Separate forums for supported/unsupported hacks

[maranello]

Well, I have been a member of this forum for a long time now and the only problem I see is the unsupported hacks. Most of the time the coder makes a hack, uploads it, makes a few posts, then he disappears. Not that he disappears from the site, he just disappears from the thread and makes other hacks. Some of the hacks have 40-50 pages long threads, if you search, 95% of the posts are "there is a bug with this" or "this is wrong" or "how do you do this", but no reply from the coder. I even saw one hack where the poster completely ignored it for over 2 years yet he still posts in the site.

Now please before responding->I know that some coders say upfront "unsupported", I have NO problems with that. But some people just say nothing, or they even say it will be supported, but you wait weeks/PM the author of the hack, get no response.

My idea is to have 2 separate forums. 1 forum for supported hacks, 1 forum for unsupported hacks. For the supported hacks, make sure it goes thru admin approval and if the author stops supporting move it to the unsupported section.

I can see 1 problem with this, basically many people will stop using unsupported hacks. This will of course piss off a lot of authors. Maybe then they'll consider being responsible and giving support for their hacks. One thing I don't understand is, if an author doesn't have time to give support for a hack (totally understandable), how can he release 2-3 or more hacks within a week and have time for those? That's completely wrong, it's unfinished business. There are some hacks that have major problems, some even screw up your forum database.

Please read my post carefully before posting. I know that:

1. Authors don't need to give support for hacks, they can say "unsupported" up front.
2. Everyone has a life and things take time.
3. Hacks don't have guarantee, we use it at our own risk

My concern is:

1. Authors who say "supported" but yet they disappear.
2. Authors who doesn't say supported/unsupported, who make 5 posts after posting their hack and leave a thread with 50 pages and disappear.
3. Authors who fall in 1/2 above but they still post other hacks.

I wouldn't make another hack before making sure I have a working version of my other hacks. It just doesn't make sense. It's so frustrating to post to thread, get no reply for a long time, PM the author, no reply, but yet I KNOW that he is in forums because he is posting other hacks! That is complete BS. I understand if vb.org wants those hacks, but PLEASE make a separate forum for them, and make sure they post there. Maybe when 10 people download their hacks in 6 months, they'll understand their mistake and start being more responsible.

Thanks

[peterska2]

Each modification has a checkbox which is set by the author as supported/unsupported and can be found in the top right hand corner or the modification post. While it is impossible to ensure that modification authors use these boxes correctly (ie setting them as unsupported if they are going to be away for a while or otherwise), they are provided so that the author can change their modification(s) to supported/unsupported easily.

Providing all the modifications in one forum gives a much easier way to search for something than having modifications spread over a number of forums.

[Paul M]

At some point, I hope we will be able to filter mods by the tickbox settings.

[Regs]

A good suggestion.

Another idea:

Create another 'service agreement' whereby an unsupported hack, or even an abandoned hack, can be picked up by the community of coders to be expanded upon, i.e., the license for the hack becomes a quasi- open-source script. Of course, those picking it up or working on it would need to agree to keeping all credits intact with the noteable exception of 'linkback copyrights'.

A great starting point for something like this would be vBookie. The original author allowed another coder to pick it up but that coder has not updated it since. The new coder is now an offical vB programmer so that's even better - The vB team giving a piece of code to the community to improve upon :D

Cheers and happy new year!

~Regs.

[maranello]

Each modification has a checkbox which is set by the author as supported/unsupported and can be found in the top right hand corner or the modification post. While it is impossible to ensure that modification authors use these boxes correctly (ie setting them as unsupported if they are going to be away for a while or otherwise), they are provided so that the author can change their modification(s) to supported/unsupported easily.

Providing all the modifications in one forum gives a much easier way to search for something than having modifications spread over a number of forums.

so you are saying that there is nothing vb.org staff can do about my concerns? For the love of god, just look at all the 3.6 hack threads, the authors barely post in the threads. They make a hack, and they just suddenly disappear when it's time to fix the bugs.

At least force authors to check supported or unsupported box and please do make an option to sort the hacks with respect to supported/unsupported criteria. I am spending more time fixing my forums due to hack screw ups and fixing the hacks themselves than anything else and afterall this is a paid service (i know vb.org is free, use at your own risk, so on and on). I really want vb.org staff to be more strict about this.

there is a great example:

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?p=1149082#post1149082

I sent 2 PMs to the author and I sent them on december. "Last seen online: Jan 2007", so he did read my PMs. Yet he didn't even bother to answer me let alone fix the bugs in the hack. AND the hack is supported.

Let's look at the author:

- Without fixing the bugs in the current hacks, Cyb kept releasing more and more and more hacks everyday:

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=133564
https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=132576
https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=131254

These are all released after the hack I m having trouble with. I know authors are not being paid and they don't have to be here 24/7 but at least:

1. Why not answer PMs?
2. Why not answer the threads?
3. Why not give support to the hack that you say you will support?

I'll tell you why they check supported and not do anything, because they know they will loose popularity and nobody will download the hacks if they are unsupported.

The idea of having 2 separate forums is not to organize hacks but to encourage authors to give support for their hacks. When people don't even look at their hacks (in the unsupported forum), they will realize their mistake and maybe change a bit.

[peterska2]

As Paul has already said, we are looking at a way to sort modifications by their tick box settings. This is not something which is available at the moment, but we are looking into it.

Most coders do not reply to PM's for support their modifications. Also, what could be considered as a bug by one person can be actually the way that the modification is written and is designed to act.

[Princeton]

I know how frustrating things could be at times but, there's still no guarantee that you will get support even if we implement your suggestions.

TIPS:
- post your problem in the "vBulletin Discussions" forum ... the forum gets more views than any individual thread
- donate to the coder or donate to another coder to get a fix

[Adrian Schneider]

Hacks should be categorized by their function. The other things like whether or not it is supported are just minor attributes that should be filterable. Maybe last post by author would be a good (new) field to index in the database that will also be filterable.

[nitro]

A good suggestion.

Another idea:

Create another 'service agreement' whereby an unsupported hack, or even an abandoned hack, can be picked up by the community of coders to be expanded upon, i.e., the license for the hack becomes a quasi- open-source script. Of course, those picking it up or working on it would need to agree to keeping all credits intact with the noteable exception of 'linkback copyrights'.

A great starting point for something like this would be vBookie. The original author allowed another coder to pick it up but that coder has not updated it since. The new coder is now an offical vB programmer so that's even better - The vB team giving a piece of code to the community to improve upon :D

Cheers and happy new year!

~Regs.
And to not run off with it 6-12 months down the line and place it on their paid scripts site. If a hack enters communal authoring it remains there.

There should also be an agreement were any gnu/gpl or free source hacks taken away from here by authors who have gained specific permission to pick up a hack the last version prior to such a fork remain available here as they were gpl or free source in the first place and the new authors fork does not take the hack name with it.


At least force authors to check supported or unsupported box and please do make an option to sort the hacks with respect to supported/unsupported criteria. I am spending more time fixing my forums due to hack screw ups and fixing the hacks themselves than anything else and afterall this is a paid service (i know vb.org is free, use at your own risk, so on and on). I really want vb.org staff to be more strict about this.


I have to question exactly what forcing the supported/not supported check box would achieve over and above a concious decision being made at the time of posting, it wont force the support, an author can say supported and then do zip after even if forced to check a box at post time, which as that does happen now the forcing would change nothing at all except perhaps put some authors off checking the supported box at all. Everything thats posted here is on an as is basis, and even when you get to know the better authors who do provide what your after in goods and support, even then times change, people move on. Nothing in life carries a 100% guarantee ever, even if the box says so.

The best bet is assume even if the "supported" box is checked that it will be slow support if it exists at all, then when you get more than your expectations for free you will feel much better than the other way because no matter what becomes enforced it would not change the status quo in what is posted and how the support is provided for them. Raising expectations by such enforcements would simply make it worse in the short and long term.

[Paul M]

We will not force the ticking of any support box, the release and support of modifications here is voluntary. :)

[Shazz]

We will not force the ticking of any support box, the release and support of modifications here is voluntary. :)

Agreed!

v/N

[RS_Jelle]

I don't care alot about those settings. Authors just choose it themself and it's not always correct.

Some mods are great and are supported, but authors don't want to check it, just because they don't guarantee it, just best effort support :)
Other authors check it, but disappear.

So I find separate forums a very drastic solution, even more a bad than a good one.

Just give the mod authors more features, for example a bug tracker and an indication about it in the mod thread (# open bug reports).

[Paul M]

As previously mentioned, some form of bug tracker is on the 2007 to-do list.

[maranello]

lol no wonder nobody likes the idea, people who answered the thread are either admin, moderator, or a coder:) Never democracy or voice of minority in these forums:D Oh well, that's how it is, thats how it was and thats how it will be, its the nature of the internet, power rules;)

[Guest190829]

lol no wonder nobody likes the idea, people who answered the thread are either admin, moderator, or a coder:) Never democracy or voice of minority in these forums:D Oh well, that's how it is, thats how it was and thats how it will be, its the nature of the internet, power rules;)

No one is ignoring your ideas - the coders need to be represented as well. :)

The ability to search based on the certain modification ticks will help users search for the specific criteria they are looking for.

An inline bug tracker will allow to centralize support queries which will ultimately make it easier for coders to continue with support. Right now, it is also very hard for the coders to search through 45+ pages of support/thank you posts....

The staff understands this and we plan to implement some sort of bug tracker to eliminate this problem.

[maranello]

Alright, thank you Danny, I really appreciate everyone's time and effort trying to explain this.:D

[Xoligy]

I agree about the licensing idea. Mods should have a choice of licenses (including a custom one) and have the default as open source, since most mod authors wouldn't mind others continuing their mods.

I will admit, I'm guilty of neglecting support for my modifications, but I've simply been too busy just lately to support them. Not to mention it's very hard to keep track of bugs without a bug tracker.