OHM and Scenario Uploads - Censorship?

[tblaxland]

At the end of the day, Vash, it's your server space and your choice to organize it they way you see fit. We are all quite thankful for the work you do.

Ditto :tiphat:

Nicely worded! It should be added to the Articles:

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/articles.php

Cheers mate. I think it would need a little more work before it gets to that stage. Maybe a holiday project...

 

[agentgonzo]

Sure I remember, but I never uploaded them. Why? I read a sticky thread we used to have on m6 that was titled along the lines of "Addon Guidelines". That thread contained all sorts of useful information about directory structures, documentation, etc, but the most sage piece of advice went something like this (paraphrasing): "Don't release the first version of your first addon. You may think it is good because of what you have achieved in producing it, but it will not be good enough. Work on it some more, test it, refine it, test it again, review the documentation, and finally, test it again. Then your addon may be ready for uploading and your addons will be more respected. You never get a second chance to make a first impression."

We don't have anything like that on this forum. On reflection, I think OrbiterWiki would be a better place to put such a generic guide on producing addons and we could link to it from the Addon forum. I would love to be able to access that old thread to collate something, but I fear it is gone forever.

It's been ages since I uploaded my first addon to OH, but I remember that there was a 'probation period' or so where your addon wouldn't be put on OH until it was approved my a moderator. I don't know whether this is still in place or not, but if so, then that would be a good place to put the above warning as most people who are new to orbiter don't know their way around the forum and probably haven't heard of the wiki. Most of the offending simple scenarios are posted by new forum members with 3 posts to their name. Putting the warning at the OH registration page or first addon-post stage would show them the message at the correct time and hopefully prevent a lot of the pointless scenarios (maybe put something in saying to warn against the torrent of abuse for posting simple scenarios). That should hopefully cut out on a lot of the dross, but some will still slip through. The torrent of abuse on the forum should take care of the rest (which harsh as it may seem, I actually consider a good thing as it serves as a warning to others who would post pointless scenarios in the future).

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

Oh, and for the record, I don't see removal of addons just because they're **** as censorship. Censorship would be removing addons based solely on their author or subject matter. This is more moderation in the same way that removing spam from forums is moderation rather than censorship.

 

[4throck]

Just some general thoughts:

- Participation should always be encouraged. Look at Google3D warehouse and all the stuff there.

- Simple scenarios or add-ons are important for those who want to learn about Orbiter structure and customization.

- Improvements to OH search might allow to block the clutter more easily and manage the growing amount of content.

- Voting and comments on OH could be encouraged. Comments might be made visible bellow the addon description by default. That might help to spot faulty or problematic addons on general.

 

[martins]

I agree that voting and more comments on OH would provide the best indicators of whether an addon is relevant for a particular user. For example, search results can be sorted by rating, which is a good way to get a quick view of the top addons in a particular category - but since the majority of addons appears to be unrated, it's of limited use.

A good feature for picking top addons is also the 'most wanted files' page. I don't know how easy it would be to do a similar 'highest rated files' page, and maybe also do it for individual categories (e.g. in the browse page).

Also more comments would be a good idea. If possible not just one-liners, but enough to give users an idea what the addon is about.

Maybe we could even accommodate full-blown reviews for important addons. Those may need a separate mechanism from the comments however. That is, they shouldn't be posted out of the blue, but submitted and reviewed (and possibly forwarded to the addon author before posting so he has a chance to respond to criticism). That could be a really cool feature, but it would create additional work for editors and reviewers (and of course it requires volunteers for writing the reviews in the first place).

Edit: On second thought, forwarding a review to the author of the addon for comment is probably not a good idea

 

[Arrowstar]

Voting could be made to work if the voting system was very easy to use. For example, take (please forgive me here ) icanhazcheezburger.com. See the little cheeseburger icons above each image? Mouse over that and it will highlight a rating based on 1 through 5 "stars". Click, and you've voted. No forms, no submit button, all very easy. If OHM used such a system, I suspect that it would be used more. You can still require user authentication before voting is enabled, of course.

 

[Saturn V]

I read a sticky thread we used to have on m6 that was titled along the lines of "Addon Guidelines". That thread contained all sorts of useful information about directory structures, documentation, etc, but the most sage piece of advice went something like this (paraphrasing): "Don't release the first version of your first addon. You may think it is good because of what you have achieved in producing it, but it will not be good enough. Work on it some more, test it, refine it, test it again, review the documentation, and finally, test it again. Then your addon may be ready for uploading and your addons will be more respected. You never get a second chance to make a first impression."

Nicely worded! It should be added to the Articles:

[URL="http://www.orbiter-forum.com/articles.php"]http://www.orbiter-forum.com/articles.php[/URL]

Tex, I'll go you one better...not only should this be "stickied", it should be required reading as part of the forum rules at registration.

There are 3 add ons at OH right now, all posted the same day, one of which (by the author's own admission) is his first attempt at an add on.

All are essentially useless unless you've never seen Orbiter before.

I intend no offense, but OH has always been a repository for add ons, not
a digital land fill.

 

[dansteph]

We had the same ethical problem lately with someone wanting to do a list of the worse addon. The policy in our community is to encourage even the crappiest attempt at making an addon, who know ? the guy might be a great addon author... well ... 10 years later ? :lol:

But the most important is the friendly welcome, and encouragment in anyway, everyone feel he will be cheered for making something and when you have more peoples trying you alway end with some diamond in the list.

In this view I don't think one should refuse the worse addons on O-H (appart the obvious one, 1x screenshot etc.) Providing a "better" search would probably be better.

On the end, the download counter is often the final juge.

In contrary I think one should have the right to refuse or delete the addon that are wrongly packed, mess install or with insufficient description, eg: "my XR-2 scenario" should be returned to author for rework. Respect work both sense.

Best

Dan

 

[Saturn V]

Dan,

I applaud your "diamond in the rough" thinking, and I am assuredly not in favor of censorship.

I AM whole-heartedly in favor of people thinking...even just a little bit...before they act on their impulses.

A 4 year old is rightfully impressed the first time he can poop and clean himself up without any help.

And as much as he might want to share that accomplishment, we are not as likely to be impressed by it because we all already know how to poop.

I don't want to discourage the efforts of people new to development any more than I want to discourage the 4 year old. But in the same vein as I would redirect the child from discussing his latest bathroom adventure at the dinner table, I would encourage new developers to give their "first efforts" considerable thought before sharing them.

Someone who just figured out how to move something from point A to point B with the scenario editor should not be uploading those efforts as an "add on" 3 times in the same day regardless of being a "noob" or not.

I believe that folks joining the community should be made aware up front of the pointlessness of those endeavors.

If they elect to disregard the idea, then we should have the option of disregarding or excluding the chaff from a search at OH.

 

[sunshine135]

IMHO it depends on that little thing we call "common sense".

If you are a newbie creating a scenario, you think the first time you put the DG in Orbit is a major feat, so you decide, rashly, to post the scenario to OH. I see nothing wrong to being respectful and sending a canned note back to the author saying:

Thank you for your submission to Orbit Hangar. We understand that your scenario was a great accomplishment, however, we encourage the development of scenarios that achieve or teach some form of goal to the community as a whole. Please rework your scenario Yada yada.... Welcome to Orbiter!

This way, you aren't being nasty (there is never a right time to be nasty to anyone). You remain encouraging and welcoming, and you help raise the bar for the add-ons.

My two-cents!

Cheers,

 

[Urwumpe]

I think it is not bad to keep a minimum standard on what an add-on is. I don't want to go and say "You made a scenario today? And what did you do for the rest of the morning?", I just want to remind, that making a scenario and being proud of it, is still different to publishing it to the community as complete add-on.

It is no complete add-on.

It is a single file, very often just thrown together in 5 minutes, without even a useful description block inside it. There was not a single piece of work done towards publishing it, it is just from the hard drive to Orbit Hangar with a very short and non-descriptive add-on description text.

You think this is fine?

To stay in the analogy of "A 4 year old is rightfully impressed the first time he can poop and clean himself up without any help." - this kind of achievement is equivalent of pooping in your living room, because the way to the bath room was too long.

Note: I am not against scenarios on OH, I just think that there should be some minimum effort behind it. And when being consequent in this kind of thinking, demanding scenario packs of multiple scenarios with at least a short manual about the scenarios is the ideal solution. You can still show what you did - you are just demanded to pay attention to the people who are meant to use it.

 

[Ark]

I saw we let anyone upload what they want, and every addon faces trial by internet forum. If someone releases a slapped-together scenario, we initiate brutal mocking procedures.

 

[JackJL]

I saw we let anyone upload what they want, and every addon faces trial by internet forum. If someone releases a slapped-together scenario, we initiate brutal mocking procedures.

It's probably too disruptive to implement but what about a badge of quality, which can be awarded to an addon by a quorum on the forum. Don't know how many people that would be or if it would need a moderator/addon dev to OK. Then one could filter the search just to addons with the badge.

This would let anyone post anything and feel good about it, whilst allowing popular/good stuff to complimented. People making their one off scenarios etc. would want a badge so they would try harder (hopefully). If they don't get it they may scream on the forum but we could at least point out why it wasn't good enough, rather than just rejection.

The system would have to be applied to all previous addons, which would be hard to do on the forum.

 

[Saturn V]

People making their one off scenarios etc. would want a badge so they would try harder (hopefully). If they don't get it they may scream on the forum but we could at least point out why it wasn't good enough, rather than just rejection.

As I have pointed out in the past, personally, I don't build add ons because I need a "cookie."

I build the kind of things I want to see in Orbiter. If I'm not satisfied with something I made, I'm sure as Hell not uploading it to OH. But I've got enough sense to police myself.

And to be sure, my first efforts were CRAP. But I was aware of that and that's why none of you ever saw them.

While I was pleased to discover how something worked in Orbiter, I also knew that if I had figured it out after a week of flying the sim, then so had everybody else.

I dissected hundreds of other add ons to understand how they worked, and began customizing my Orbiter installations in ways that I was happy with. Some of those mods resulted in conflicts with other add ons (some serious, some not so) under certain circumstances. Some of the stuff I came up with was actually pretty cool, but I still didn't upload any of it. Not because I wanted to be selfish...I didn't think it fair to unleash something I knew was glitchy on everybody else.

We're all aware of the steep learning curve in Orbiter, and the road to building a respectable add on is steeper still.

I don't think awards or badges are the solution. It would just be adding another element with the potential for abuse (like post counts). Frankly, I don't care to see an even larger glut of useless drivel being uploaded to OH by somebody trying to earn a badge.

If common sense and holding ourselves accountable for the things we say, do, post or upload don't work, then perhaps having the option of excluding the tripe from a search at OH would lead to fewer (or better still, NO) downloads for the "trigger-happy" developer and the point might finally be driven home.

Questions and requests for help with your latest projects are are encouraged and welcome elsewhere on this forum. I still avail myself of the collective knowlege there. What one guy can't answer, someone else will. I've looked at stuff for new developers just as guys like Usonian, Donamy and ACSoft have done for me (and many times, I learn something new while I'm trying to help someone else).

I've always considered Orbiter the "thinking man's" sim. I'd just like to see that thinking extend to the "value" of what they're uploading.

 

[4throck]

How about being able to mark addons that follow standards? Like those "valid CSS / HTML" logos on pages.

Each developer could follow any given standard and let others know of it. Totally voluntary of course, and dependent of an agreement about a standard, but it might work.
I propose something simple like:

- Unchecked
- Self contained, no files overwritten
- Standard v.xxx compliant

Of course, scenarios and assorted stuff like meshes, sound, whatever, would mostly fall into the unchecked category, therefore separating them from the real addons.
I don't think that this would have any negative connotation for a particular addon. For example a repaint might overwrite files and still be completely valid.
Nevertheless I'd like, as a creator, to be able to flag such an addon, and not only stating (please backup original files) on the description.

---------- Post added at 02:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

.... And when being consequent in this kind of thinking, demanding scenario packs of multiple scenarios with at least a short manual about the scenarios is the ideal solution. You can still show what you did - you are just demanded to pay attention to the people who are meant to use it.

Good suggestion.
A description of the background setting to give ambiance, technical aspects including what configurations or addons are needed, and some screenshots for preview. That would sort out the really interesting stuff.

 

[Flightoffancy]

There is a seriously underused rating system for files in the hangar now. Perhaps with the account synchronization with O-F, this will be used more often and users will have no excuse to whine about wasting there time if they pay attention to the user rating.

Perhaps a comment section would help as well. In cases where the author mislabeled or forgot files causing the addon not to work for example. There used to be a review section I believe, but that seems to be missing now.