Revit: Publish >Autodesk Seek

[aaronrumple]

Whoa.
Is there anyway to turn off the Publish to Autodesk Seek feature?

We've got a lot of custom content that we'd rather not see set free in the wild. This is way too easy for an employee to save content for their own use after they leave here.

I don't want our stuff supporting Autodesk's library.... Nasty feature.

I also noticed that like me - everyone is uplaoding autodesk's own content as a test.... So you see lots of the same families showing up over and over.

[kyle.bernhardt]

Aaron,
No there is no way to turn off this feature. This never came up in any of our user validation and testing, to be honest, I was the Product Manager on the Seek Integration for this year's release.

Do you really think that Seek is the key factor that would put your internal content at risk? I would think a USB drive would be equally, if not more of a risk, certainly a lot easier to handle multiple files.

This is not to say that this can't change in the future. Are there others out there in AUGI-world that hold the same concerns as Aaron here?

Cheers,
Kyle B

[twiceroadsfool]

I hadnt notice that it was there, but i definetely have the same concerns as Aaron (the other one).

Some of them are for very different reasons, too.

I understand wanting to push people towards sharing, and helping, and whatever... But i know firms that will immediately dismiss someone for posting office content on a share site. Heck, ive taken heat just for having a Revit BLOG in some offices, because it *gives help* to the competition. Having a button right there to distribute things THAT ARENT YOURS (if you built it at work, for work, its theirs...), could mess with someones livlelyhood if they arent careful.

Its really no different then taking drawings to the Printer shop and them having an easy button that says *would you like to share these details with the world so they can use them?*

Im not arguing that its the KEY factor in content getting passed around, but its A factor. And thats a decision offices should be making, not software developers...

[Chad Smith]

Having a button right there to distribute things THAT ARENT YOURS (if you built it at work, for work, its theirs...), could mess with someones livlelyhood if they arent careful.
Just to add to this, having the means to do this directly from Revit makes it look as though it is acceptable behaviour to do so since this is in the software the user is being paid to use.

I agree with both Aarons that some restraint needs to be put on this feature.

[twiceroadsfool]

Dont get me wrong, im ALL ABOUT sharing content... When its mine to share, and when it can be monitored and controlled. But the opposite is true as well:

I wish to God i could disable the "Content Search" toolbar. Truth be told, i havent tried yet... But i hope there is a way. Im all for not wasting time reinventing content and remaking things, but we have strict policies and standards for content for a reason. Nothing irks me like spending hours cleaning up some content that *someone found on seek or revit city* and thought it would work. Short of having the IT guy sever everyones net connection, lol...

[kyle.bernhardt]

Well you guys must certainly have issues with trust in your users, but nonetheless this is valid feedback, and something we can take into consideration for next release.

In the interim, I'm sure you guys have the ability to filter websites within your network, so you can certainly block out Seek if content is such a touchy subject for you guys. What do you do about RevitCity, TurboSquid, and all of the other content providers online?

I must say though, that in general we are working to open thing up around content to foster a global ecosystem, as solving the issue on a firm-by-firm basis is not necessarily a scalable way to tackle the global issue.

I totally get your concerns around your existing content efforts, but I would expect other items to be equally, if not more dangerous to your IP (like copying of entire Revit projects).

How about others out there?

Cheers,
Kyle B

[kyle.bernhardt]

Dont get me wrong, im ALL ABOUT sharing content... When its mine to share, and when it can be monitored and controlled. But the opposite is true as well:

I wish to God i could disable the "Content Search" toolbar. Truth be told, i havent tried yet... But i hope there is a way. Im all for not wasting time reinventing content and remaking things, but we have strict policies and standards for content for a reason. Nothing irks me like spending hours cleaning up some content that *someone found on seek or revit city* and thought it would work. Short of having the IT guy sever everyones net connection, lol...

Like I said before, you guys make valid points here. My assumption is that most networks these days can block access to certain sites, and if outside content is such a concern, I would expect that you've already blocked them already (unless you've got users running Tor or something).

This is definitely something we can take back to the team for discussion.

Cheers,
Kyle B

[twiceroadsfool]

You make a valid point as well. Thats why my template (for home use) is posted on a website. Theres just no point. People DO do exactly what youre describing... Taking entire models with them.

I guess for me its just that its a little closer, a little easier, and a little more accessible.

BTW, im speaking based on what ive seen from management in several offices, not my personal opinions. Im all about sharing :)

[aaronrumple]

Aaron,
No there is no way to turn off this feature. This never came up in any of our user validation and testing, to be honest, I was the Product Manager on the Seek Integration for this year's release.

Do you really think that Seek is the key factor that would put your internal content at risk? I would think a USB drive would be equally, if not more of a risk, certainly a lot easier to handle multiple files.

This is not to say that this can change. Are there others out there in AUGI-world that hold the same concerns as Aaron here?

Cheers,
Kyle B

External USB devices are disabled on our systems. We use a Barracuda filter system. Emails have to go through our email system. Google Yahoo, Facebook are all blocked. No FTP. So yes it isn't easy getting things out the door.

Our company had an issue with theft by a fired employee sometime back with police being called. (I don't know the full story - before my time.) So management is a bit gun shy.

Even when I worked as a reseller - all our keystrokes were logged. Its a brave new world.

[STHRevit]

This is a pretty touchy subject indeed.
I also am up for sharing content, however, as mentioned before that should be my choice to make and I do object to a software manufacturer adding a button which enables one of my employees, to just issue content because the button is included in the software they are using.
As a consultancy firm, we deal with many different Architectural cliients and they all have different standards and protocols and i am pretty sure they would hate to see their content distributed ad hock.
If Autodesk didn't see this a big issue, why was'nt it highlighted alongside the free form modelling as a bright new feature?

It is a concern and should be removed IMO

[twiceroadsfool]

External USB devices are disabled on our systems. We use a Barracuda filter system. Emails have to go through our email system. Google Yahoo, Facebook are all blocked. No FTP. So yes it isn't easy getting things out the door.

Our company had an issue with theft by a fired employee sometime back with police being called. (I don't know the full story - before my time.) So management is a bit gun shy.

Even when I worked as a reseller - all our keystrokes were logged. Its a brave new world.

Holy ****! LOL... Thats some serious security, hehehe...

[kyle.bernhardt]

This is a pretty touchy subject indeed.
I also am up for sharing content, however, as mentioned before that should be my choice to make and I do object to a software manufacturer adding a button which enables one of my employees, to just issue content because the button is included in the software they are using.

I can say as PM this was certainly not the intent of the project, but as I said before, clearly a risk. The goal of the project was to continue to stimulate the Content Ecosystem on Autodesk Seek.

Do you see this as any different than RevitCity or any other content site?


As a consultancy firm, we deal with many different Architectural cliients and they all have different standards and protocols and i am pretty sure they would hate to see their content distributed ad hock.
If Autodesk didn't see this a big issue, why was'nt it highlighted alongside the free form modelling as a bright new feature?

While the project is not on the same level as free-form modeling in terms of Product Team investment, we certainly did include it in our sales and marketing information. Of course I am biased on the subject, having been directly involved on the project, but a large Content Ecosystem will only stimulate further development of content and participation from manufacturers.

As I said previously, I really appreciate everybody weighing in on the subject, and we can take this back for discussion.

As many of you have indicated support for content development as well, what sort of ways would you go out and help stimulate content development?

Cheers,
Kyle

[mruehr]

As many of you have indicated support for content development as well, what sort of ways would you go out and help stimulate content development?

Cheers,
Kyle

Hi Kyle
let me first thank you as you seem to be one of the few Product Managers that are
comfortable with a Dialog here.
I completely support the idea of content sharing and i am happy to share Families i made or will make there are however a few hiccups and complexities.

1.can i trust the quality of the Family
2.does my Company agree to share content
3.do i get some form of reward
4.what shall be the standards for the Content how much information is in them
5.is the content applicable for my country/ area /city.

i don't trust any family from Revit City often they are badly made and don't conform to a minimum standard.(they been useful when i started with revit).
I trust Families that certain user have made (name some of the regulars on Augie)
I want to know for which country they where made (American stuff does not cut it here in Australia)
If i share i want some recognition for the Quality work i have done via a Point System,Download Credits or something like the Feedback system from EBay
an agreed set of standard and a peer review system would be very useful in order to get a trust and quality relationship going.NO MONEY system just a way to find the good from the bad.
The thought that Seek will now host Families from anybody without a check makes a trusted source a questionable one.(well some of the Families ship with Revit are pretty badly constructed too)
For me to use Seek i need to be able to find content that is reliable does not corrupt my project and is country specific.
Seek is a good thing don't make it into a Flea Market.

hope i made some sense
thanks Kyle again for you honest effort

[twiceroadsfool]

but a large Content Ecosystem will only stimulate further development of content and participation from manufacturers.


I dont disagree with the THEORY of what youre saying, its the way it is implemented that is problematic. It is the Work Product of firms everywhere that builds that content. if they (as companies) elect to share content, then they will help build the robust content ecosystem you describe.

But, in the interests of the phrase *you dont know what you dont know* they wont restrict it if they dont know its there. They will- however- deliver retribution to employees after the fact.

Furthering the discussion: I dont let ANY models or families from Revit City find their way in to projects. They arent built to office standards, they havent gone through any QC process, and i certainly dont need more families with 3dXXX software models tossed in to them.

How do families go through QC on Seek before they are published? Does someone review the family against some sort of standards, or do they hit the freeware market the moment they are uploaded?

IMHO, to make Seek the *robust ecosystem* you describe, a bigger factor will be policing the QUALITY of the content, and not enhancing the quantity. Otherwise, youre correct... Its just like Revit city, and i dont want any of it in our projects. :)

I gather that it is done with good intentions though, and WITH SOME CHANGES it could be very powerful. IE:

1. Make it an option in the deployment, so BIM managers / Firm owners can discuss and debate the pros and cons of it. While this isnt ideal with the intent you have, realize that you DO owe this much respect to the firms using your wares... Particularly in the sense of the Work Product issue. Ive seen owners at large offices obsess over this, to the point of not even sending our models to consultants also working in Revit, until all the content has been dumbed down. I dont agree with that extreme, and you may not either... BUT: It doesnt matter what you and i believe, we dont call the shots for those firms.

2. As many have said, the QUALITY of whats up there is a big concern. If anyone can upload anything, and nothing is reviewed, i will blindly issue the order to the staff to never DL anything from there. The key to the information sharing isnt distributing the WORD that the info is there, its ascerting the CREDIBILITY of that information.

2a. How is content sorted? And what level are they all taken too? Shared parameters, nested families, level of detail, hosted/non, native-revit/3d import, etc... Youve given us all these wonderful tools to control content, but how do we know what were getting? this is the primary reason i dont let people DL from Revit city. In the time it takes me to deconstruct / evaluate / repair what ive downloaded, i couldve built my own faster. VALIDATE the content, and we will come.

EDIT* I wanted to edit this post, so it doesnt come off as a negative thing. Kyle, i think the project your worked on/ are working on is VERY VERY valid in todays working environment, and id enourage you to keep with it. i think it COULD be a positive thing, and the above issues myself and others are raising are issue sthat COULD be dealth with fairly easily...

[cjneedham]

I agree entirely with the last two posts. The concept of Seek is good, but the execution requires much more attention than the content itself. I've heard now from several sources that there does exist some kind of QA/QC documentation for Seek content ... Soooo (if this is true), how about you publish it? What good are these docs/standards unless the users know what they are? IMHO, I think IFCs/IFDs have more potential to address this issue properly, and I'd encourage Autodesk to get/stay supportive of this initiative.

I have noted that the REVIT.ini file contains URLs for Publish to Seek as well as to search Seek. I'm actually excited by this, as presumably I could hi-jack these links and direct my users to a company intranet site or similar. All I need to know now is what information is transferred to Seek for the publish tool. I think that allowing Revit users the opportunity to publish their own 'self-proclaimed' good content to an internal quarantine zone would be excellent.

I don't wish to sound negative about the efforts of many talented people - I appreciate your efforts, Kyle. But to me, until these issues about consistency and predictability of information are dealt with, I think you've got the 'cart before the horse'.

As before, I'd be really keen to see what standards/QA you apply to the Seek content.

[hand471037]

As many of you have indicated support for content development as well, what sort of ways would you go out and help stimulate content development?

When browsing the iPhone app store, I get:

- who wrote the program.
- what other users have rated it.
- what other users have said about it.
- a description of what it is and what it does.
- a series of screenshots of what it looks like.
- the knowledge that the program has been vetted, such that it won't damage my system or data by using it.

If I got the same things from Seek, I'd love it and use it more.

While I've found Seek useful, and it has really gotten a lot better I think in the last year, the families are still very uneven in quality. It's more of a starting point for me when I need something quickly for conceptual design, and about 80% of the time I wind up remodeling my own version or fixing whatever it was I downloaded anyways.

So in reality, it's just a slightly more easy to access version of Revitcity to me. It would be awesome for it to be more.

[jyoungner]

When browsing the iPhone app store, I get:

- who wrote the program.
- what other users have rated it.
- what other users have said about it.
- a description of what it is and what it does.
- a series of screenshots of what it looks like.
- the knowledge that the program has been vetted, such that it won't damage my system or data by using it.

If I got the same things from Seek, I'd love it and use it more.

While I've found Seek useful, and it has really gotten a lot better I think in the last year, the families are still very uneven in quality. It's more of a starting point for me when I need something quickly for conceptual design, and about 80% of the time I wind up remodeling my own version or fixing whatever it was I downloaded anyways.

So in reality, it's just a slightly more easy to access version of Revitcity to me. It would be awesome for it to be more.


I think you have hit the nail on the head with the content quality control. I would go further to say that if their was an option to charge for the content, there would be a lot more content available on seek. This is not coming directly from me, it is coming from the owner from the firm. For example, I created a fully parametric "isokern fireplace" with all the sizes and the flue arrayed to allow for input of the number of modular parts that make up the chimney. My boss asked me: "can we sell this to isokern?"

So- if they were for sale with a couple of screen shots of the parameter screens and maybe a dwf, one would know if they would like to buy it or not. And as I said above, the amount and quality of content on seek would be much more robust.

Maybe what I am writing about is what turbosquid does?

[kyle.bernhardt]

1.can i trust the quality of the Family


As many have said, the QUALITY of whats up there is a big concern. If anyone can upload anything, and nothing is reviewed, i will blindly issue the order to the staff to never DL anything from there. The key to the information sharing isnt distributing the WORD that the info is there, its ascerting the CREDIBILITY of that information.


to me, until these issues about consistency and predictability of information are dealt with, I think you've got the 'cart before the horse'



I think you have hit the nail on the head with the content quality control.

I think I'm sensing a theme here! To be honest, this is not new information (although always good to continue to validate our market needs). Content quality is a point of discussion on nearly every conversation I have around requirements for Seek.

As a Revit dork myself, and somebody who works with even BIGGER Revit dorks, I understand the many tools that can accomplish the same piece of content, and the need to use the best practices.

Our tactics to address this need are on a few fronts, although they are not to the point yet where you guys on the customer-side can see it.

Community Driven Rating - Although I like the App Store analogy, I don't think it will ever be realistic or scalable for us to fully vet every piece of content on Seek. We see the community (in the current free content environment of Seek) as the primary source of in-depth QA for content.

You'll probably notice that you guys can now have logins for Seek, and we're looking at different ways to allow for customers to provide ratings, and then to support iterative development of content based upon feedback.

These content ratings will factor into the search rankings, and as the metadata standards and taxonomy interface continues to improve, we should be able to deliver a strong search experience.


Automated Testing - We also see huge potential in the new Family Editor API, and it's use for automated content checks. That's a work in progress.


Content Quality Standards - We are indeed working on significant documentation around Content Creation and quality standards, as cjneedham alluded to. No, we're not holding it back from release to the market for some "Autodesk hates its customers and likes to induce pain on forums" kind of reason; they're just not in a customer-facing form we're comfortable releasing yet. That's another work in progess.
Our feeling is that these pathways are the best towards the right end game, what would you guys do differently?

This is a great thread folks. Keep it flowing, you've got the eyeballs of the right folks here.

Cheers,
Kyle B

[kyle.bernhardt]

I think that allowing Revit users the opportunity to publish their own 'self-proclaimed' good content to an internal quarantine zone would be excellent.

This is actually something else we've discussed (but by no means committing to deliver). What if that "internal quarantine" was just an area of Seek unique to your firm? The "manager" user(s) could control the content available. You could then use the Seek taxonomy and search tools to navigate the content, but you could control the content users could download and use in your projects?

How bout that?

Cheers,
Kyle B

[Chad Smith]

I think the Community Driven Rating is the right direction to take, but maybe in a slightly more informative manner.

Rather than just giving a flat 5 star rating, which is ok in telling the overall condition of the family, it doesn't give too much detail on particulars. I would like to see a slightly more in depth rating system, say similar to eBays feedback where they have a few areas to rate individually. For example;

- Accuracy
- Consistency
- Modelling Techniques

Others might have other suggestions.

The average of these ratings would form a single rating from that one user, and the rating would be loated next to their comment.

But for the overall rating of the content, it would stay broken down into the own areas so that users can gauge certain aspects of the family.
e.g. Say I am concerned with a Consistent and well Modelled family but Accuracy isn't too much of a concern because I will take the time to correct this, or to suit my own project.
But if Accuracy and Modelling Techniques were good and Consistency was out then the I might think twice based on my own skill level or time constraints.


What if that "internal quarantine" was just an area of Seek unique to your firm? The "manager" user(s) could control the content available. You could then use the Seek taxonomy and search tools to navigate the content, but you could control the content users could download and use in your projects?
This would be great if by 'Internal' you mean the company's LAN. There would be no way this would be viable if it was accessed over the internet. You guys have fantastic internet speeds and quota plans over there, but in places such as Australia, we have atrocious internet networks due to the monopoly of our largest provider.

[mruehr]

This is actually something else we've discussed (but by no means committing to deliver). What if that "internal quarantine" was just an area of Seek unique to your firm? The "manager" user(s) could control the content available. You could then use the Seek taxonomy and search tools to navigate the content, but you could control the content users could download and use in your projects?

How bout that?

Cheers,
Kyle B
To have a Seek Lan version would be very cool guess we would even pay for it.
this could be interacting with the Internet version in the way you described.

[twiceroadsfool]

Kyle- I think everything you said youre working on (that goes along with what were asking about) sounds FANTASTIC.

I think there is just one other thing that needs to be there, even in addition to all these other things:

The ability to turn it off.

I PERSONALLY love sharing content. I go so far as to go home and rebuild stuff in new ways when i learn them at work, so i can post them on my blog and share stuff. Heck, i have my home template on a web page. But IT HAS TO BE THE FIRM OWNERS CHOICE. Thats the ONLY respectable solution.

The content QC, the feedback, the ratings, the fidelity of the models... Its all secondary to the comfort and respect of knowing WE are still making the decisions. If the API can automatically check families for broken constraints, i am CERTAIN you can put one radio button in the deployment to not deploy this feature if firms elect to. In truth, you have nothing to fear. The idea will succeed on the merits and desires of those that WANT it to succeed.... Those of us that WANT to share content.

But saying this tool MUST be installed is.... it just doesnt *feel* right. I know it would NEVER happen, but it *incinuates* that one day right next to Save to Central there may be a button that says *publish entire project to AutodeskZone,* and thats not a good feeling to be getting.

Give us the option, itll take someone 3 minutes to write that code.

[STHRevit]

I totally agree.
Everything that is being developed sounds great.
It would be nice to have the choice, thats all.

[kyle.bernhardt]

Kyle- I think everything you said youre working on (that goes along with what were asking about) sounds FANTASTIC.

I think there is just one other thing that needs to be there, even in addition to all these other things:

The ability to turn it off.

I PERSONALLY love sharing content. I go so far as to go home and rebuild stuff in new ways when i learn them at work, so i can post them on my blog and share stuff. Heck, i have my home template on a web page. But IT HAS TO BE THE FIRM OWNERS CHOICE. Thats the ONLY respectable solution.

The content QC, the feedback, the ratings, the fidelity of the models... Its all secondary to the comfort and respect of knowing WE are still making the decisions. If the API can automatically check families for broken constraints, i am CERTAIN you can put one radio button in the deployment to not deploy this feature if firms elect to. In truth, you have nothing to fear. The idea will succeed on the merits and desires of those that WANT it to succeed.... Those of us that WANT to share content.

But saying this tool MUST be installed is.... it just doesnt *feel* right. I know it would NEVER happen, but it *incinuates* that one day right next to Save to Central there may be a button that says *publish entire project to AutodeskZone,* and thats not a good feeling to be getting.

Give us the option, itll take someone 3 minutes to write that code.

Aaron,
I get it, :). You all have been quite clear on this sentiment. As I said previously, this is something that we can take back to the Product Team. The original specification did not include an "Off Switch", and thus delivering it would constitute new functionality, which we can't deliver outside of our formal release cycle. Had we seen this feedback in the beta timeframe perhaps we could have made the changes.

In the interim you will have to use alternative methods to block sharing, which presumably you are already doing for other similar content sites.

As the PM for the project this past cycle, it was my job to reflect the needs of you in regards to this functionality, and in this cause I came up short, and I'll take responsibility for that (:veryevil: away if that makes you feel better).

Nonetheless we are where we are, and the constraints that exist are not going away. This is why I am directing this conversation towards future needs, and you all have been enormously helpful in articulating those needs.

Cheers,
Kyle B

[dfriesen]

What if that "internal quarantine" was just an area of Seek unique to your firm? The "manager" user(s) could control the content available. You could then use the Seek taxonomy and search tools to navigate the content, but you could control the content users could download and use in your projects?

How bout that?
That would be excellent! The ideal method would be to have a local quarantine area on LAN, and then a firm-wide library on the WAN, and have firm-wide ability to set permissions for those areas.

[twiceroadsfool]

Aaron,
I get it, :). You all have been quite clear on this sentiment. As I said previously, this is something that we can take back to the Product Team. The original specification did not include an "Off Switch", and thus delivering it would constitute new functionality, which we can't deliver outside of our formal release cycle. Had we seen this feedback in the beta timeframe perhaps we could have made the changes.

In the interim you will have to use alternative methods to block sharing, which presumably you are already doing for other similar content sites.

As the PM for the project this past cycle, it was my job to reflect the needs of you in regards to this functionality, and in this cause I came up short, and I'll take responsibility for that (:veryevil: away if that makes you feel better).

Nonetheless we are where we are, and the constraints that exist are not going away. This is why I am directing this conversation towards future needs, and you all have been enormously helpful in articulating those needs.

Cheers,
Kyle B


LOL.... Sorry, i come off overly verbose when im typing. Again, dont read it as a negative thing. I think what you are doing is great, and- hypothetically- it could be amazing.

Revit city has been one of the banes of my existance, since it lets people get just about anything- and poorly built anything- quite easily. I (and i suspect many) would LOVE to see this project of yours turn in to the real Content Cache that we so desperately need.

I could even imagine it being like forums. I mean, maybe someone builds content, and you like their particular method for building content. Maybe you could click *subscibe* and get alerted when they build or post or REVISE something when they realize it was goofed up.

As i typed that, im pretty sure the IT guy got ogeda over the idea of the emails flying in and out regarding content creation, hahahahahahaha...

[twiceroadsfool]

That would be excellent! The ideal method would be to have a local quarantine area on LAN, and then a firm-wide library on the WAN, and have firm-wide ability to set permissions for those areas.

Yeah, "seek" working on internal content libraries would rock my world...

[hand471037]

I could even imagine it being like forums. I mean, maybe someone builds content, and you like their particular method for building content. Maybe you could click *subscibe* and get alerted when they build or post or REVISE something when they realize it was goofed up.

RSS feeds for everything would be pretty awesome.

[twiceroadsfool]

Oooooooh, i like it. I could even see it being like wikipedia. If someone updates another version because they corrected or changed something, it could add a comment to the field like the STC- er... SWC dialogue, lol.

I could go on, see the content, and see the different versions and whats different in them.

If i could get RSS feeds on every piece of content i downloaded, that would be wild, LOL

[Kevin Janik]

I have noted that the REVIT.ini file contains URLs for Publish to Seek as well as to search Seek. I'm actually excited by this, as presumably I could hi-jack these links and direct my users to a company intranet site or similar. All I need to know now is what information is transferred to Seek for the publish tool. I think that allowing Revit users the opportunity to publish their own 'self-proclaimed' good content to an internal quarantine zone would be excellent.

Is the above possible? Also could someone use the capabilities of a free product like the BIMHighway at www.digitalbuildingsolutions.com to create your own intranet type internal "Seek" site?

Just an idea!

Kevin

[Chad Smith]

I made some recommendations directly to the Autodesk Seek Senior Product Manager late last year about a local LAN version, and reflected the general idea here (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=82833) on AUGI.

While I don't expect my generalised ideas to be a final solution, hopefully they sparked some internal conversations about the concept. For a product such as Revit that relies heavily on locally created content is really needs a more informative way to browse it, and I think a simple Seek alternative would be great.

[cliff collins]

All:

This boils down to Intellectual Property Law.

I would suggest that Adesk gets some serious legal advice pronto,
and think about a WU to address shutting down the Seek upload feature
for firms who wish to do so upon legal review.

Also, each firm should get counsel and implement a policy.

Not paranoia--just smart business.

Aaron Rumple raises a very good point--custom content created by a firm for
a specific project is intellectual property and should be monitored, copyrighted, and protected as such.

( This has a very sinister Napster-like sentiment, I know.................)

Brave new world is correct.

cheers............

[cjneedham]

Also could someone use the capabilities of a free product like the BIMHighway at www.digitalbuildingsolutions.com to create your own intranet type internal "Seek" site?

Last time I looked at this product, it appeared to require the creation of multiple thumbnails of each component. I think this makes things more complex than they should be. Presumably with the new Family API, perhaps it's possible to display a live preview of an item, rather than only still images.





The original specification did not include an "Off Switch", and thus delivering it would constitute new functionality, which we can't deliver outside of our formal release cycle. Had we seen this feedback in the beta timeframe perhaps we could have made the changes.

Cheers,
Kyle B

Kyle, Can I vote multiple times for the internal Seek idea? Corporate organisations and even Local User Groups could benefit greatly from this.

Noting your comments about not being able to turn off Seek outside of your formal release cycle - does that refer only to major releases, or could a web update address this?

[Marek Brandstatter]

Last time I looked at this product, it appeared to require the creation of multiple thumbnails of each component. I think this makes things more complex than they should be. Presumably with the new Family API, perhaps it's possible to display a live preview of an item, rather than only still images.

The main limitation is that Revit API functions can only be run from INSIDE Revit - which precludes web apps or standalone desktop apps such as ours. 3D DWF is an option but of course that's not a "live preview" of the RFA file. IMO a DWF preview is good enough (for now) as its unlikely that an RFA will be changing constantly. However even with a live RFA preview, most building products would benefit from having multiple images, photographs and files (rfa, pdf, jpg, doc, etc) to fully represent or describe themselves.

[Jason Grant]

There has been a lot of great discussion on this. There are (2) ways that I see online content being used. These relate to the size of the company and the type of work that is being done.

For a small firm 20 or less users doing residential or commercial (maybe retail) online content is great. Usually you have 1 or 2 users in the file and the project is not too large so that the inefficiencies of online content does not affect their project. It allows people who do not have time to create content to easily get some.

For the medium to large firms, if the content is not managed effectively you get the garbage in garbage out effect. The file begins to be unusable or unmanageable. You don't even know where to begin fixing it. Therefore, blocking Seek, Revit City, Turbosquid and any other is imperative to the survival of projects.

I have seen both these senerios play out first hand. I looked for any free content availible for 3 years at a 3 person residential/commercial/retail firm the more I could find the better. Now being the manager of Revit at a 180 person Lab and Hospital firm I look for every oprotunity to control the families. Not because I do not trust the users but because even if I wrote a 100 page book on correct procedures for family creation, there would still be something that would have been left out and would cause frustration with the other users on a team. Not using parameters correctly, not hosting correctly, not viewing correctly... the list is forever long. These things can really slow down the productivity of a team. 99% of the time, something from the web is never going to work exactly how you need it.

I had actually did some user feedback with someone coming to my office to discuss this new seek and publish ability. I had said that our firm would never publish and would probably block it if possible from the firewall level. I told her that the absolute best senerio for our company would be that we could change the path that seek is using and self browse or self publish to our own servers.

[Jshaver]

If this hasn't already been mentioned...

This function can be disabled through the Revit.ini

[ContentSearch]
Site=http://seek.autodesk.com
PublishURL=http://revitseekstore.autodesk.com
[ContentInstalled]

Just change or remove the address.
Users will be prompted with a connection warning.

[cliff collins]

If it is true that all you have to do is edit the .ini file, couldn't we have saved
about 4 pages of thread and a lot of meaningless rambling?

Although, I suppose this disables all functionality--including downloading content.
Is there no way to disable just upload, perhaps in the API?

FWIW-- When it comes to proprietary/intellectual property,
I still think it very wise to consult legal counsel on whatever policy you decide on,
then implement it.

cheers......................

[Jshaver]

"Although, I suppose this disables all functionality--including downloading content.
Is there no way to disable just upload, perhaps in the API?"

Luckily it doesn't. If you remove ONLY the publish address the search and download functions remain. Personally I would disable both to discourage users from downloading families that do not comply with your company's specific standards and family creation procedures.

It should be noted that they are both just web addresses, even if both are disabled in the Revit.ini you can still access the sites from a browser.

[twiceroadsfool]

I wonder if we can replace those addresses with Local Network addresses then, to make it search local drives for content. Probably not, or we wouldnt have discussed the possibility two pages back.

As for legal counsel... It matters, IF the firm owners care. If they flat out dont want us doing something, the legal counsel is irrelevant for them, lol...