Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
User avatar
doofus-01
Art Contributor
Posts: 3844
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 9:27 pm
Location: land of boot-licking, craven prostitutes posing as senators

Re: Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Post by doofus-01 »

ancestral wrote:It's also way easier to find what you may be looking for!
That's what a filter is for!
ancestral wrote:if you can't clearly come up with something better right now, then it's not worth changing.
But I do think random is better! I can't force anyone to change it though.
shadowmaster wrote:Unrequested randomization in contexts other than some “discover new stuff” section or such simply seems to me like a whimsical developer’s toy rather than something that’s intended to help me—the user—in some way.
Well, I don't see it that way, and don't know how widespread that viewpoint is. If it was getting in the player's way somehow ("no filters for you, you must use this random ordering"), that would be different. But I accept that you think it is frivolous, and have no wish to implement such a thing. I won't be filing a feature request. Or even spamming this thread further than I already have.:)
JaMiT wrote: If the order changes for no obvious reason, one of the better explanations would be that the sort is based on some sort of "popularity". When the random sort throws one of the low-quality add-ons to the top of the list, the result could be BfW looking bad.
That is an argument against any non-ranked/rated ordering. What guarantee is there that the AAAAAA-est or newest would be high-quality? Would you delete "Aaron's Maps" from the server if it sucked?
BfW 1.12 supported, but active development only for BfW 1.13/1.14: Bad Moon Rising | Trinity | Archaic Era |
| Abandoned: Tales of the Setting Sun
GitHub link for these projects

Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Post by Insinuator »

doofus-01 wrote:
JaMiT wrote: If the order changes for no obvious reason, one of the better explanations would be that the sort is based on some sort of "popularity". When the random sort throws one of the low-quality add-ons to the top of the list, the result could be BfW looking bad.
That is an argument against any non-ranked/rated ordering. What guarantee is there that the AAAAAA-est or newest would be high-quality? Would you delete "Aaron's Maps" from the server if it sucked?
The thing is, people readily recognize an alphabetical listing. They can easily see that alphabetical is the default sorting method and thus don't expect higher quality to be at the top. It's so simple, it's hard to be confused.

If the sorting is random, on the other hand, then people are going to start projecting their own patterns onto the list because it is not readily apparent. And, as JaMiT points out, people will probably guess it's based on popularity. This is misleading and false. It would lead to frustration and annoyance.

User avatar
ancestral
Developer
Posts: 1108
Joined: August 1st, 2006, 5:29 am
Location: Motion City

Re: Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Post by ancestral »

Insinuator wrote:If the sorting is random, on the other hand, then people are going to start projecting their own patterns onto the list because it is not readily apparent. And, as JaMiT points out, people will probably guess it's based on popularity. This is misleading and false. It would lead to frustration and annoyance.
Agreed. People will assume there’s some order to it, unless it specifically says otherwise.
Wesnoth BestiaryPREVIEW IT HERE )
Unit tree and stat browser
CanvasPREVIEW IT HERE )
Exp. map viewer

User avatar
Dugi
Posts: 4944
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 10:29 am
Location: Carpathian Mountains
Contact:

Re: Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Post by Dugi »

doofus-01 wrote:... Alphabetical would be very recognizable to players for what it is, true. But I suspect something like "Aaron's Maps" would still get a lot more visibility than "Invasion from the Unkown", for example. ...
I think I will name my add-on '150 scenarios long campaign' and notice then that only 90 are finished, just to be the first. Before Aaron's maps.
shadowmaster wrote:
dugi wrote:Actually, I am not sure if it is possible to list them by age on 1.11.
It is not, and probably won’t be possible again until the GUI2 counterpart of this dialog attains production quality. It is simply not possible to add more columns to the current production (GUI1) form of the dialog without running out of horizontal display space because of framework limitations. Adding a separate option to the Filter Options dialog to switch between different fallback sorting methods would also over-complicate things for the user, and me.
But this really sucks. One of the best ways to identify a possibly good add-on is to look whether it has more downloads that other add-ons from that time. This, again, discriminates newer add-ons in a certain way.
Anyway, when you click on the header above the names, they get listed alphabetically, when you click on the header above downloads, it lists them by download count, and when you click above the pictures, nothing happens. Can this be used to make some kind of improvised way to get them sorted by age? Otherwise, there is absolutely no way to get informed about its age, and the download count without knowing its age means almost nothing.
Maybe the age could be displayed instead of size on the list.

User avatar
Iris
Site Administrator
Posts: 6614
Joined: November 14th, 2006, 5:54 pm
Location: Chile
Contact:

Re: Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Post by Iris »

dugi wrote:Can this be used to make some kind of improvised way to get them sorted by age?
Potentially.
dugi wrote:Maybe the age could be displayed instead of size on the list.
No, definitely not. I even rearranged the columns to ensure size would have the lowest chance to be truncated due to lack of space. This variable is too important for many people who can’t always afford big downloads, including myself.
Author of the unofficial UtBS sequels Invasion from the Unknown and After the Storm.

User avatar
Dugi
Posts: 4944
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 10:29 am
Location: Carpathian Mountains
Contact:

Re: Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Post by Dugi »

shadowmaster wrote:...

No, definitely not. I even rearranged the columns to ensure size would have the lowest chance to be truncated due to lack of space. This variable is too important for many people who can’t always afford a big download, including myself.
I was unable to afford big downloads for a long time. Like you. But almost all people were rather surprised that I had such problems with downloading, so I suppose there is not many people with those problems. And the size can be viewed in the description that you open any time an add-on appeals to you anyway, and the age cannot.

Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Post by Insinuator »

dugi wrote:And the size can be viewed in the description that you open any time an add-on appeals to you anyway, and the age cannot.
Maybe "age" could be added in the description instead of a sort method. It could be something like:

Original upload date: August 8th, 2011

direfish
Posts: 42
Joined: January 29th, 2012, 5:03 pm

Re: Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Post by direfish »

Sorting by release/update date would be a tremendous boon for us players who like to try new stuff now and then but find it hard to wade through dozens of older addons.
How about just adding addon's release/update date in it's version column?
In the meantime, addon creators could just place this info in description.

Lorbi
Posts: 162
Joined: May 21st, 2007, 6:35 am
Contact:

Re: Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

Post by Lorbi »

Pentarctagon wrote:Why not just put the most recent add-ons at the top of the list instead of the bottom?
Does this not address the problem with the early addons accumulating more downloads?
-- ^ --

Post Reply