OHM and Scenario Uploads - Censorship?

[Vash]

Every time some user uploads a "simple", "stupid", or otherwise lacking scenario, tutorial, or playback, I receive numerous complaints from users. If not by direct e-mail to me, I see the complaints posted on the forums here.

While it's not all too surprising that people don't appreciate just seeing the appearance of something unsatisfying, I'm not really sure what to do about it. Many user complaints I receive are along the lines of "anyone user could do this with the scenario editor in literally 30 seconds. IMO this should be removed since it's just another junk "add-on".

While scenario files created with the built-in scenario editor may be extremely trivial, they are legitimate orbiter files, and thus they have a right to be uploaded on Orbit Hangar. Some people argue that they take up space, but a few bytes for a text file and some supporting text for the database record is hardly a concern. I can only assume that when people complain about "junk" taking up space, they really mean that they don't want to see these "junk" add-ons showing up when they are searching or browsing for other add-ons.

So what should be done about this? I originally created Orbit Hangar Mods so that anyone could freely upload any appropriate Orbiter content. Personally, I don't believe that I have any right to judge an add-on and decide whether it is too "stupid" or "simple" to be published on my site. To do so would be nothing other than censorship of the community. I do my best to remain unbiased in judging what content is appropriate for my site.

Should there really be a simplicity threshold? I'm sure some of you would argue that there should be a stupidity threshold (at least half-jokingly I hope). But in all seriousness, I would like to hear user opinions on this.

If you think an add-on is too simple or too stupid, why not just avoid it? If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. If you don't want to use it, don't download it. As long as it is legitimate orbiter content, why shouldn't it have a right to be on Orbit Hangar Mods? That's my opinion on the matter.

Of course, there are practical limits here. If I wake up tomorrow and someone has uploaded 100 scenario files to my site just to prove a point; I won't be in a good mood. There /is/ a difference between someone uploading a simple scenario and someone spamming scenario files. So far, I have not seen any activity which would constitute actual spamming of the site.

 

[tl8]

One scenario file is fine, it is when there are 3 or 4 in quick succession when they could be done is a single file that annoys me.

However that said, it is your site, your resources. So your initial point about all files having equal rights is quite ok by me.

 

[Notebook]

How difficult would it to be to make a dedicated section for scenarios only? Of course it makes more work for you...

N.

 

[garyw]

One scenario file is fine, it is when there are 3 or 4 in quick succession when they could be done is a single file that annoys me.

However that said, it is your site, your resources. So your initial point about all files having equal rights is quite ok by me.

What he said. I really don't see the point of scenario files unless they are adding something of value, e.g. a tutorial or a challenge.

However, as tl8 pointed out if you are happy with them to be hosted on your server then it's ok by me.

 

[TSPenguin]

People on the forum mostly complain because they are seeing the automatically created thread. Most of those would have never encountered the addon without the RSS. So this is a non-issue IMO.

What is a problem though is that those addons clutter up the search on OH.
Someone searching for a specific (popular) addon has to go through many addons perceived as useless before they find it. I can see how this is frustrating. Yet their own fault for including the "Scenarios/Playbacks" category.
This might be partially avoided by splitting that group into 3 separate categories, Playbacks, Scenario Packs, and Scenarios. Although the gray area is quite impressive here, this would ensure that all overly simplistic scenario addons are in one group.
A good way to sort existing entries into these categories would be to have the users vote on them for a certain period of time and then move them accordingly, leaving only a small number of addons with two little delta in the votes to move manually . This would take 90% of the work of your shoulders, and I am sure the people who are complaining about simplistic addons would be happy to do it.

Happy Orbiting

 

[Dig Gil]

Vash, you could had some kind of rigid parameters that AddOns much follow to be allowed like DanSteph do for his DGIV addons page (the only thing I don't like about that is the picture size standards).
Anyway, those people who just only post scenarios (specially those who post scenario after scenario without any other addon in between) ought send packs of scenarios instead.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think single scenarios are just annoying, though rare exceptions exist. I would prefer scenario packs which come with some documentation stuff to be considered a useful add-on. And the same treatment is not impossible for the good scenarios. Ideally you could also put checklists, flight plans and charts into the scenario packs, so people know what you want from them.

Also I dislike cluttering my scenario folder with many single scenario files. Using folders and description texts for the folders would be way better, another advantage of requiring scenario packs.

Also single scenarios have no license.... this might be a small problem but there are also implications, normally you are not permitted to publish even derived works without a copy-left license.

Maybe having a rule in the terms of use would be best, as well as banning the extension .scn from the upload. This way the biggest annoyance would be gone.

 

[n72.75]

Some of the scenario files that people upload could have had more thought and work put into them.

But I think that as long as the files do not violate the terms and service agreement, then we should let them stay.

Once you start baning addons, forever will it dominate your destiny. . .





-Matt

 

[Hielor]

Some thoughts:
-Give an option to exclude scenario files from search results on OHM. This prevents simple scenarios from cluttering search results when the user was specifically looking for something more complex.
-Disable the OHM RSS feed to OF on simple scenario files. Since as was pointed out, this is where the majority of the annoyance appears, this would solve that problem.

Discrimination? Maybe. Censorship? Nope.

 

[JackJL]

A different approach might be to encourage better quality or less pointless addons. I know this is like trying to push water uphill but a start might be to include a best practice guide when people register for OH

Things like this

Also I dislike cluttering my scenario folder with many single scenario files. Using folders and description texts for the folders would be way better, another advantage of requiring scenario packs.

Or telling people what information addon users like in the description, such as what other addon does this scenario need.

Of course people can ignore this but some will take it to heart

 

[Oceanic]

every user in this thread knows orbiter in and out, i know that because most of you have released addons that i use on a daily basis. and i follow you orbiter/spaceflight discussions in awe. sometimes i need to open 1 or 2 wikipedia pages so i can understand what you are talking about.

but try to remember your first orbiter days, your first selfmade scenarios. i remember mine it was a launch scenario for the mir-2 pre 93 station, i jumped up and started dancing because i did something for orbiter on my own.

most of the single scenarios that are uploaded to O-H are from beginners they have good intentions don't forget that. this is the reason i never participated in a single scenario bash thread.

i check my rss feeds before i come to the forum so i already now that i won't have to check that tread. (there was one exception a DG-IV computer restart on the final approach scenario)

there are some scenarios here in the forum that should be posted on O-H (even without any description), my favorite is Energia+DeltaTug+DG-IV MK-I engines, lowest fuel setting+velcro droptanks+DG-IV inflatable rescue module at Wideawake International ready for a night launch to the Moon
i spent a whole month till i managed to get to the Moon, land at Aurora base and come back the home direct style. man, was i happy.

TLR

long story short:

single scenarios on orbit-hangar YES
single scenarios bash on orbit-forum NO

 

[PhantomCruiser]

:ditto:
The 'Hanger already has a "place" for scenarios, found at the 'Add-On Gallery'. I wander through there from time to time. I agree that scenarios uploaded should be more descriptive, and should definately list required add-ons.
If someone want's to provide (constructive) feedback to someone who uploads a file, that's one thing. But I'll not bash someone for simple content. Good feedback should result in a better constructed upload in the future, and that's what I like most about the forum here, most answers are either concise, or stimulate good discussions.
I can understand where some long-termers here get frustrated by answering the same questions over and over, noobs can really gain a lot of knowledge by judicious use of the search function.

 

[dbeachy1]

I think the real question being asked by members who post complaints is, "What minimum value should an add-on have in order to be posted to OrbiterHanger so it shows up in someone's search"? For example, if an add-on simply has two vessels in it that are already docked together, how many users would really find that valuable enough to warrant downloading it? OTOH, some single scenarios (such as those with a number of ships in different, custom orbits) take a lot of time to set up, especially if the scenario is building a story around multiple vessels. [For example, "Rescue the crew in ship X before the ship crashes!"]

So to sum up, personally I don't see the purpose of posting an uber-simple scenario file on OH, but that being said, it only irks me when we have RSS feed threads being auto-generated for each of them -- it gets messy in a hurry. So ideally it would be nice if there was a way to prevent the RSS threads from being generated for uber-simple add-ons. Maybe have a minimum filesize threshold in order for an RSS feed to be generated for it?

 

[Tex]

So ideally it would be nice if there was a way to prevent the RSS threads from being generated for uber-simple add-ons. Maybe have a minimum filesize threshold in order for an RSS feed to be generated for it?

Implementing that would not be very realistic I'm afraid, at least on an automated level. As others have mentioned there are single scenarios uploaded which are more than just a simple scenario. Those would still have small file sizes, so there is just no way to filter whats good and not on an automated level.

IMO I think the best solution is to offer users a way to exclude scenarios from search results on OH. That would not prevent RSS threads from being posted here, but should we need to remove one of those threads from the forum we can always remove it as necessary.


EDIT - Thread moved to Orbiter Web Forum from Off-Topic.

 

[Bj]

Instead of guessing about why the people making the complaints about small scenarios or similar, why not hear from them ourselves? Either here or anonymously, whatever is fine. Find out 'exactly' what, where and specifically why any thing is 'annoying.'

To me, it looks like most of us feel either that a 'simple ad-don' is little more than just another thread on the form. Then there might be the one or two people that find it really annoying about all those few postings. I am not saying that their opinions don't matter, because they do but instead of beating around the bush, lets get the reasoning behind what is and why it is 'annoying.' Then create some settings or changes that will allow everyone to be happy, instead of making a global change for everyone.

Maybe have a minimum filesize threshold in order for an RSS feed to be generated for it?

Running along with everyone else's ideas; rather than file size, how about blocking anything posted under the 'Scenario' category.

Though until we have heard from the 'various posters,' we will have to keep on guessing.

 

[Arrowstar]

IMO I think the best solution is to offer a way to exclude scenarios from search results on OH. That would not prevent RSS threads from being posted here, but should we need to remove one from the forum we can always remove it as necessary.

Sure, but you don't want to exclude them from the search, you simply want to provide the option to exclude them from any searching. Minor difference, but necessary if anyone is ever going to find one of those scenario files in the future through search.

 

[tblaxland]

I agree that we should not censor scenarios.

Along the lines of what others have been saying, perhaps the existing Scenarios/Playbacks category could have Single Scenario, Scenario Packs, and Playbacks sub-categories added to it. That would allow those who are just interested in Scenario Packs to search just for those. Also, I only count 167 entries in the Scenarios/Playbacks category so re-categorising them should not be a real nightmare, especially since most can be done with little more than a glance at the title/description. I would even be willing to volunteer my services...

Also, I think it would be good to have some way to search everything except the Scenarios/Playbacks category (I would definitely use that). Perhaps a meta-category that automatically contains every other category except Scenarios/Playbacks.

but try to remember your first orbiter days, your first selfmade scenarios. i remember mine it was a launch scenario for the mir-2 pre 93 station, i jumped up and started dancing because i did something for orbiter on my own.

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.

 

[Tex]

Sure, but you don't want to exclude them from the search, you simply want to provide the option to exclude them from any searching. Minor difference, but necessary if anyone is ever going to find one of those scenario files in the future through search.

That's exactly what I said. Offer a way to exclude them from the search. Common sense tells me that it would be my option to exclude them or not.

 

[insanity]

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.

Anyways value is subjective, so let people post away. On that same token, don't worry about people (like me) who can be a bit harsh on simple scenario files.

 

[Tex]

"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.

Nicely worded! It should be added to the Articles:

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