News:

SMF 2.1.4 has been released! Take it for a spin! Read more.

Main Menu

Package descriptions.

Started by ynneb, June 26, 2005, 06:03:43 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ynneb

I would  like to be able to see packages sorted out with a few more categories.

At the moment there is little comment about how well a package will work with different versions of SM. Installing a package that doesn't work with the current SM version can be a real pain if it disrupts your a forum from working until you restore it.

I would like to see the packages labeled in such a way that it shows if it has been tested and run in the latest version, and subsequent versions of SM.


Dannii

This software is called SMF, not SM. SM is the company.

packages include information as to which versions they can be installed for. if it installs faultily, that is the mod maker's problem for not specifying which versions it will work in.
"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."

ynneb

Thanks for pointing out I left out the "F".  So glad you enlightened me.
This post was made in "site comments" From I observe, when I browse for a package I come to this site to download them.
I have simply made a suggestion about how it could be set out. Did I make a mistake?
Thanks for your authoritive help.

Dannii

Oh you mean on this site, not when you download them and view them in the manager? Yes that would be useful.
"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."

rudoka

   Unfortunately the SMF community it's not geared towards being "user-friendly". Specially, the people writing the mods. In general.
   The problem is that there are many different persons writing mods, and everyone has his/her own style, his/her own ideas and ways to write. Usually people include this type of information in the package, in some readme file.
    But the centralization of these packages it's indeed a bit overlooked, in my opinion.
    It is absolutely true that the SMF is extremely easy to use, simple and user friendly. But the mods actually ruin all this. Literally.
   Applying mods and maintaining a forum with mods is really a painstaking activity, even with the Package Manager. Just look at the 1.0.4 and 1.05 realease threads on this forum.
   The developers can say what they want about how great is to modify the forum, but the thruth is that the mods are for people who have a lot of time on they actually know how to work through php/html code. Mods are for people who's hobby is to tweak their forum and such.
   Not everyone is such, and not everyone is interested in it. Personally, I just want to start a forum and have it running without me worrying about it (more then necessary). And I actually like working on the SMF code, modifying it, understanding it.
   You can say "but no one complained abou this yet", well because the people who are active on this forum are just a small group of "smf-friends". From 20,000+ members I don't think that there are more then 200 really visiting the forum. Therest are normal people who came out of curiosity, or SMF user having problems with the forums they are administrating.

   I am not saying that there is anything to change in the SMF (the software), just that opinions like of ynneb should be taken seriously.

Rudolf

[Unknown]

Rudoka, you've never used another forum software, have you?

-[Unknown]

[Unknown]

#6
Quote from: ynneb on June 26, 2005, 06:03:43 AM
I would  like to be able to see packages sorted out with a few more categories.

At the moment there is little comment about how well a package will work with different versions of SM. Installing a package that doesn't work with the current SM version can be a real pain if it disrupts your a forum from working until you restore it.

I would like to see the packages labeled in such a way that it shows if it has been tested and run in the latest version, and subsequent versions of SM.



We have no way to know what the author has tested the version with.  Typically, this information will either be missing, or present - and if it is present, it will most usually be "yes".

Authors are not ever going to want to go in and select "untested" for any newer versions.  Wasting space for older versions is bad real estate.  And, if we assume untested for all versions they haven't marked, mod authors will just get mad.

Descriptions, as provided, are also far too long.  While it may be possible to layout a description under the information about the mod, putting it next to it will either mean difficult navigation and ugliness (not ease of use), or descriptions so short they're not useful.  Mods should be titled with useful descriptions anyway.

If you want version information, use the package manager.  There, the forum already knows what version you're using and what versions the mod will be compatible with.  The purpose and aim of the mod site is not to replace that feature.

Quote from: rudoka on June 26, 2005, 01:55:36 PM
   Unfortunately the SMF community it's not geared towards being "user-friendly". Specially, the people writing the mods. In general.

Frankly, I am quickly getting very annoyed by your attitude.  All of your comments regarding the package manager have been unhelpful, and you seem to wish to ignore large flaws in your assertions.

Quote from: rudoka on June 26, 2005, 01:55:36 PM
   The problem is that there are many different persons writing mods, and everyone has his/her own style, his/her own ideas and ways to write. Usually people include this type of information in the package, in some readme file.

How long do you want search pages to be?  I guess everyone gets it wrong too:

http://www.oscommerce.com/community/contributions/category,3
http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=108

Again, short descriptions are debatably a benefit.  Arguing that having things tucked away in "some readme file" makes me think you just want to reduce the amount of documentation mods come with.

QuoteApplying mods and maintaining a forum with mods is really a painstaking activity, even with the Package Manager. Just look at the 1.0.4 and 1.05 realease threads on this forum.

No, look at the topics yourself.  People post when they have problems - but even then, there are tons of posts with people not having problems.  People will have problems when they break things, when they make their own modifications.  The problems you wish to highlight are, yes, many posts in those topics... but look again.  They are from maybe 5 different people, who are causing the problems themselves.  Most people didn't even have trouble with the Spam-me-not mod.

And, you have not yet proposed a solution to conflicting mods.  No one has, not one that works.  So pointing at that and trying to use it to prove your previous and flawed assertions is not getting you anywhere, it's only annoying me and making it so I'm going to IGNORE any suggestions you make in the future, assuming they will be as much a waste of my time as previous.  You're complaining about me ignoring them - I'm doing it because I'm tired of listening to snide comments and assertions that aren't going to fix anything.

QuoteThe developers can say what they want about how great is to modify the forum, but the thruth is that the mods are for people who have a lot of time on they actually know how to work through php/html code. Mods are for people who's hobby is to tweak their forum and such.

There are a lot of people who have installed mods without any such knowledge.  Again, you have probably never even seen osCommerce if you make that assertion - it requires EVERYTHING to be manual.  Most of the mods anyone wants to install DO conflict, and not just a little.  The problems people have had with SMF mods PALE IN COMPARISON.

QuoteYou can say "but no one complained abou this yet", well because the people who are active on this forum are just a small group of "smf-friends". From 20,000+ members I don't think that there are more then 200 really visiting the forum. Therest are normal people who came out of curiosity, or SMF user having problems with the forums they are administrating.

These assumptions are both baseless and wrong

-[Unknown]

JRSofty

If I can make a suggestion about the handling of mods for SMF.

I believe a system simular with how Mozilla handles extensions would be the right direction to look. For example before Mozilla hosts an extension for Firefox the extension must meet certain criteria (all information filled out correctly) and must show that it doesn't interrupt the operation of the software in general. Maybe a similar system for SMF could be the next step for the handling of mods?

My personal thoughts are that sometimes it is difficult to understand what a mod does when there is very little information about the mod in the comments. Maybe it would also be good to have a specific file naming convention so that from a glance the user can say "ah that mod is in version 1.0 and is good for SMF 1.1b3" or something like this.
Rebooting the SMF AI Bot see Project link below for details

http://jrsofty1.stinkbugonline.com
http://www.galahtech.org

SMF Bot Project

Advertisement: