Add-on server improvements

[zookeeper]

I was asked to post some of my ideas about how the add-on server and the add-on browser could be improved to provide more useful information about the add-ons, so here goes:

1. We should add a mandatory contact field to .pbl files that would be stored on the server as a hidden record of some kind, so that the author of an add-on can be contacted by admins/devs. An e-mail address (or forum nick) would probably be recommended to be put here.

2. Ideally, details of any status changes made by an admin/dev to the add-on would automatically be e-mailed to the author (of course, only if the contact info given was an e-mail address), but I don't know if this would be hard to do.

3. Information display

Currently the add-on browser displays the following information:

icon | name | version | author | downloads | size

I'd propose displaying this:

icon | name + ranking | type | version | author | status | size

Ranking would be some admin/dev-decided thing, like a golden star next to the name. A sort of a intuitive and general sign that the add-on has been tested, works, is mostly free of major bugs and is actually good and maintained. It doesn't need to be very specific IMHO, just something to give recognized good content a bit more attention (since there's currently a lot of mediocre content and no way for the player to know which ones are worth trying out).

Type would be one of SP campaign, MP campaign, MP era, MP map pack or whatever else that might be needed. Add-ons would be forced to pick one (maybe support for several?) of the predetermined ones (we could of course rather liberally add new types if someone needs one to be added).

Version numbering would be enforced (either in code or by making the policy crystal clear and removing non-compliant content) so that everything would use the same scheme, whichever it would be.

Status would be one or several of "complete", "incomplete", "buggy", "unknown", "broken" or other similar simple tags. This would probably be a admin/dev-controllable field (so if someone reports major bugs in the add-on, we can just mark it as "buggy" or "broken" until they are fixed). A scenario-wise complete campaign with notable bugs to iron out would be "complete, buggy", new ones would be "unknown" by default and a well working but incomplete campaign would be "incomplete".

Downloads would be removed (they could still be kept track of, it just wouldn't get displayed in the browser). There isn't much benefit in displaying then IMO; it just feeds proportionally more downloads to the ones with more downloads and makes people more pissed off if they lose their precious download count when their add-on gets deleted and they have to reupload it.

...

On the top of the add-on list or below it any symbols and tags (the ranking star(s), the status tags) would be explained, or alternatively they would just be given tooltip explanations. The content type field should also get tooltip clarifications, so people can check what that "MP era" means if they don't know. A more elaborate description of each add-on (like a short campaign description) should be available, probably via a tool-tip (when hovering over the name) or some other means (would need to add an extra description= field to the .pbl files for this, of course).

[torangan]

Some more wishes are listed here http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/NotSoEasyCoding. It's probably usefull to have a key in the .pbl marking an addon as translateable as well.

[ivanovic]

I think it would be nice to have an interface similar to the mockup freim did create some time ago: http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/GUI#Campaig ... oad_Dialog
This way campaigns and eras would be a lot more seperated which makes it easier to really find what you want.

[SkeletonCrew]

I asked it, since I want to work on it in the near future.

I think the author should also be able to give a status indication I think version numbers are too abstract for most people. I don't want to discourage the release early release often part. If the author states the stuff is in alpha stage it's already a sign things might be broken.

I don't want to encourage to upload broken stuff and never fix it, so if it remains inactive too long it still can be marked broken by a dev/admin.

[zookeeper]

I think freim's mock-ups look great too. I don't really have a strong opinion myself on which one would be better, the bigger and fancier overhauls freim has sketched there or just expanding the current way a bit as in my suggestions.

[Temuchin Khan]

I've often thought it would be helpful if the add-on server listed not only the version number but also the date on which the latest version was uploaded.

Just thought I'd mention it.

[Viliam]

IMHO ranking and status depend on each other. Campaign just cannot have a "100%" ranking, and at the same time status "buggy, unfinished", can it? So these two should probably be merged into one value, or at least displayed in one column -- the rating would be displayed only is status is "complete". So the values would be like: "unknown", "broken" (errors almost guaranteed), "buggy" (errors sometimes happen), "under development" (no technical errors, but e.g. incomplete storyline), "complete", "complete and decent", "complete and good", "complete and excellent".

[zookeeper]

I've often thought it would be helpful if the add-on server listed not only the version number but also the date on which the latest version was uploaded.

Very true.

Add to that the marking of add-ons which you already have installed and ones that you have but which have a newer version available (however, this would require further changes since installed add-ons don't have the version information anywhere).

[zookeeper]

IMHO ranking and status depend on each other. Campaign just cannot have a "100%" ranking, and at the same time status "buggy, unfinished", can it?

Somewhat correct, but a campaign can be bug-free and finished while still not being worthy of a "100%" ranking.

But yes, the "rank" and status could certainly be shown in the same column. However, my original idea was simply to provide means for admins/devs to mark something with something that basically just says "we think this is cool".

[Eleazar]

Actually one of the more important things is to report new versions.

There should be a narrow column on the left before the icon.
• It would display a graphic "check-mark" if you have the latest version.
• It would display a "!" if you have an out-of-date version.
• It would display nothing if you haven't downloaded anything.

This should be compatible with any proposed vision of the improvements.

Type would be one of SP campaign, MP campaign, MP era, MP map pack or whatever else that might be needed. Add-ons would be forced to pick one (maybe support for several?) of the predetermined ones (we could of course rather liberally add new types if someone needs one to be added).

I believe "type" makes much more sense as a tab (or some other top-level organization device) as in freim's mock-up.
The player will know which "type" he is looking for. There is no reason to make the player scroll through all the eras and campaigns if he's looking for maps, but wants to sort the maps by another criterion.

4 or 5 types should suffice:

• Campaigns (or 2 types for SP and MP)
  Eras
  Maps
  Other

Even without "Other" 95+% should nicely fit into one of these categories right?

[Darth Fool]

It would be good if there was a listing for versions of wesnoth that it works for, something like a range. Having a minimum required version and an optional maximum version would allow the possibility to select only campaigns that nominally work with the version of wesnoth that you are using. If no maximum version is specified, it would be assumed to work with the current WML specification. Presumably, the maximum would be filled by a content-dev once it has been noticed that a campaign has deprecated WML that no longer works with the latest and greatest WML.

I think a seperate developer ranking would be nice in principle, but who decides that rank? I would really want to have an identified person who is in charge of making final decisions on it, even if they were only coordinating the opinions of a committee. I could see a campaign being complete and bug-free and still having a very low ranking. I think having a number of stars between 0-5 would be good. Too much more detail is useless.

If we moved towards a dev voting system, the number of stars could indicate the number of devs who have completed it and think it is good. N star = at least 2^(N-1) devs think it is good, so 1 star requires 1 dev, 2 stars require 2 devs, 3 stars = 4 devs, 4 stars = 8devs, and 5 stars mean at least 16 devs all thought it was worth voting for.

If MP nicknames are ever allowed to be reserved, then a user ranking could be implemented based on MP nick names and some sort of feed-back at the end of campaign, but that is more difficult and probably a long way off.

[JW]

If the .pbl file is to be changed, I would also like to direct attention this this FR please.

[turin]

Sorting type by tabs would be awesome. (I currently find the campaign server almost unusable because it has a LOT of stuff, and it is completely unsorted , and I am usually only interested in downloading campaigns, not multiplayer maps, etc.)

I'm not sure how useful a "dev voting system" would be, because I'm not sure how many devs actually download and play campaigns, user-made maps, etc.

[torangan]

I think completion and quality are differnt values. An incomplete campaign might show a huge potential in the first scenarios (remember the start of utbs?) or it could be one without much use.
I think for the rating we should have a distinct group like the MP devs, those could also decide which campaigns are worthy of mainline inclusion. It's just a bit more difficult to identify very experienced SP players...

[Eleazar]

But yes, the "rank" and status could certainly be shown in the same column. However, my original idea was simply to provide means for admins/devs to mark something with something that basically just says "we think this is cool".

I think we should go with this original idea until we can implement user ratings. The criterion should be simple, and not too rigorous; something like:

• • It's not lame.
  • It's not broken.
  • We tried it.
  • It gets a star.

I share Turin's impression that a developer ranking would probably have a spotty and uneven selection of votes to draw from. It could also be perceived as elitist. (If we have the infrastructure to compile votes, why not let everyone vote—— would be the thought process)


I really doubt we can find a small group of devs who will want to constantly test everything. A small groups could be responsible to take recommendations from other devs and trusted regulars. In most cases i doubt there would be a disagreement, except with UMC creators. And of course, there's no guarantee that a campaign will keep a star.