Wodanis

What should or should not be on Lego Ideas?

Recommended Posts

Example taken from the last Star Wars movie : a minifig scale Luggabeast ( https://ideas.lego.c...h/q:Luggabeast/ ). The 3 projects correspond to the same idea but displays 3 different ways to build it and are welcome on Ideas.

I've voted for the good one, and I'm glad it's successful. But that's where the problem of Lego redesigning "winning" sets kicks in: they might end up with worse than the 2 other ones (well ok the one on the left isn't too bad). That's why I keep saying that we should indeed not vote for ideas but sets.

It's sad that there was the perfect De Lorean on Lego Ideas, but the worst one won, and then Lego managed to make it even worse.

Good point, but those are pretty unrealistic and unlikely to be made into a product due to size and pricing. In my opinion, it would be better if they weren't there, if only so that people don't get their hopes up and vote for something that is probably never going to be made.

There is a new one again, there is not a single chance it's gonna be produced, but I'm glad it's there, it looks cool, it wasn't a waste of time seeing it.

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/128929

What was a waste of time were the many ones around it, like these, that someone's dad added

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/128986

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/128180

I've read someone commenting on the "death" of the LDD, that no LDD will result in less pollution in Lego Ideas. Of course, not true, since the existing LDD isn't gonna disappear. But I do agree that it's the LDD that's responsible for the majority of the crap (but also a lot of the good stuff, I assume) on Lego Ideas.

Edited by anothergol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be *some* guidelines added such as:

- 800 pieces or less

- no LDD, must be built in person (I just hate looking at digital Lego)

Too many MOCs with 1000+ brick counts that would never be made

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be *some* guidelines added such as:

- 800 pieces or less

- no LDD, must be built in person (I just hate looking at digital Lego)

Restricting projects to 800 pieces or fewer would eliminate a lot of worthwhile projects, some of which could be made; also, not all parts are created equal. A project with a thousand parts, 400 of which are 1x1 plates or tiles, is more viable than one with only 200 parts if half of them are XL motors or 48x48 baseplates. It'd be more sensible to speak of a parts budget, but then of course we don't know exactly how parts are budgeted internally. Also, parts counts are only a loose guideline anyway, since a set that results from a project is going to have a different build, and may have a wildly different number of parts from the project proposal. A 900-piece project could become a 600-piece set. And on top of all that, lots of people don't even keep track of their piece counts anyway. And just how would one enforce the limit?

As for LDD, it's a vital tool for much of the Ideas userbase. Not everyone with an idea has access to as many bricks as they'd like, or in the right colors or with appropriate deco; in some cases, an essential part may never ever have been offered before in the desired color. If you hate looking at LDD projects, you don't have to vote for them, but why should other people be limited by that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I keep saying that we should indeed not vote for ideas but sets.

I agree but, in most cases, this is what the people are doing. The main problem is the visibility of competing projects : not all supporters scan over all proposed project of the same idea. The way the Ideas website is organized influences a lot the vote.

It's sad that there was the perfect De Lorean on Lego Ideas, but the worst one won, and then Lego managed to make it even worse.

I agree too and this is why I did not bought it. This is the perfect exemple of fail of the whole process :sceptic: .

There is a new one again, there is not a single chance it's gonna be produced, but I'm glad it's there, it looks cool, it wasn't a waste of time seeing it.

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/128929

Yes, this is an awesome MOC but imagine (for the low probable situation where it would be produced) what it will become after being redesigned as a set ? Something completely different.

When I see this project, I could also imagine submitting my "Nectar of the Sarlacc" one just for trolling :grin:

15944273373_7a63150b13_c.jpg

Complete view (4 sided) by Daniel Stoeffler, on Flickr

Edited by DanSto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'd like projects to be easier to find, I wouldn't throw out all the projects that aren't viable. I remember seeing a project built by a father and son. Shortly before they put it on ideas, Lego released a set like their design. He initially wasn't going to post it but his son was expecting to post it. For crowdsourcing you will get a lot of bad ideas. Ideally Lego (or some other site) needs to present the data differently to make it easier to find the gems. Their emails might be an attempt to do this (although I don't think they do a good job).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'd like projects to be easier to find, I wouldn't throw out all the projects that aren't viable. I remember seeing a project built by a father and son. Shortly before they put it on ideas, Lego released a set like their design. He initially wasn't going to post it but his son was expecting to post it. For crowdsourcing you will get a lot of bad ideas. Ideally Lego (or some other site) needs to present the data differently to make it easier to find the gems. Their emails might be an attempt to do this (although I don't think they do a good job).

Projects are supposed to be created by people older than 13.

You must be at least 13 years old to have a LEGO Ideas account.

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.

Unfortunately, some of the poor projects can't be immediately attributed to children under 13, although they certainly seem to be. These projects don't get removed and create clutter.

Edited by x105Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad that there was the perfect De Lorean on Lego Ideas, but the worst one won, and then Lego managed to make it even worse.

What one was the "perfect" one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Projects are supposed to be created by people older than 13.

True but even if you are 13 or older, you can be excited about posting the build you made with your dad. Sure they could post it on the galleries on lego.com or on the forums here or other moc sites but you might still believe your version has something to offer. You can't put in rules that will automatically weed out the bad projects. You will just get different bad projects that meet the new rules. You either have to decide you want someone to prejudge it before posting or live with the bad. A modest fee could eliminate some bad projects but I still think you would have people posting something you would deem as bad. The more sensible solution is provide good navigation on the site to find the best stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but even if you are 13 or older, you can be excited about posting the build you made with your dad. Sure they could post it on the galleries on lego.com or on the forums here or other moc sites but you might still believe your version has something to offer. You can't put in rules that will automatically weed out the bad projects. You will just get different bad projects that meet the new rules. You either have to decide you want someone to prejudge it before posting or live with the bad. A modest fee could eliminate some bad projects but I still think you would have people posting something you would deem as bad. The more sensible solution is provide good navigation on the site to find the best stuff.

Fair enough. I think many builds would be better off in galleries as opposed to Ideas, though. It seems people have been using it, improperly, as a gallery.

this one, which got voted too. How did Lego reject that?

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/8889

Where do the minifigures sit?

:sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this one, which got voted too. How did Lego reject that?

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/8889

Oh, that. That's not simply a "better" version of the same thing; it's a fundamentally different project - the same subject matter, sure, but at a completely different scale. It would have been a much larger, more expensive set, and seeing how the CUUSOO / Ideas program has yet to release a set retailing for more than $60 USD, it's far from clear they would ever have approved that one whether they'd already done the minifigure-scale one or not.

The other one that they did accept was hardly a lousy project, regardless of what you think of the final set (it's actually from the same people who submitted this one), and as it was in the enormously popular minifigure scale - honestly, having official minifigures of Doc and Marty was a huge part of the appeal - it made much more sense to accept it, since it would be a more affordable set that TLG might reasonably expect to sell several times as many of as they could have of this. It makes total sense for them to have approved the one they did but not this larger version.

I thought you were talking about some other DeLorean project I'd never seen before, by someone else, and possibly not even having anything to do with Back to the Future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that. That's not simply a "better" version of the same thing; it's a fundamentally different project - the same subject matter, sure, but at a completely different scale. It would have been a much larger, more expensive set, and seeing how the CUUSOO / Ideas program has yet to release a set retailing for more than $60 USD, it's far from clear they would ever have approved that one whether they'd already done the minifigure-scale one or not.

The other one that they did accept was hardly a lousy project, regardless of what you think of the final set (it's actually from the same people who submitted this one), and as it was in the enormously popular minifigure scale - honestly, having official minifigures of Doc and Marty was a huge part of the appeal - it made much more sense to accept it, since it would be a more affordable set that TLG might reasonably expect to sell several times as many of as they could have of this. It makes total sense for them to have approved the one they did but not this larger version.

Come on, the "good" one doesn't look like a 3000+ parts project, sure it'd have costed more than 100, but less than 200 I'm sure.

I can only imagine one reason this ugly thing sold, the minifigs (which is the only thing that Lego improved here). IMHO it's one of the ugliest things that Lego produced, any basic minifig-scaled car in the most basic set, at least looks like a car.

& be honest, if you bought it, it's purely for the license. Had this been a Lego City set, you'd have laughed at it.

lego-back-to-the-future-8637.jpg

Meanwhile the original one looked "ok"

back-to-the-future-delorean-lego.jpg

But still, there is a ton of DeLorean MOCs out there, I can't find any that looks worse than what Lego dared to release. They all have a proper hood.

9175855515_1379886343_z_d.jpg

Edited by anothergol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, the "good" one doesn't look like a 3000+ parts project, sure it'd have costed more than 100, but less than 200 I'm sure.

Sure, but anything over $100 is still a heck of a lot for a LEGO set, to most people. It makes a huge difference in how many people can afford the set to begin with, to say nothing of how many will actually get it.

I can only imagine one reason this ugly thing sold, the minifigs (which is the only thing that Lego improved here). IMHO it's one of the ugliest things that Lego produced, any basic minifig-scaled car in the most basic set, at least looks like a car.

& be honest, if you bought it, it's purely for the license. Had this been a Lego City set, you'd have laughed at it.

Possibly, but I wasn't talking about the set; I was talking about the project(s), specifically with regard to why they approved the minifigure-scale version and not the UCS one. The design of the final set has no bearing on that, especially since it came afterwards.

Moreover, as far as the set goes, I fully agree the hood is terrible, but it can actually be greatly improved without too much effort, and done so mostly using the parts in the set. The set also comes with a bunch of great parts for making even a fully MOC'ed version.

Meanwhile the original one looked "ok"

I think it looked rather decent, if imperfect. Moreover, you're still not distinguishing between the project, the concept it represents, and the final set. Forget about the project builds entirely; just consider the underlying ideas. The project that was approved is for a minifigure-scale DeLorean time machine, with minifigures of Doc Brown and Marty McFly. What reason is there to not approve that set? And if they hadn't approved that one, then why would they instead approve a UCS version of the same vehicle - a scale that's both more expensive and less popular? And remember, that project didn't even make it to review until much later; it's not as though they were in the same review, and TLG chose the minifigure scale instead of a UCS version reviewed at the same time. They chose it much earlier.

But still, there is a ton of DeLorean MOCs out there, I can't find any that looks worse than what Lego dared to release. They all have a proper hood.

The hood is indeed terrible, but again the end result that they hadn't yet conceived had no bearing on the initial decision to approved the project as a set or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it looked rather decent, if imperfect. Moreover, you're still not distinguishing between the project, the concept it represents, and the final set. Forget about the project builds entirely; just consider the underlying ideas.

But that's exactly what I'm critisizing. I don't go to Lego Ideas to vote for ideas. This wasn't even an "idea" - everyone can pick a random movie/show, make a crap MOC around it and bam, people should vote for it, because they aren't voting for the design but rather the "idea", thus the movie itself?

Really, when I vote I do it for the design, and IMHO Lego should respect it, and only fix illegal connections & make it follow their rules. I do fully understand why they redesigned the exo-suit, and luckily it ended up good.

There are 3 Magnum P.I. projects on LI, here again, not an idea at all. But I've voted for this one, because the Ferrari is damn cool (even if it's a lot because of the stickers):

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/114636

Sure, it has no chance to pass, but if it did and Lego came up with another monstruosity because "it's all about the license/minifig", I wouldn't buy it.

Edited by anothergol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's exactly what I'm critisizing. I don't go to Lego Ideas to vote for ideas.

If that's how you want to (not) vote, that's your prerogative, but ideas are fundamental to the whole enterprise, to the point of being its very name. It could well be that they even chose the name "Ideas" when they changed from CUUSOO specifically to underscore that point, in response to people who thought it was about something else, or wanted it to be.

Anyway, if you don't go to LEGO Ideas to vote for ideas, then where do you think we should go for that?

This wasn't even an "idea" - everyone can pick a random movie/show, make a crap MOC around it and bam, people should vote for it, because they aren't voting for the design but rather the "idea", thus the movie itself?

Well, no, because the project wasn't "crap" to most people. More importantly, it was a proof-of-concept, a means of demonstrating how it might work as a set, and it did that well, both to the voters and to the Ideas team. Note that at the time the Back to the Future projects were posted, it wasn't even required that projects show a brick build at all; a project could show a photo or drawing of a real-world object, with no LEGO elements at all, and say "I propose LEGO make a set of this thing", but no project that did so ever succeeded in attracting more than a tiny number of supports.

And the ideas are still specific ideas. Those Back to the Future projects weren't just random proposals to make any Back to the Future thing in general; they were specifically to produce DeLorean time machines, one at minifigure scale, the other at a much larger, UCS / Model Team-type scale. Similarly, there were other projects still for the "Jules Verne" time train, Biff's car, the McFlys' 4x4 pickup, Doc Brown's truck, etc. Each of these was a proposal to produce a specific thing, and the votes were for those specific things. That's why each was its own project.

Really, when I vote I do it for the design, and IMHO Lego should respect it, and only fix illegal connections & make it follow their rules. I do fully understand why they redesigned the exo-suit, and luckily it ended up good.

Well, it wasn't just the Exo-suit - every CUUSOO / Ideas set has had at least some changes from the original projects; it's simply a fundamental part of the process (and not just for Ideas sets, but for LEGO sets in general). Illegal connections are just the tip of the iceberg - they may want to adjust the build for greater stability, or a different parts selection that will be easier to accommodate with the rest of their production (which could make the difference in whether it's viable to produce or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People say don't vote for the rubbish, or don't buy the projects you don't like. Which is exactly what I do. I essentially avoid the whole IDEAS website because it takes too long finding things I'd actually want to buy. I've picked up a few sets, but I haven't in a while. And looking at the next review cycle, I don't expect to be picking any of them up either. Maybe I'm not the target audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's how you want to (not) vote, that's your prerogative, but ideas are fundamental to the whole enterprise, to the point of being its very name. It could well be that they even chose the name "Ideas" when they changed from CUUSOO specifically to underscore that point, in response to people who thought it was about something else, or wanted it to be.

Anyway, if you don't go to LEGO Ideas to vote for ideas, then where do you think we should go for that?

I think it's a name & just that. What else should have Lego named it?

& I still think that, for Lego, it's not about ideas nor creations, it's about advertisement. They encourage you to blog your stuff everywhere. Lego on Ellen Degeneres, minifigs in the hands of Gillian Anderson & David Duchovny, isn't that worth more to Lego than a few sets sold to a few adults in their own store?

Well, no, because the project wasn't "crap" to most people. More importantly, it was a proof-of-concept, a means of demonstrating how it might work as a set, and it did that well, both to the voters and to the Ideas team. Note that at the time the Back to the Future projects were posted, it wasn't even required that projects show a brick build at all; a project could show a photo or drawing of a real-world object, with no LEGO elements at all, and say "I propose LEGO make a set of this thing", but no project that did so ever succeeded in attracting more than a tiny number of supports.

And the ideas are still specific ideas. Those Back to the Future projects weren't just random proposals to make any Back to the Future thing in general; they were specifically to produce DeLorean time machines, one at minifigure scale, the other at a much larger, UCS / Model Team-type scale. Similarly, there were other projects still for the "Jules Verne" time train, Biff's car, the McFlys' 4x4 pickup, Doc Brown's truck, etc. Each of these was a proposal to produce a specific thing, and the votes were for those specific things. That's why each was its own project.

yeah right, as if "the idea" was really to pick the DeLorean

& anything can work as a Lego set

I've voted for senteosan's dinosaurs btw. I can only -hope- that it doesn't mean that "I wanna buy a Lego dinosaur"!

I wanna buy HIS creation, and feel free to poll everyone who has voted for him, they all wanna buy HIS dinosaur. There are dozens of crap dinosaurs on Lego Ideas, I'd like to know why none of them got more than 100 votes, while this particular one got its 10k easily, if it's NOT because it's a great creation.

Well, it wasn't just the Exo-suit - every CUUSOO / Ideas set has had at least some changes from the original projects; it's simply a fundamental part of the process (and not just for Ideas sets, but for LEGO sets in general). Illegal connections are just the tip of the iceberg - they may want to adjust the build for greater stability, or a different parts selection that will be easier to accommodate with the rest of their production (which could make the difference in whether it's viable to produce or not).

Not every project was remade like the Exo-suit, simply because builders can, if they want to, accomodate to Lego's rules. The Exo-suit wasn't designed to be a Lego Ideas project, hence the problems with it.

Edited by anothergol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example taken from the last Star Wars movie : a minifig scale Luggabeast ( https://ideas.lego.c...h/q:Luggabeast/ ). The 3 projects correspond to the same idea but displays 3 different ways to build it and are welcome on Ideas.

Well, it seems that it was really a good ideas but lego will produce its own soon :

"75148 Encounter on Jakku – £49.99

The scene from Force Awakens where Teedo on a Luggabeast snares BB-8 (that’s a ridiculous sentence). comes with Unkar Plutt, Rey, BB-8, Teedo and a brick built luggabeast."

(source : http://brickfanatics.co.uk/london-toy-fair-2016-lego-news/ )

Sad new for the project holder but it is the risk when submitting such kind of projects :cry_sad: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be great if they added a categories section to the main page to help people search like buildings or TV shows the tags are there to help with this already but it could be improved on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how it could be implemented without simply duplicating the tagging functionality.

I do think the sort options could be vastly improved, though, by simply allowing us to filter out projects we've already supported (or at the very least, having a graphic appear when they're listed that shows us whether we've already supported them or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the vespa which is a nice build (for which I wouldn't vote because I'm not interested in that in general), and the Howl's castle (which I find an ok attempt, but it looks too random for my taste, I don't recognize anything in there).. those 3 in the middle, I don't get it. I see so many sins in those..

Worse, you know yourself that Lego is never gonna put 3000 bricks in a silly random moon landing base(?)

If there's a problem with the Soviet Moonshot set, you can always tell me (the creator) so I can fix it in the updates!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many builds would be better off in galleries as opposed to Ideas, though. It seems people have been using it, improperly, as a gallery.

That's really how I feel about Ideas.

It just take too long for me to find anything worth supporting on Ideas. There's too many projects built by people with too much time on their hands, too much LDD, too little skill, and too little self-esteem. This is an Idea: (https://ideas.lego.com/projects/126634) It's fun, original, would cater to Lego fans young and old, not too out-there, not self-aggrandizing, and would fit the price range of an Ideas set. This is not an Idea (it's not even an idea, really): (https://ideas.lego.com/projects/124609) It's like a creature from the Black Lagoon, the Black Lagoon in this case being a 12-year old's pre-2004 Brickshelf folder. It serves no other purpose than to stroke the builder's (clicker? It's LDD...) ego, which could just as easily be done if he posted it to Flickr.

Edited by Junior Shark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is not a matter of what should and should not be on Ideas. It is a matter of people who join Eurobricks and their first or second post is a ....

Hey, please support my ideas project. We have tags for [MOC], [WIP] and [HELP] among others, why not a tag for Ideas [iDEAS]?

Many of these folks who post first or second post for an Ideas project, I just "click away from" the post as soon as I discover it. The [iDEAS] tag would make things easier to skip.

Just MHO, YMMV,

Andy D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is not a matter of what should and should not be on Ideas. It is a matter of people who join Eurobricks and their first or second post is a ....

Hey, please support my ideas project. We have tags for [MOC], [WIP] and [HELP] among others, why not a tag for Ideas [iDEAS]?

The only problem I see with that is that some people post their MOCs on here, but have a "Please support on Ideas" as an afterthought. When it's done that way, I really don't mind. I know I would've missed out on some cool (but not likely to become an Ideas set) MOCs if there was an [iDEAS] tag. But I definitely despise those who have only one or two posts, all of which are dedicated to solely garnering support for their "project" on Ideas. From what I've seen, Moderators usually deal with those posts/users promptly, thus negating the need for a separate [iDEAS] tag, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem I see with that is that some people post their MOCs on here, but have a "Please support on Ideas" as an afterthought. When it's done that way, I really don't mind. I know I would've missed out on some cool (but not likely to become an Ideas set) MOCs if there was an [iDEAS] tag. But I definitely despise those who have only one or two posts, all of which are dedicated to solely garnering support for their "project" on Ideas. From what I've seen, Moderators usually deal with those posts/users promptly, thus negating the need for a separate [iDEAS] tag, IMO.

You are correct. People who join just to post a beg for support an Ideas project probably would not use the [iDEAS] tag anyway. My pet peeve with Ideas project IS the people who join and their first or second post is just to try to get support for their Ideas project.

It is because of the people who post like that, that I just ignore all Ideas projects.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

Edited by Andy D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.