we have in these forums. So if enough people click on the report button they will look at it and go "Yeah, this seems like a poor submission and doesn't pass the basic quality test or doesn't pass our rules.".

That kind of thing would be open to trolling but it could work well. If an awesome submission is getting trolled and rejected then they can reset the report count on it. But also they would have to ensure each user could only report each MOC once so that one user didn't repeatedly reject a MOC that is competing with theirs, or where they have personal beef with the sumbitter, or don't like the theme, etc.

TLG may not like that idea of a report button and rejecting things because it could be really discouraging for young kids. If they put up a MOC that is crap by adult standards but they are really proud of it and then all the adults click report and it gets removed that would not be a nice experience. That's a difficult thing to manage.

Perhaps there could be a two tiered system where you can remain on the site for show but are no longer able to receive votes to potentially be produced. If a MOC was relegated it could have some positive message from TLG like "We think this is really cool but unfortunately it won't be considered for production. It's still here for the world to admire though."

Meanwhile, if users could choose not to see those models not up to scratch then they can immediately focus on the better stuff.

Perhaps instead there could be a system where instead of low quality MOCs being relegated good MOCs have to be elevated before they can start on the 10,000 votes. So there is some system where people click a Like button and once it has 100 or 1000 likes it gets to go onto the more formal section of collecting votes where people don't just have to like it but have to complete the questionnaire about why they like it, how much they would pay, how many they would buy, etc.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Naijel

[fred67]

Ahh... hmmm... a "slashdot" like moderation system. On slashdot.org, registered members are occasionally granted moderating privileges. A post can be rated from -1 to 5, with 1 being the default for someone posting with a registered account. People get a fixed number of moderation points, so if abusers will run out of points faster. The points expire after some time. It makes the site sort-of self policing.

The problem is that people will moderate up or down for political or religious postings simply because they have a different opinion... that's not what it's supposed to be for, you rate posts as interesting, or insightful, or down for flamebait or offtopic, but people moderate down simply because they disagree.

On a site like Ideas, I can see people moderating down themes they just don't like, whether the set is appropriate or not.

[ShaydDeGrai]

Let's face it, this has been an issue for Ideas since the first days of Cuusoo. People mistakenly think that it's a site for sharing MOCs - it isn't. TLG even went so far as to create Rebrick to highlight the difference between a MOC sharing service and a product crowd sourcing venture, but all that did was give people a new outlet where they would go to beg for votes. "Unsuitable" (I hesitate to say "bad" but there are certainly cases to be made for that adjective too) projects still wound up cluttering Cuusoo.

I'm not a fan of the kickstarter model - though I never vote for anything I wouldn't be willing to buy at a reasonable price - I think that paradigm is too much of a departure from the established way of doing business for the site.

I can appreciate the idea of a small refundable submission fee, but my concern is that the same people who rush to submit what, for lack of a better term, I will call Creativity Retarded Artless Projects (or C.R.A.P. for short) will think of this not as a filter mechanism, but as a lottery ticket price and will gladly pay it for the chance to "win".

I think fixing the problem has to start with: setting user's expectations; being open about what _really_ has a chance of getting made; and, being better about culling weak offerings while highlighting strong ones.

On Expectations:

I've lost count of the number of people I've met or read posting from who think that if TLG buys their Idea, then they are going to get rich. Most of these people are not only weak/lazy builders but apparently bad at math as well. Let's say your project gets approved. It sells for 35 USD and has a production run of 10,000 units for a total revenue stream of $350,000. Your cut is 1% of that ($3,500) or more correctly $3,498.25 plus five copies of the kit. While this sum might cover a mortgage payment or two, it's a far cry from life-long financial security. If fewer people looked to Ideas as their path to fame and fortune, there'd probably be fewer C.R.A.P-py ideas posted.

On Openness and Viability:

I once asked someone who worked on Cuusoo why they allowed project they knew would never pass review to get posted in the first place. I was told the the official answer was they they didn't want to stifle creativity, and unofficially even "doomed" projects (like The Winchester from Shawn of the Dead) were great for generating site traffic. For internal political reasons, Ideas will likely never get permission to release a Star Wars kit so long as a Lego Star Wars design team exists, but if they banned Star Wars (or Superheroes, or whatever) themed proposals from the outset, a huge chunk of their audience would lose interest, so we're left with: "Come for the cool Star Wars MOC, and while you're here vote for something else that we might actually get permission to make."

I find the practice of letting people post stuff that TLG knows doesn't stand a chance of becoming product just for the sake of keeping the site active a bit disingenuous. I actually appreciated it when they cracked down on stuff like "My Little Pony" and the "Dark Bucket" of stormtroopers - they knew they could never legally release such products and they should have been more upfront about that in the first place - but those were the early days and hundreds of people signed up for Cuusoo just to vote for one of those projects (at least initially). I don't want to stifle anyone's creativity, but just as they have prohibitions on sex, drugs, religion and rival IP, they should have more realistic and stricter guidelines for what will pass the initial review in order to get a public posting. If an existing license is off limits, just say so, don't dangle it like a carrot when you know 10,000 votes later it will be DOA at review time. If you never plan on approving a set with more that 600 parts, give yourself a 100% margin for error and say more that 1200 parts is forbidden. Publicly saying "(almost) anything is possible so get all your followers in Twitter to sign up and support you" when you know it's basically a fool's errand and you just want the traffic, might be good for the web stats but it's still poor form and a bit exploitive for my tastes.

On Barrier to Initial Postings:

As I said, I'm not in favor of a submission fee (mostly because I'm not convinced it would work) but I wouldn't object to making one part of the initial proposal be a short essay making the business case for the idea. The guidelines could stress that, like poor photos and a lack of meaningful narrative for the project, failure to write a compelling business case is grounds for rejection. I realize that having to read all the business cases (let alone assess them) could be a daunting challenge, but the mere suggestion that you have to write an essay to submit to Ideas might dissuade a lot of people from trying to post the LDD doodle-of-the-day. The business case essay would also give the Ideas team a polite way of rejecting a weak idea (i.e. it's not that you're a lazy builder, your marketing plan needs work; do some research and resubmit…)

On Culling:

I used to track Cuusoo statistics fairly closely for both my own projects and others. It was very rare that a project that failed to make an initial splash really took off. I haven't been playing as much attention with Ideas, but it _feels_ like it holds true there as well. In most cases, it seems more than half the votes a typical project will get in its lifetime happen in the first week that it goes live. Some projects creep along at a steady pace, true, but most see a small initial bump and then languish. This is not always a function of project quality; the recommended/related projects selection is not the best in the world and as fresh clutter accrues sometimes good stuff gets lost in the shuffle. Still, it's probably safe to say that if a project can't get to and sustain some fairly low threshold of support in for reasonable period of time it should go away. Since we know they give you one year to reach 1000 votes (a rough average of just under 3 votes per day) I wouldn't oppose a rule that says you have to average a rate of two votes per day for any given 30 day window or you get de-listed. That would cull out any project that can't get at least 60 vote after the first month. Even if the project makes that bar, if the rate of support suddenly drops (say everyone on your bowling team has already voted and no one else cares) the project may go away a week or two later for failing to maintain a plausible rate of completion.

On Finding Good Projects:

I've never been happy with the algorithms the site uses to recommend projects to me. In the early days, it was a rich get richer sort of scheme where it only picked from the most popular projects (which I could have found easily anyway). Then it seemed like they switched to a keyword based association ("You just supported a Lord of the Rings project; here, let me show you this really terrible proposal that used many of the same hashtags…") Now I'm not sure what the logic is, but it's good at suggesting things I don't care for.

I don't know what the right answer is here, but if the site could give me better recommendations based on _my_ tastes I'd have a lot more tolerance when it comes to the amount of unsuitable projects littering the site.

Maybe they need something like Amazon - if you support a project, they could look at all the projects that other supporters of that project have voted for and return a handful of the most commonly supprted ones you've yet to visit.

Or maybe the site needs to get to know its users better and should have a sort of "who's hotter?" page where two random projects (just title and signature photo) are shown side and, without a committal to support or not, you just click on the one you like better. Do this as often as you like. The site could start to learn what individual users like as well as which projects just aren't cutting it. The site could then use the aggregate data for both better personal recommendations and targeting unpopular projects for culling.

I don't know that there is a good answer, but I do know that, given the state of things right now, my enthusiasm for the site in general is waning and, unless I'm totally alone in this, that can't be a good thing for Ideas. They could do better.

[fred67]

I once asked someone who worked on Cuusoo why they allowed project they knew would never pass review to get posted in the first place. I was told the the official answer was they they didn't want to stifle creativity, and unofficially even "doomed" projects (like The Winchester from Shawn of the Dead) were great for generating site traffic. For internal political reasons, Ideas will likely never get permission to release a Star Wars kit so long as a Lego Star Wars design team exists, but if they banned Star Wars (or Superheroes, or whatever) themed proposals from the outset, a huge chunk of their audience would lose interest, so we're left with: "Come for the cool Star Wars MOC, and while you're here vote for something else that we might actually get permission to make."

Huh. Never thought of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense, like news sites using click-bait headlines.

I think the reality is that the world is imperfect and chaotic, and when you have something open to the entire population of the world you're going to get people who abuse, misuse, and clutter up a site like Ideas, destroying any decent signal to noise ratio.

There's a fine balance between keeping the site clean and keeping it open to new ideas... very few of us will ever be completely happy with what the result is - kind of like the rest of life (politics, traffic... just about anything).

[Blondie-Wan]

I know I should have responded to this earlier, but...

That isn't true Blondie-Wan. There are plenty of submissions that aren't rejected outright even though there is no way they would produce the set.

It is true, Wodanis. There are plenty of project concepts that will get dismissed right out of the gate. If you dong believe me, just try submitting something based on My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Or any R-rated horror movie. Or a church or mosque. Or a project made up entirely of minifigures.

The fact they do accept some other submissions which realistically have very little chance of being approved doesn't change the fact that they do have things they just won't accept.

[anothergol]

I think you're overthinking what "should" be on Lego Ideas.

I mean, let's face it, Lego Ideas is a place:

-to suggest & vote for things that you wish Lego would produce, officially

-to browse for nice MOCs. Not officially, but that's what I & many people use it for. It's a place to see & to be seen, & it actually looks nicer than MOCPages, doesn't overcompress images, and actually brings more views (MOCPages & others still being great options because they don't censor anything). Entries may be too big or have no chance for other reasons, but who cares? They're not really the source of "pollution" there.

-(& for Lego, it's nice advertisement - people basically work for Lego plugging their MOCs in social media)

But what's the real problem with Lego Ideas? The majority of entries, and those are ugly stuff made by kids. You certainly can't blame Lego for not rejecting stuff made by their #1 target, and I don't think they should. But it's the way it is, the vast majority of Lego Ideas entries are ugly pointless builds (-probably-) made by 10 year olds. I don't enjoy browsing them but imagine yourself as a 10 year old who's proud of his build, you don't want to see it rejected because it's crap.

I don't even remember what I was building when I was 10, but it was probably crap. I do remember entering a little Lego contest in a local toy store, though. It wasn't really different from this, and the store accepted & displayed my (probably) crap build, and I was happy.

Hey even my first entry at Lego Ideas blows (no way to remove it btw, that sucks) - I was back to Lego after over 20 years and had everything to rediscover.

Let's face it, this has been an issue for Ideas since the first days of Cuusoo. People mistakenly think that it's a site for sharing MOCs - it isn't.

yeah, it is. Plus, if it was a small website with the only 50 entries who really stand a chance, WHO would waste his time browsing it regularly? Not even 10k people..

Edited August 27, 2015 by anothergol

[fred67]

I disagree - it's NOT a place for MOCs, and there's more than rebrickable to see MOCs. I certainly think the net should be wide enough to catch a lot of things that might inspire people to make better versions of, but then that's why it's "ideas." LEGO should alienate it's core audience on Ideas since it's a site for people 18 and older (AFAIR).

Eliminating the terrible and not-a-chance stuff would probably reduce the noise, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate even half of what's shown.

[dr_spock]

Technically you have to be 13+ to be on Ideas. Otherwise it is a violation of the House Rules.

LEGO Ideas is designed specifically for our older builders. This is both to promote a quality experience for our community of teen and adult members and to comply with our child safety policies.

Members must be 13 years old or older to interact on LEGO® Ideas. If you are between 13 and 18 years old you can create and submit ideas, however we will need consent from your parent or legal guardian if we decide to produce your idea.

Parents, please do not create accounts for, or submit projects on behalf of, children under 13 (we will remove these accounts or projects without notice). Instead, we suggest encouraging your child to share their LEGO creations on the LEGO.com Create & Share Galleries.

Edited August 27, 2015 by dr_spock

[Phoxtane]

Technically you have to be 13+ to be on Ideas. Otherwise it is a violation of the House Rules.

I'm actually pretty sure that's the law in the US, that any website or whatever that supports user accounts must have the user in question be 13 or over, or something to that effect at least.

It's been a while since I last heard about it, but when the law went into effect, I do remember that pretty much every major site had an update to their TOS within the week, presumably to include this.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Phoxtane

[Blondie-Wan]

There is in my opinion a structural issue on Lego Ideas site, the way projects are shown. It's pretty easy for a project to "dive" in the depth of the site even it this one catch a good amount of voices.

In the same way, i have the feeling that you see all the time the same projects on the front-page. So, there could be a kind of bias in the way projects catch voices.

I know "criticism is easy, art is more complex" but i'm pretty sure Lego Ideas inner quality would take advantage of a reworked manner to display projects, perhaps with a more organised structure, more thematic.

The fact is there are too much projects on Lego Ideas, too much low quality build, too much hollywood-movie licensed based things. As previously emphasized by others, Lego Ideas is not a site for MOCs (for that, Lego Group has created Rebrick) but a site for "who will be the next SET".

I would also ban LDD things (unless pics of the real build are shown too): Even a trully awesome LDD creations done with the best 3D tools could reveal impossible to build in real life....because LDD doesn't know things as gravity.

Finally, i have been shocked by the "golden girls" injustice that has occured several months ago. A guy (or a girl) creates a fine project around "golden girls" tv show, earns patiently a lot of votes (5000 or 6000)....then another comes and produces a kind of copy of this project, earns 10000 votes in a week (!!!! ????). Whatever happened, there's definitively a loophole in the rules or in the site.

It's an expected part of the LEGO Ideas process that project creators promote their own creations, using social media and so on. This accounts for most of the success of the later Golden Girls project - the one that got so many votes in a hurry was featured on lots of news outlets and so on. I agree it's unfortunate the lion's share of the attention didn't go to the earlier project since they were so similar, but FWIW that other project got a lot more attention because of the more successful one, and its creator apparently doesn't consider the second project to have ripped him / her off.

I have to strenuously disagree about LDD. Many people with great ideas may not have huge parts inventories to build with; LDD opens up the opportunity to submit projects to those with great ideas and/or building skills, but not necessarily deep pockets. It levels the playing field. Moreover, it also greatly expands the total breadth of projects that are possible, since they needn't depend upon whether one of more given elements have ever been molded in a particular color or printed with a particular design - they can use any part in any color and with any decoration imaginable, just so long as the actual mold is a real one. Barring LDD submissions would hinder the whole enterprise.

[anothergol]

Finally, i have been shocked by the "golden girls" injustice that has occured several months ago. A guy (or a girl) creates a fine project around "golden girls" tv show, earns patiently a lot of votes (5000 or 6000)....then another comes and produces a kind of copy of this project, earns 10000 votes in a week (!!!! ????). Whatever happened, there's definitively a loophole in the rules or in the site.

that's weird, they're different people? They both sure look nearly exactly the same.

[fred67]

As far as structure goes, maybe they should categorize things - sci-fi, modern, city, video games, fantasy, and then sub-categorize (trains, building, ships or vehicles). Normally once a week or so I go there and just browse the things in order until I see the ones I've seen before. There are categories that are just right out for me, it would help me focus on the things I'm interested in.

I also don't think people vote in the actual spirit of the site. I would argue again that this site is for possible ideas, not MOCs, yet many people support a project simply because they think it's a good MOC... if I wouldn't truly buy it, I wouldn't vote for it. It asks how many you think people would buy - you can't put "zero." And, of course, I think they ask these questions for a reason, and it may be part of what helps them decide which ones they will choose given that a number of sets hit 10k each period.

[Boromir]

I think the lego ideas site needs some work. It's very difficult to find certain projects if you are a casual user, like me, of the site. Also, I agree that many people are supporting projects for the wrong reasons. I support only projects I would like to buy if released.

[anothergol]

I also don't think people vote in the actual spirit of the site. I would argue again that this site is for possible ideas, not MOCs, yet many people support a project simply because they think it's a good MOC... if I wouldn't truly buy it, I wouldn't vote for it. It asks how many you think people would buy - you can't put "zero."

Yeah but you're not voting for "ideas" either, you're voting for a *build* (well, I hope so), so you're yourself not voting in the spirit of the site.

"Ideas" are worth nothing, I mean.. I've just voted for Magnum PI's Ferrari. Is that an "idea"? Of course not, everyone can think "Magnum PI + Lego". Take a random show, add "Lego", that's not an idea. And there have been many Magnum PI MOCs & figure packs.

I voted for it because the Ferrari looks good, better than the usual minifig-sized (well, as small as it can be) Lego car, and that would be cheap enough for me to buy.

If people vote for "ideas", that's sad, and that leads to ugly things like the BTTF car. "Lego + BTTF", that I was ready to buy, but not when the end result looks this poor, while there are other MOCs of the DeLorean that are spot on. (pretty sure that many bought it just for the minifigs)

So I hope that people aren't voting for "ideas" either, thinking that Lego will end up improving the model, because in the case of BTTF they actually made a poor model even worse (looking at it again, it's even worse than in my memories, that thing is a mockery).

(of course, the "good" MOC also reached 10k.. but too late, and most likely wasn't produced because of the first one)

Edited August 28, 2015 by anothergol

[fred67]

I completely disagree - I'm voting for a set I'd like to see built based on the submission. That's it. A vote (or "support") is saying "I think this should be made into a set." It's not "Hey, I wouldn't buy it, but good MOC dude!"

Edited August 28, 2015 by fred67