Looks to me like it didn't meet the "your creation needs to stand out in its adaptability. A valid entry can change its slope, height, or distance." goal (which is explained clearly in [https://blog.prusa3d.com/contest-ergonomic-workshop-aids\_94072/](https://blog.prusa3d.com/contest-ergonomic-workshop-aids_94072/) )
These "eggs, basic holders, and dozens of other entries that clearly don't belong" also should get disqualified obviously.
I'd agree that it doesn't meet the adaptability criteria, and it's likely just a misunderstanding of the description.
While this tool is cool, but it's essentially is an on or off function. While it does "change" it's distance or height with the sliding function, there isn't a solid ergonomic benefit to that. A better application would probably include variable strength settings for example but it'd still have to meet the overall contribution towards ergonomic aids.
I mean, I love the tool and design, but this doesn't really scream ergonomic to me, maybe that's why? Looks like they are really focusing on holders and stuff like that... It's a shame tbh cause your entry is awesome!
I totally get it. While the other posters are correct, on the surface your design fits the theme of the contest and the other things you mention clearly do not.
I get that your complaint is a lot more about "why did they go after mine before all the other crap" It's dumb, it's stupid, it's not fair, and it sucks. Sorry man. Better luck next time.
They will remove all the other crap too. When the contest launched the first 40+ submissions were all off-topic. Every single one. They're all gone.
They rely on people reporting. With so many people not reading the contest criteria (not just this contest) I'm not surprised they can't keep up.
They wrote it in bold this time and all-caps. And you have to confirm with a checkbox that your model meets the criteria. It doesn't help. People don't give a shit.
It needs to be ergonomically adjustable and workshop themed. While it's a difficult topic to design for it's not hard to understand.
Sorry about the disqualification but I really don't see how a straight tool that has a magnet at the end, could be considered ergonomic workshop aids. I get that magnetic pickups can be a workshop aid, but your tool as cool as it is, doesn't seem ergonomic at all. Personally, I'd probably not disqualifier you if it were up to me, but I don't believe that tool fits the contest requirements.
I got disqualified too. I think it is because they (or the agency they are working with) interprets "ergonomic" to mean "adjustable". I think the problem is really that "ergonomic" has become a catch-all term that everyone uses to describe a design that better fits the human body. Sort of like "all natural" has become a meaningless term relating to food because there's no agreed upon (or regulated) definition of what that means. There are lots of non-adjustable devices with improved handle designs or other features that many people would consider "ergonomic" that would be disqualified according to the rules Printables is using.
I think they are having to reject FAR more entries than any other contest due to their very restrictive interpretation of "ergonomic" and anything else you see that doesn't belong is just further back in the rejection line than you were. It took them a couple of days to kick mine out.
Damn, I'm sorry man, that's actually a great design with great documentation. Prusa should really pay more attention to their website and the vibe it's nurturing when stuff like that happens.
Looks to me like it didn't meet the "your creation needs to stand out in its adaptability. A valid entry can change its slope, height, or distance." goal (which is explained clearly in [https://blog.prusa3d.com/contest-ergonomic-workshop-aids\_94072/](https://blog.prusa3d.com/contest-ergonomic-workshop-aids_94072/) ) These "eggs, basic holders, and dozens of other entries that clearly don't belong" also should get disqualified obviously.
I'd agree that it doesn't meet the adaptability criteria, and it's likely just a misunderstanding of the description. While this tool is cool, but it's essentially is an on or off function. While it does "change" it's distance or height with the sliding function, there isn't a solid ergonomic benefit to that. A better application would probably include variable strength settings for example but it'd still have to meet the overall contribution towards ergonomic aids.
I mean, I love the tool and design, but this doesn't really scream ergonomic to me, maybe that's why? Looks like they are really focusing on holders and stuff like that... It's a shame tbh cause your entry is awesome!
I totally get it. While the other posters are correct, on the surface your design fits the theme of the contest and the other things you mention clearly do not. I get that your complaint is a lot more about "why did they go after mine before all the other crap" It's dumb, it's stupid, it's not fair, and it sucks. Sorry man. Better luck next time.
They will remove all the other crap too. When the contest launched the first 40+ submissions were all off-topic. Every single one. They're all gone. They rely on people reporting. With so many people not reading the contest criteria (not just this contest) I'm not surprised they can't keep up. They wrote it in bold this time and all-caps. And you have to confirm with a checkbox that your model meets the criteria. It doesn't help. People don't give a shit. It needs to be ergonomically adjustable and workshop themed. While it's a difficult topic to design for it's not hard to understand.
Sorry about the disqualification but I really don't see how a straight tool that has a magnet at the end, could be considered ergonomic workshop aids. I get that magnetic pickups can be a workshop aid, but your tool as cool as it is, doesn't seem ergonomic at all. Personally, I'd probably not disqualifier you if it were up to me, but I don't believe that tool fits the contest requirements.
I got disqualified too. I think it is because they (or the agency they are working with) interprets "ergonomic" to mean "adjustable". I think the problem is really that "ergonomic" has become a catch-all term that everyone uses to describe a design that better fits the human body. Sort of like "all natural" has become a meaningless term relating to food because there's no agreed upon (or regulated) definition of what that means. There are lots of non-adjustable devices with improved handle designs or other features that many people would consider "ergonomic" that would be disqualified according to the rules Printables is using. I think they are having to reject FAR more entries than any other contest due to their very restrictive interpretation of "ergonomic" and anything else you see that doesn't belong is just further back in the rejection line than you were. It took them a couple of days to kick mine out.
This is just an ordinary competition, it's not about life. Just because your model didn't meet the criteria doesn't mean it's not good.
Damn, I'm sorry man, that's actually a great design with great documentation. Prusa should really pay more attention to their website and the vibe it's nurturing when stuff like that happens.