Yep, but comments are very personal, and under-used. We can like, but can’t downvote, unless we use the ‘report abuse’ flag - which is not appropriate. And these features put all the responsibility on the end-user, rather than the creator.
I’m primarily asking for a checklist - so the creator thinks twice before uploading.
Now that the free version of Sketchup is online only, 3D warehouse is not very usable for free users. It’s very risky to import an unknown model into your own without being able to open it separately first.
And there are many alternatives to Sketchup, so I’m making a Feature Request to add value to the Pro subscription and help retain Trimble customers.
That doesn’t stop even professional users from doing it. We see that here all the time.
I expect if there are a bunch of requirements placed on the creators they just won’t share it.
I never use components from the 3D Warehouse in my own work whether personal or commercial. They are never made the way I want them to be maade and take more time to clean up and make usable than to model them from scratch.
The file you presented as a “useful model to share” is actually a case in point.
Several levels of unneeded nesting. No need to have a group containing the pot component. Group instance names that don’t appear to reflect the actual object. The groups containing a pot and plant ought to be components so the entire component could also be inserted from the Components panel.
The two low round pots have the same component definition but are clearly different in appearance. Edfiting one of them, however, would result in the other one being edited.
The components have both been scaled but the definition hasn’t been updated. Note that Scale Definition is not grayed out when context clicking on the component. This can cause issues when the component is inserted into a model because it will come in at the size based on the component definition, not the size it was scaled to. Some of the other components in the model show the same scaling issue. So this file fails your first checklist item.
The outer surfaces of the pots are reversed which will make trouble with many rendering applications.
There is incorrect tag usage in the model. ALL edges and faces should be untagged.
If I were modeling pots for use in my work I would place the insertion points at the center of the bottom of the pots to make them easier to insert precisely. Some of your insertion points are quite a distance from the geometry.
Not sure how your comment is relevant. Trimble Pro Tech Support specifically suggested that I post in this ‘Feature Request’ forum.
I assume you’re worried that this would increase the cost of a subscription? I’ve broken down my suggestions into 4 separate elements. They don’t have to implement everything, but the intended outcome is a more efficient system with less server load, so it could potentially save money and carbon emissions.
It was a lighthearted comment on the flippant nature of your ‘just require some back-end or server-side development’ comment. As if that is something that can ‘just’ be knocked out in five minutes.
Thanks for the detailed feedback. Yes, as you illustrate, ‘usefulness’ is subjective, and it’s not meant to be a perfect model - it’s a small part of a much bigger project that I used as a quick, real-world test.
I don’t expect all freely shared models to be perfect, we have to be pragmatic. Having said that, the minor issues in my model can be quickly rectified, i.e. there is a dimensions layer.
My insertion points are based on the outer edge of the pot and plant group, so they’re useful to me because for this project I wanted to know if it would fit.
Incidentally, those round pots are modified from another user’s original model in the Warehouse - I didn’t notice the reversed faces. My bad! 
I would certainly like to see improvements too - I thought this is what the “products” section would help with, but even despite “verified” manufacturers it is still a wild west of:
Models not made in SketchUp or not appropriate for it.
Models with renders as images that don’t represent what you download.
Stolen models, duplicate models, models from manufacturers supplying counterfeit/replica furniture.
Plus all the stuff mentioned above.
OK, fair enough. I just think this is simpler than some of the other feature requests related to improving the 3D Warehouse.
That sounds different from what you opened with.
The dimensions are a very minor point but the rest of your minor issues would take longer to rectify than it would take to model them from scratch correctly.
You get the content from the 3D Warehouse for free and you get what you pay for.
