Add-ons listed by number of downloads by default?

[Iris]

I think that the addon order should be randomized, which I consider fair and perhaps is not too complicated to implement.

No, it shouldn’t.

I think you people are overthinking a non-issue and want to increase code complexity for delivering near-nil benefit to both users and content authors.

First we had add-ons ordered by their initial upload order (again, by omission of a sorting method) and that was exploited for manipulating download counts indirectly. Now you want:

• Randomness, which is evil and non-intuitive for a user interface, and will make the add-ons list look entirely different on each run for absolutely no reason at all.
• Sorting by download count by default. If a player can’t read the help page explaining that add-ons can be sorted by different criteria (yes, there has been a help page in trunk for a while) nor can’t think of doing it by themselves, then why should I force them to use this functionality? It should be their choice, not mine.
• A dumb mechanism resembling an automated popularity calculator. This is a can of worms I just don’t want in the add-ons server or client code given the potential difficulty in making sure it covers all possible exploits (e.g. add-on dependencies); and in any case, such a thing can be considered an implicit warranty from the development team, server admins, or community regarding an add-on’s quality.

[Crow_T]

Some variables, complete or in progress, is it a standard, rpg, or an experimental campaign, scenario number eg short, medium, large, "mature" which could be time completed (how old it is) compared to a recent commit rate, but I think having multiple variables, like a user could go by last commit, followed by most downloaded, followed by length, etc. would be good for a user who is just looking for a new campaign to try without a specific one in mind. See any online shoe retailer http://www.shoebacca.com/ for instance, you can filter filtered content. This is getting a bit extreme, but it's a nice method for browsing content. ATM however I basically go by word of mouth, what campaign is active on the forums or raved about? That seems to work out for me. I want to avoid user reviews, which are generally pointless on so many levels.

[doofus-01]

Randomness, which is evil and non-intuitive for a user interface, and will make the add-ons list look entirely different on each run for absolutely no reason at all.

Why would it have to be different every run? Why not scramble it weekly, or something like that?

I'd have thought that default list order didn't matter so much when there are a billion add-ons and you need to use a filter to find anything, but the numbers seem to say otherwise. So, it's not absolutely no reason at all.

[ancestral]

I think we just need to be patient as users and see the new, revised add-on interface.

One thing at a time, right?

[JaMiT]

If your reasoning is correct, then an initial sort by downloads should be little different than an initial sort by age. In theory, at least. Is there something else affecting things?

No. This was my point. It would start at the end, but would ascend higher and higher, until it gets a position it deserves.

How would it ascend higher and higher? What would be attracting the downloads needed to raise its position in the list? One of your motivating premises is that the most downloads go to those add-ons at the top of the list.

I think we just need to be patient as users and see the new, revised add-on interface.

Works for me. For one thing, once the initial sort is by something obvious like name, more people might realize that it is not a sort by some measure of quality.

(For what it's worth: I never use the default ordering of add-ons. After opening the list of add-ons, I usually click "Name" then "Type" to get a sort that I find usable. So for me personally, a sort by downloads would be no different than a sort by upload date, while an initial sort by name saves a click.)

[Iris]

Why would it have to be different every run? Why not scramble it weekly, or something like that?

That would have to be done server-side then (and I’m obviously not going to mess with campaignd), or the client would have to store additional state information and remember what the server’s list looks like every time. But I haven’t read a valid reasoning for list randomization yet, and weekly/monthly/periodically is only slightly less bad than “on every run” and just as pointless.

EDIT: @Crow_T: looks like your last post here is what I asked you to post in a separate topic?

[Dugi]

Some variables, complete or in progress, is it a standard, rpg, or an experimental campaign, scenario number eg short, medium, large...

The search searches also through the descriptions, so I might not be necessary. And properties like rpg, experimental, length are usually important keywords in the descriptions. Maybe a rule about this should be issued.

How would it ascend higher and higher? What would be attracting the downloads needed to raise its position in the list? One of your motivating premises is that the most downloads go to those add-ons at the top of the list.

The more downloaded ones would get more downloads, obviously, but they are getting more downloads anyway, and would be getting more even if the add-ons were listed in alphabetical order.
But there are other things that make people download them, like suggestions from friends, description, etc. With 4 scenarios long campaigns, it is usually obvious that the author is lacking creativity and we will not have much fun advancing units. With rpg campaigns, we can usually expect that we will not enjoy too much strategy, but it may be a nice change. With campaigns using different eras, we can expect a lack of proper animations. Neither of those is a rule of thumb, but it can be expected.
This should allow the add-ons to ascend higher, if their descriptions described them as better and if people suggested them to their friends more. One by one maybe, but they would not remain somewhere deep on the list forever.
To specify what I mean:
A few days ago, less than a week, my campaign was on the list sorted by the download count right after default+Khalifate era. Now it overtook also 4 other add-ons, Age of Trials, The Barbaric North, Fate of a Princess and Return to Noelren. All of those were uploaded before mine, so what would be pushing it higher if not its description of suggestions between friends?

Why would it have to be different every run? Why not scramble it weekly, or something like that?

What would be the purpose of this? Alphabetical order is better, both are neutral, but it is obvious that it is not sorted by anything related to quality if it is listen alphabetically, so the player knows immediately that he has to choose a way to list it. Actually, I am not sure if it is possible to list them by age on 1.11 (listing by age is actually the best, if something has more downloads than the average of its time, it is probably good; but this was exploited all the time, and no one doubts that it is not good to be default).

But generally, if Shadowmaster thinks that the player should not be forced to choose a way of listing them, so he should not.

P.S. Speaking about exploits, have you noticed that an add-on (water era) has its name written in green?

[Iris]

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.

P.S. Speaking about exploits, have you noticed that an add-on (water era) has its name written in green?

We have been aware of the possibility of abusing legacy WML text formatting markup in the add-ons list for ages, hence rule #6 here. I hadn’t realized that it was possible to prevent this with a trivial trick until rather recently, so only Wesnoth 1.10.1 and later (not 1.10.0) incorporate the change that renders markup in titles entirely ineffective. Of course trunk also incorporates—actually originated—the change, which is why that add-on appears without any colors on the list in one of the screenshots in my blog post.

As for those specific add-ons, I brought up the issue with the other admins multiple times last year and nobody did anything about it. I don’t feel particularly inclined to purge them myself, and because of the aforementioned UI change it’s not particularly important to do so either.

[Crendgrim]

A few package managers I've seen are doing this in a way that they are presenting some random add-on(s) out of a pool of "approved" ones at the top of the list. I don't know whether this is feasible for Wesnoth, as this would require someone to keep track of good add-ons, but at least I wanted to address the idea.

[pyrophorus]

I too think some kind of 'official label' would be better than download based classifications.
I sometimes thought to create a wiki page featuring the mature add-ons with some comments on their content. But honestly, I refrained because the controversies and frustration which could result. Players and creators have very different views on what is an interesting add-on. Maybe a team could better achieve this endeavour.
Friendly,

[doofus-01]

To answer dugi's and shadowmaster's question (Why random?): Random would put different add-ons at the top of the list. 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 don't feel strongly about this, but I just don't see why "randomized" is met with such scorn. New random order every time you run addon manager would be annoying, but as long as it isn't that often, it seems like the best option to me.

[Pentarctagon]

Why not just put the most recent add-ons at the top of the list instead of the bottom?

[JaMiT]

But I suspect something like "Aaron's Maps" would still get a lot more visibility than "Invasion from the Unkown", for example.

So I should create an add-on called "Zygmurgy"?

I don't feel strongly about this, but I just don't see why "randomized" is met with such scorn.

I don't know why the scorn, but I can think of a reason to not use a random sort. If the sort being used is not obvious, people will make guesses as to what the order is. 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.

I think a better approach is to use a sort that is both obvious and obviously not related to quality (like alphabetical). Even better, it should be a sort that is already available, so there is less overhead to set it up.

[Iris]

I don't feel strongly about this, but I just don't see why "randomized" is met with such scorn.

Because it’s the list of add-ons on the server, not some recommendations/discover/featured add-ons page (which doesn’t exist yet). If I am going to connect to an add-ons server to see the list of add-ons, I want to see the list of add-ons in the most natural order first like any other list unless I decide to change the sorting or filter add-ons out for my specific purposes. 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.

If you people want an additional/complementary facility for recommending add-ons to the user following some dumb algorithm or community recommendations, you’ll just have to write one yourselves, or find someone else to do it for you; but I don’t think the current state of things would allow for an elegant—code and UI-wise—implementation of such a thing until the server is replaced and the GUI2 version of the client UI attains production quality, which is why I won’t be investing any time on it myself.

[ancestral]

I think a randomized list of add-ons is a bad idea. Whenever I look at a list of items I like to know what I'm going to see next (next newest, next cheapest, next best-ranked, next in alphabetical order, etc.) If there's no order that's more frustrating. When there's a large number of items people don't want to necessarily view all of them. If it's organized by most recent, or even alphabetical, at least you can return to the list later where you left off. It's also way easier to find what you may be looking for!

I think this is a classic case of if you can't clearly come up with something better right now, then it's not worth changing.