Modification System.
 

So I got thinking.... Are we allowed to suggest some features for the modification system. Thus far, whomever coded this biased system has only wrote the system for the scripts, code snippets and could be usefull if some features (simple features) nothing that will grudge anyones time or cut into their personal life. Like a checkbox if a PSD/source file is suppied with the graphical set or an option that the source file will not be provided.

Also, because of the nature of graphics and how easy it is to grab anything off the net why not implement some options (dropdown menu) or expand on the author area. Example:

* Original author
* Not the creator but has permission to submit set.
* Found on the net (haven't had permission from the author)
* I'm not going to lie, I stole this pack and sharing it with you.

I have a several suggestions key to the graphics area but would like to hear if these suggestions are welcomed first. Thoughts?

Neither of those should even posted on this site let alone flagged as such.

i could say that half of the icon packs are in one of the two situations...

I was just about to say the same Nexy.

@ Kevin: Of course the final 2 will not be entertained, so therefore within the system that you have to be the author and/or the licensing policy of a graphic set would state that the set is free for distribution. Like nexy stated, there are sets within the database that are breaking copyrighted which I have reported but still remain but that is another thread.

Anyway, My question still stands or my suggestion rather than it being a question as such.

It is always extremely aggravating seeing posts of re-packaged images (usually smilies) that the person does not have permission to repost being left alone. Even more aggravating seeing a staff member take part in the thread.

I like the suggestion of adding a check box for the psd/source files as that'll help answer some questions without having to download the file first.

At last!! someone that feels the same as I have done for the past whatever amount of years. An ounce of fustration could also be chucked in there also. I dunno, Call it blissful ignorance or the lack of knowledge for a well organized image database but something needs to give and/or bring someone in that remotely knows what should be posted legally and effiently.

Take a look at Invisionize, Light years ahead of the image database here yet (don't crucify me here) we have a lot more talented designers but yet the database system is flawed when it comes down to graphic sets.

Yeah, It's common sense at the end of the day to include a source flie check box, It's one of the features I would have implemented from the start.

I assume you are referring to tick boxes in the settings section - like the plugin, template, beta tick boxes ?

Yes. Because there are many applications that use their own source file, it might be a good idea to include the most common source files like PSD, PSP and implement a third box Other source files instead of having a long list of every applications specific source files.

"tick boxes" are usually named "checkboxes" Paul...

Whatever .........

I dont want to be adding a whole bunch of boxes, but dont have a great problem with a few, which are the most important ?

hum, i prefered the "pedantic.."... what, you thought someone would quote it and report it to Jelsoft because you can not stop insulting me ?!

Prefer what you like, I dont care. Keep posting off topic and you will increase your infraction count tho ;)

PSD - Photoshop
PSP - Paint shop pro

and I would suggest for the 3rd box

Other source file or a text box allowing the author to write what source file and for which program. Which would eliminate a long list of check boxes associated to each source file.

Hmm, Maybe just one for "Source Files Included" - the type can always be indicated in the thread. We dont really want multiple boxes for just one piece of information. Perhaps a second box to indicate "Original Author". That might come in handy for mods as well.

Suggestions are always welcome.

That one sounds good to me.

If this is to indicate original author of a ported hack (i.e. hack marked as Re-usable Code), would not the threadid of the original thread instead be better (sort of like thread id when it is an addon for another hack)?

As the author of the original thread could be extracted from the thread and the username can be displayed, with it linking to the original thread.

That would also answer a lot of "did you get permission from the original author?" type questions.

Couple of off topic posts removed, please stick to the subject. Thanks.