[Suggestion] Re: Reason For Graveyarding

[Dismounted]

Originally Posted by Chris-777

Personally I think that the mod graveyard itself is just a terrible idea to begin with.

I'm listening to ideas. Seriously, I am. What do you suggest we do instead of having the GY?

[Shelley_c]

Dismounted I offered up a solution why don't you allow the txt files to be downloaded only if your listening. Not an idea but a solution that will stop people creating threads that they can't uninstall the product. That's a first step.

we know the version of listening here people will offer up their suggestions and then it's forgotten about.

What I'm basically saying, is, instead of going around in circles there's a partial solution right there before your very eyes unless the response by me was overlooked.

And, don't take this personally as a moan but simply a solution to those who can't uninstall the script and/or don't know all the files to delete or code in the templates to remove.

I understand your only a senior moderator and have to go through the powers that be but that isn't my problem. I would say instead of giving people false hope to a means to an end ensure you have permission to make such promises that a solution will be implemented if the suggestions are being entertained.

[Lynne]

I do like the idea of allowing the text file to still be downloaded, Shelley, however there is a problem (or two) with that. First, we need to get everyone to actually write a text file (as I said before, not everyone does), then we need to get them to attach it separately to the modification (instead of, or along with, zipping it up with the product), and then we need to change the code to allow text files to still be downloadable (I'm not involved in the coding here, but I would think that could be done without too much of a problem).

[Shelley_c]

Yeah, I have to agree not everyone does attach the txt file. I'm sure that it would not take 1 minute of the staffs time to extract the txt file from the archive though. And, if by the offchance the uninstall instructions are in the thread then there's no issues members have access to that information and if the uninstall instructions weren't included you did your part and there's no reason for anyone to complain to you and will need to take this up with the author.

I'm not to fussed myself because I document everything (okay I'm BS) though I have a very good memory but others don't and install scripts like they are running out of fashion and before long they don't know what they installed and what to remove when an exploit mail is sent and the panic stations start and the threads about the GY are created.

[Marco van Herwaarden]

Shelley,

Dismounted questioned the remark made by Chris where he states that the GY by itself is a terrible idea. You however choose to react on that with again a repeat of your own points, which doesn't answer the question Dismounted asked Chris (not you) at all.

You only repeat the idea that has been mentioned before that we should leave (some of) the files of a deleted modification. This is never going to happen. If the modification was removed on request of the author, then this is his choice to now have his work available for fowdnload on vB.org anymore. As it is his/her work, we have no other option then to remove it. If a modification is deleted because of vulnerabilites, we already sent out a notification to the users.

If the author of a modification wants to assist also his users with uninstalling his work, then he can post uninstall instructions in the thread.

[Dismounted]

Originally Posted by Shelley_c

Dismounted I offered up a solution why don't you allow the txt files to be downloaded only if your listening. Not an idea but a solution that will stop people creating threads that they can't uninstall the product. That's a first step.

This sounds good in principle - however, not all instructions are in TXT format, and some modifications may have more than one TXT file. I know I personally use "decorative" HTML files. I can think of two possible solutions:

• Allowing the author to "mark" a file as install/uninstall instructions (possibly even files inside archives).
• Mandating that the author paste instructions into a special box.

There are both upsides and downsides to both solutions - and that is what (could) be dabated on by the userbase, and more importantly, the coders themselves.

Also note that, as already mentioned, most modifications are graveyarded because the authors themselves have removed its files - there is nothing we can do (within reason) if this happens.

Originally Posted by Shelley_c

I would say instead of giving people false hope to a means to an end ensure you have permission to make such promises that a solution will be implemented if the suggestions are being entertained.

Look, I push issues up the chain if I think they are important. If certain issues need a bump - I will do that. But as you say yourself, I don't hold all the power to say feature x will be implemented, nor do any other single member of staff.

[Shelley_c]

Originally Posted by Marco van Herwaarden

Shelley,

Dismounted questioned the remark made by Chris where he states that the GY by itself is a terrible idea. You however choose to react on that with again a repeat of your own points, which doesn't answer the question Dismounted asked Chris (not you) at all.

You only repeat the idea that has been mentioned before that we should leave (some of) the files of a deleted modification. This is never going to happen. If the modification was removed on request of the author, then this is his choice to now have his work available for download on vB.org anymore. As it is his/her work, we have no other option then to remove it. If a modification is deleted because of vulnerabilities, we already sent out a notification to the users.

If the author of a modification wants to assist also his users with uninstalling his work, then he can post uninstall instructions in the thread.

I said, Allow the Txt file, not some. You really need to start reading what I write marco and not come up with a conclusion that is way off the mark.

It's really that simple, 1 text file to be downloaded giving users information to access the information to uninstall that exploited modification.

Why would you want a customer to remain using a security risk script? I find that that contradicts what this place is all about. Doesn't take much to help people when they do indeed need that help in the way of some vital information. after all, majority of the users on here aren't experienced users otherwise they wouldn't need to come here for support.

Regardless of that marco, these are the threads I do document.


whenever there is an exploit at vb.com there is an announcement, information made available that will help people in fixing that exploit.

[JacquiiDesigns]

Solution: Get rid of the graveyard! There is absolutely no reason that I can think of to even need a graveyard at vB.org - or rather the graveyard with undownloadable modifications. And like Paul said earlier - "JFYI, excluding security issues, almost all GY mods are either due to author request, or because they no longer have files attached." - Perhaps the threads can remain closed and in the graveyard for obvious purposes: there's a security risk, the author requested the thread closed, etc... BUT the archives & files can remain downloadable. That solves the issue of the vB.org Staff spending a minute and a half extracting the txt file (if there is even a text file to extract), solves the issue of if there isn't a text file to extract, one can still locate the extra files uploaded, and solves a realm of other issues.

The idea here is that if there is an exploit or security risk found - then the vB.org Member who has installed the modification can take the opportunity to remove the offending hack And as it is - only .org members are allowed download priviledges anyway... I see no reason to make archives no longer undownloadable at all.

Jacquii.

[Marco van Herwaarden]

Leaving the files downloadable is not an option as previously posted. The authors own the copyright and if they want to remove it, then this is their right. If we would continue to offer them as downloads we are nothign better then the first warez site.

[JacquiiDesigns]

Meh - That may be true IDK...
But there should be some solution to this issue, as I'm sure not the only person to have voiced such concern. But then again - there are those warez sites that we are most all aware of that will have the archive available for download in abundance - so I suppose I'm making much to do about nothing. Also - warez = free share - vBulletin.org is a free share community - there's something quite ironic about the commonality.

Jacquii.