Download count being an implicit ranking system

[fabi]

A different idea:

A second addon server with restricted write access.

Only "recommended" addons would make their way there.
The client defaults to load from there with the "development" server
selectable if wanted.

[Dunno]

That's a nice idea

[Unnheulu]

I like fabi's idea.
Also for reviews, couldn't you just use forum username/passwords for the review like the server does?

[Dugi]

Also for reviews, couldn't you just use forum username/passwords for the review like the server does?

You don't have to use the server username or password on the add-on server or wiki. I was originally registered on the forums as dugi and Dugi as login didn't work, but I wrote Dugi to the space for author when uploading add-ons. Also, you may have different passwords for different add-ons, and an add-on can have more authors on the list.

[H-Hour]

A second addon server with restricted write access.

I'm not in favor of this idea. Creating a soft wall between approved and unapproved addons will just reinforce the idea that addon authors are competing for approval. Indeed, it would force me to compete for approval just to gain exposure to more users, since the majority would probably never click over to the list of "development" addons.

As an author of addons that cater to a smaller audience (MP campaigns), I don't mind that I get fewer downloads than others. But I would mind if most of the users who might actually be looking for my addon don't even get a chance to see it.

[Crendgrim]

You don't have to use the server username or password on the add-on server or wiki. I was originally registered on the forums as dugi and Dugi as login didn't work, but I wrote Dugi to the space for author when uploading add-ons. Also, you may have different passwords for different add-ons, and an add-on can have more authors on the list.

Don't forget that the add-on server is being rewritten at the moment. The way the author system works could be changed now better than ever.

[pyrophorus]

A second addon server with restricted write access.

I'm not in favor of this idea. Creating a soft wall between approved and unapproved addons will just reinforce the idea that addon authors are competing for approval. Indeed, it would force me to compete for approval just to gain exposure to more users, since the majority would probably never click over to the list of "development" addons.

As an author of addons that cater to a smaller audience (MP campaigns), I don't mind that I get fewer downloads than others. But I would mind if most of the users who might actually be looking for my addon don't even get a chance to see it.

I understand your concern, but I don't think it would change anything. This because, when your addon have little downloads, most users will not get a chance to see it already.
The problem with such an idea is the way and conditions approval will be given.
That's why I would suggest instead some simple filtering options on the addons list:

• mature
• playable
• WIP

and more detailed reviews in the forums or wiki (with a direct link in the add-ons list).

Friendly,

[H-Hour]

I understand your concern, but I don't think it would change anything. This because, when your addon have little downloads, most users will not get a chance to see it already.

For addon types with tons of addons I would agree. But there are only 16 MP Campaigns on the 1.10.x addon server. If a player goes looking for one, it's not that hard to check out all of them.

[Dugi]

That's why I would suggest instead some simple filtering options on the addons list:
mature
playable
WIP
and more detailed reviews in the forums or wiki (with a direct link in the add-ons list).

I disagree. First, mature add-ons can be WiPs. Second, WiP can be an abandoned crap with 1 partially working scenario, or a relatively balanced and long campaign with a few final scenarios missing.

The biggest problem is that this strict division will not avoid the competition, just rule out the incomplete campaigns, that can be better than complete campaigns. Some campaigns are pretty good, although let's say that two out of three episodes are written, and much better than many mediocre campaigns (for example After the Storm a year ago). Also, it will not help to separate boring campaigns and meaningless eras (not listing anything, don't want to offend anybody and raise flamewars) from add-ons really worth playing.

There might be some tags (added by somebody else than authors) instead of the download count, and the tags would be things like genre (skirmish, dungeon, large battle, puzzle, RPG, WML-heavy), completition level (stub, WiP, completed, finished), quality (bad (short, boring, not in english), mediocre (no particular problem, but nothing interesting), good (strongly appreciated by players)),... Tags might be good as a short version of review.

But I still think that reviews are the best option. Some dedicated group of people writes reviews, and the server shows them bellow the author's description.

[fabi]

...
Add-on authors should not be in competition.

Well, playing Wesnoth costs some resources.
Again, the most valuable is the time of the user,
since lifetime is a resource that can't be renewed.

Thus players and playtesters are a limited resource in the consequence.
Since we do not have much beside user feedback to motivate us add-on authors are in competition.

Okay, so add-on authors should not be in competition, beside the fact that they certainly are.
May I ask why they should not be in competition?

[Insinuator]

A second addon server with restricted write access.

Only "recommended" addons would make their way there.
The client defaults to load from there with the "development" server
selectable if wanted.

This doesn't really address the issue. It just creates a three-tier system, instead of the two-tier we have currently (mainline & UMC). Who decides what gets put into the "Recommended" server? What criteria do they use? Those are the same questions we have for the current system.

[Adamant14]

I posted this before, and I post it again.

Please remove all broken and abandoned Add-Ons from the server.

There are at least three (maybe more) 'campaigns' on the server which had never worked, and will never work.
No progress in the last month / years.

For example: Unlikely Alliance-1.10
This Add-On does not work on the 1.10 branch, and I think it never has on 1.10
Seven month ago I posted about this in the related feedback-thread, but the author Creativity has never replied.
The version on the server is still 0.1, so nothing has changed.
The real bad thing is, this "campaign" has 1431 downloads till today!
This means 1431 disappointed players, and that is not fair.

Or The Keep made by DeRaid,
343 people downloaded this not-working 'campaign'.
Or Northwarts made by DeRaid too,
348 downloads.
For what?
Why should such crap pollute the Add-On's server?

[Iris]

A different idea:

A second addon server with restricted write access.

Only "recommended" addons would make their way there.
The client defaults to load from there with the "development" server
selectable if wanted.

I absolutely cannot believe this is actually being proposed here, considering that it both promotes and dignifies some notion of ‘elitism’, and increases maintenance load for the server administrators (at least with campaignd). A community rating system would be far more fair.

[Gambit]

May I ask why they should not be in competition?

It's the same reason there is no persistent stats or leaderboard in multiplayer. Competition fosters hostility. People will take it way too seriously, get obsessed with being in "first place" and start getting angry at each other. It is not healthy for the community.


But you made an excellent point about wasting users' time downloading bad add-ons. There must be a solution that doesn't involve ranking add-ons or creating an undue new burden for both programmers and moderators. I think I have an idea.



What if there was a new pbl field? "forum_thread=". The forum thread could show up as a URL in the add-on description. This would allow users to see if an add-on has no place to leave feedback (probably a bad add-on). If the add-on does have a thread, they can go there to see other user's feedback on the add-on, and leave their own. It would also let them see how actively developed the add-on is.

To prevent abuse and link spam, it would take an integer value of a forum thread ID. So for example:

"forum_thread=38906" could appear as:

"Add-on feedback thread: http://r.wesnoth.org/t38906"

And if it's empty we could display a notice.

"This add-on has no feedback thread."

• It lets users see other players' feedback.
• It lets them leave their own feedback.
• It lets them quickly spot inactive add-ons.
• It lets them spot which add-ons don't have a place for user feedback (those add-ons are probably bad)
• It integrates well with existing software.
• It doesn't create a new number for users to fight over.
• It doesn't create an elitist system where only certain users can review.
• It doesn't create yet another place moderator's have to worry about.
• It shouldn't be as difficult to add as other suggestions in this thread.

edit: I've just been informed that adding clickable links to the game that launch the web browser is pretty difficult and is OS-dependent. It'd be pretty trivial to just display one of the handy forum short-urls though.

[Pentarctagon]

Even if the links aren't clickable, will the text at least be able to be copy/pasted?

Also, would it be difficult to add in another key for different "tags" as was brought up earlier?