XF: take more control of Resources

[Bionic Rooster]

But there are bad apples who only have their own short-term business interests at heart.

Some think filling their pockets is more important, regardless on how that reflects on the xf community.

I'm talking about a few hundred dollars, not pennies, here.

I understand you are feeling violated by those who took advantage of your willingness to give them you money. It's fair to say anyone would.

And that's why I suggested it would be in the xf staff's interest to ensure third-party development were held to greater account - certainly than when I first joined.

As a consumer if you were unable to ferret out these "bad apples" before you gave them your money, how would you suggest xf staff go about discovering the "bad apples" bad intentions to take advantage of people like yourself?
If you have probable cause I see it as your responsibility to inform others of your bad experience. In the past xf staff have taken action against those who were discovered by members of taking advantage of them and I think that is about all they can do to ensure third-party developers are held accountable. Or is reasonable to ask of xf staff.
The onus is on the consumer and to report any suspected unscrupulous conduct/transactions.

 

[The Sandman]

As a consumer if you were unable to ferret out these "bad apples" before you gave them your money, how would you suggest xf staff go about discovering the "bad apples" bad intentions to take advantage of people like yourself?

First, it's not only "bad apples" who intend to take advantage, it's also good people who release bad code and/or are unwilling or unable to support what they release.

Clearly, the XenForo Team cannot go through all of the add-ons and test them out to make sure they are properly coded.

A better rating system would help - the current system only encourages feedback from add-on users who are either very happy or very unhappy with a product or its coder. A simple system whereby everyone who downloads a product is given a series of checkbox ratings where they can quickly and easily rate the various aspects of installing and using an add-on might help - things such as:

ease of installation and use
performance of intended function
responsiveness to problems
ongoing development
overall satisfaction

Finally, The XF Team could monitor (at least the busier) add-on discussion threads and take notice of those add-ons that seem to be having more than their fair share of issues.

 

[Chris D]

Finally, The XF Team could monitor (at least the busier) add-on discussion threads and take notice of those add-ons that seem to be having more than their fair share of issues.

To what end? What are we supposed to do if we find an add-on that is having issues?

 

[The Sandman]

To what end? What are we supposed to do if we find an add-on that is having issues?

Help them in some way or remove their add-on from this site. Listing resources on XF.com is a great advantage to resource developers but it should come with great responsibility as well.

 

[Arty]

Better rating system would be nice. Something like The Sandman suggested above could work.

With current system only very small minority of customers are providing feedback, I think its mostly because of minimum word limit. From my own experience, before word limit was introduced way more customers provided reviews. Reviews were short, but enough to help other customers. Today because of relatively small amount of reviews, some developers even ask customers to post reviews.

 

[Chris D]

Help them in some way or remove their add-on from this site. Listing resources on XF.com is a great advantage to resource developers but it should come with great responsibility as well.

If a developer requires help, they can seek that help. I don't think it requires us to be proactive in seeking out people who might need help.

Resources get marked as Unmaintained after a period of inactivity.

Users should be using the review system as it stands at the moment to actually review a resource if the support or quality isn't high enough, and of course posting in the resource thread to receive that support.

With all that in mind, users should avoid add-ons that are marked as "Unmaintained" and that are clearly having problems based on recent posts in the resource thread and recent reviews.

We certainly take the point with regards to improved feedback systems. It's even something we've discussed internally but in lieu of that there's more than enough information there for people to make informed decisions before downloading or purchasing resources which their community may come to rely upon.

 

[Mr Lucky]

With current system only very small minority of customers are providing feedback, I think its mostly because of minimum word limit. From my own experience, before word limit was introduced way more customers provided reviews. Reviews were short, but enough to help other customers. Today because of relatively small amount of reviews, some developers even ask customers to post reviews.

This is very true. I start writing a review, then find myself padding it out with guff to make it fir the minimum limit. But then I saw somewhere that is against the rules anyway so I either don;t review or work hard to say the same thing in several ways.

 

[The Sandman]

What are we supposed to do if we find an add-on that is having issues?

TBH, I expected you to say that it's not within the bounds of XF's responsibility to determine which add-ons are having issues. For add-ons not listed on XF.com I'd agree, but for add-ons listed here it's a debatable point.

But what are you supposed to do if you do find an add-on that's having issues? Well... something I should think.

 

[ibrian]

I
As a consumer if you were unable to ferret out these "bad apples" before you gave them your money, how would you suggest xf staff go about discovering the "bad apples" bad intentions to take advantage of people like yourself?
If you have probable cause I see it as your responsibility to inform others of your bad experience. In the past xf staff have taken action against those who were discovered by members of taking advantage of them and I think that is about all they can do to ensure third-party developers are held accountable. Or is reasonable to ask of xf staff.
The onus is on the consumer and to report any suspected unscrupulous conduct/transactions.

In one instance, the developer abandoned a major mod the month after I paid for it - there was no action I could take. In the other, the developer was banned anyway.

I appreciate that there are unlikely to be easy fixes, and that it would be unwelcome to demand too much time fro the xf coding team.

A couple of suggestions:

- All plugins directly downloaded only from the xf site, to allow for greater accountability, and consumer assurance. It could also allow the xf team to notice problematic plugins if they are being called up to deal with specific plugins/developers too often

- xf processes all funds and takes a cut - perhaps 15-20% - ensuring that xf has a financial interest in ow the plugin section is run

- Developers who wish to charge for their mods pay an annual "developers fee" to list paid xf mods on the xf site. The theory being that a basic barrier of money+time will prevent spurious plugins being uploaded, and force developers to think about long-term maintenance if they're made to pay for it. Those who release free plugins only as not charged, and those who do both...somewhere inbetween, perhaps.

Perhaps I'm thinking too much of how Apple run their store, though.

 

[Arty]

A couple of suggestions:

- All plugins directly downloaded only from the xf site, to allow for greater accountability, and consumer assurance. It could also allow the xf team to notice problematic plugins if they are being called up to deal with specific plugins/developers too often

- xf processes all funds and takes a cut - perhaps 15-20% - ensuring that xf has a financial interest in ow the plugin section is run

- Developers who wish to charge for their mods pay an annual "developers fee" to list paid xf mods on the xf site. The theory being that a basic barrier of money+time will prevent spurious plugins being uploaded, and force developers to think about long-term maintenance if they're made to pay for it. Those who release free plugins only as not charged, and those who do both...somewhere inbetween, perhaps.

Perhaps I'm thinking too much of how Apple run their store, though.

Hell no to all of that. As developer, I want to have full control over who purchases my products and I don't want to give cut of my earnings for services that I don't want.

Your ideas won't improve accountability and quality of add-ons. If developer decides to abandon some product, he'll abandon it anyway.

No need to punish all developers because of few bad apples.

 

[wang]

It would be a good thing imo if Xenforo staff can control the add ons and styles being submited in the Resource Manager. If any add on or style, did not adhere to the coding standards, then they are not approved until their developer or designer fixed the issues. Something else that I think it would be a great addition to the Resource Manager, is for Xenforo staff to keep an eye on the articles for sale and the customers too. If someone files a fraudulent charge back with paypal, than access must be revoked for said members to the Resource Manager. And Xenforo can take a cut for each sale for its services.

I know of another major forum software company that does this and things run very smooth over there. No bickering, no nothing of the sort.

 

[sbj]

This is not least because I'm somewhat shocked at how many developers are [...] as much as seeking to personally profit from every little modification they offer.

But too often all I perceive is small tweaks being charged for to exploit the Xenforo community.

This is my biggest problem with paid addons. I think for 2.0, Xenforo should come up with a guideline for resources.

Go and look at codecanyon.net. For how much money what you can get there. Usually the prices are the same as on Xenforo, so between 5-50$.
So far so good.
The problem is, what the addons on XF can do compared to the stuff there. There is a huge gap when it comes to features.

I don't understand, why it is possible to purchase a license for ~20$ for an addon, and then you are asked twice/tripple/... the price of the license, when you want a feature added. 1 freaking feature. I just don't get it, why this behaviour is seen normal.

Look, of course developers should get paid for that. I am not asking for free stuff. But again, compared to the scripts/plugins/addons you can find on other platforms for other platforms, XF addons lack tens of features. It is such a big difference. So usually it feels like a "bait".

Here, when you buy something, you buy always what you see. Never ever trust devs when they say "I noted it down, it is in my wishlist" and wait for that to happen. Usually it never happens, with exceptions of course (Brogan or Bob come to my mind for example).

So XF should come up with a guideline. I don't understand, when a license is bought and it says "1 year support" and when asked, how we can do x, they say it is not possible, must be implemented. And when you ask them to implement it, either you get a quote for xx-xxx$ or they make you wait years with nothing happening. And then they claim they support their addon. But I asked how to do x, and you didn't deliver me that, where is the support again?

For free addons I understand. They could even give you a broken addon, as it is free. But for paid addons there should be more strict guidelines to ensure quality.

 

[wang]

So XF should come up with a guideline. I don't understand, when a license is bought and it says "1 year support" and when asked, how we can do x, they say it is not possible, must be implemented. And when you ask them to implement it, either you get a quote for xx-xxx$ or they make you wait years with nothing happening. And then they claim they support their addon. But I asked how to do x, and you didn't deliver me that, where is the support again?

Can you please give a precise example of this?

From what I could make out of this part is, that you buy an add on and then you ask the developer for something, like how to do x? What does this mean? Are you asking the developer about how to add another option to the add on? If so, then it is natural to pay extra for the extra feature that you want to add. Like you said above, what you see in an add on, is what you get. So if you want the developer extra new things to the add on, then you must pay for their time. Where is the lack of support here?

 

[Chris D]

TBH, I expected you to say that it's not within the bounds of XF's responsibility to determine which add-ons are having issues.

That would be correct. Though it does become fairly obvious when an add-on is having issues. It becomes obvious to us in the same way it would become obvious to everyone else, including prospective users. If an author goes AWOL we mark the resource unmaintained, as I explained in my previous message. With that in mind, there's nothing left for us to do at this point.

I don't understand, why it is possible to purchase a license for ~20$ for an addon, and then you are asked twice/tripple/... the price of the license, when you want a feature added. 1 freaking feature. I just don't get it, why this behaviour is seen normal.

1 freaking feature could take anywhere from 1 hour to 1oo hours to develop (x hours). Developers deserve a reasonable wage for the work they produce. I would argue this is often ridiculously low in this market compared to what you would pay in the real world. I've heard figures of $10-$100 an hour ($y). $100 an hour is probably still on the low side, especially if it is bespoke development which only you benefit from. It gets a bit more complicated if the feature adds value to a product you're selling, but for the sake of simplicity this argument doesn't account for that. What you are paying for is $y * x hours. If the add-on cost you $20 and the developer's wage is $20 an hour and what you want to be implemented will take 3 hours to develop, yeah, triple the price of the add-on sounds reasonable to me.

Here, when you buy something, you buy always what you see.

Exactly...

I don't understand, when a license is bought and it says "1 year support" and when asked, how we can do x, they say it is not possible, must be implemented. And when you ask them to implement it, either you get a quote for xx-xxx$ or they make you wait years with nothing happening. And then they claim they support their addon. But I asked how to do x, and you didn't deliver me that, where is the support again?

You just said it... When you purchase an add-on you should purchase it for what it is today. Support does not equal new features. Support should entitle you to those new features if they are developed, but it shouldn't necessarily guarantee that they will be. Your message is a bit confused though. You've used the term "ask them to implement it" and later "how to do x". The former is development request. The latter is support. If someone asks me how to change X to Y in an add-on as long as it's practical I will answer as that's often reasonable under the definition of support.

 

[The Sandman]

Though it does become fairly obvious when an add-on is having issues. It becomes obvious to us in the same way it would become obvious to everyone else, including prospective users.

Well, I would think it would be more obvious to you than to a casual user what the real issues are. And by allowing the resources to be listed on XF.com you are granting the resource creator great access to XF users. That's why I think that even with the current rules in place and prominent disclaimers posted above the resources that more can be done when it becomes obvious to you that an add-on has issues.

 

[sbj]

Can you please give a precise example of this?

From what I could make out of this part is, that you buy an add on and then you ask the developer for something, like how to do x? What does this mean? Are you asking the developer about how to add another option to the add on? If so, then it is natural to pay extra for the extra feature that you want to add. Like you said above, what you see in an add on, is what you get. So if you want the developer extra new things to the add on, then you must pay for their time. Where is the lack of support here?

I could give precise example, but I won't, cause I don't want to mention any names or products. It is not nice to do this.

Firstly, the resources description is in many cases not detailed enough to know exactly what an addon can do or what not, before you purchase it. Just after you purchased you get to see the whole scope. Not everyone is offering a demo. And even with the best resource description and a demo, as a user mostly you don't understand everything. So often you think things are possible to do when it turns out it isn't possible or the other way around. So you purchase and afterwards you are disappointed with what you got cause when asked for "how to do this", you get a "not possible" in return.

Secondly, I paid already for their time. I paid for the product and for the support. I got 1 year support, and then after 1 year you pay again a renewal cost.That means I pay for their time. So "another option" to the addon is the support I expect. Cause I specificaly asked "how to do x". And expect a solution how to do that, that is support, isn't that? So either he can tell me how to edit templates and the core code, or he just adds that 1 option tickbox. That is support. To give assistance with something.

For example, do you think it is ok to charge 10$ for an addon (with 10 features) and ask 30$ to add 1 feature?
I really don't get this. You are selling me the whole product with tons of codes for 10 bucks, but for 1 feature you ask me 3 times the price I paid for the whole thing.
There is no balance in this, when the price for single features are 200% more than the addon itself. This is baiting. This is a malicious system.

 

[Chris D]

Well, I would think it would be more obvious to you than to a casual user what the real issues are. And by allowing the resources to be listed on XF.com you are granting the resource creator great access to XF users. That's why I think that even with the current rules in place and prominent disclaimers posted above the resources that more can be done when it becomes obvious to you that an add-on has issues.

Why would it be more obvious to us that an add-on is having issues than the user's who are using them? That makes no sense.

We aren't using the add-ons. We aren't seeing errors. We aren't trying to get support from an author who has gone AWOL.

It only becomes obvious to us when we see drama developing in threads, or users report certain issues to us, or we see a pattern with lots of poor reviews for a resource.

The only thing that's not always obvious is when an author goes AWOL. That's why we routinely check for that and we mark resources as Unmaintained when we detect that and then later they are deleted if the situation hasn't changed.

With all these signals, it should be (and we find it is) very obvious to XF users which add-ons to avoid.

 

[Mr Lucky]

Can you please give a precise example of this?

From what I could make out of this part is, that you buy an add on and then you ask the developer for something, like how to do x? What does this mean? Are you asking the developer about how to add another option to the add on?

sbj's post makes perfect sense. What if you pay for an the addon, ask how to do something that is mentioned in the description, only to find you can't do it and are offered a workaround.

 

[Chris D]

So often you think things are possible to do when it turns out it isn't possible or the other way around. So you purchase and afterwards you are disappointed with what you got cause when asked for "how to do this", you get a "not possible" in return.

Don't buy unless you're able to confirm unequivocally that it meets your requirements. You should always at least ask the question before buying. That's just common sense.

Secondly, I paid already for their time.

No, you didn't. You likely paid for a comparatively small portion of their overall time.

You have a very obscure view of what you should be entitled to for what is ultimately a minuscule amount of money.

 

[Chris D]

sbj's post makes perfect sense. What if you pay for an the addon, ask how to do something that is mentioned in the description, only to find you can't do it and are offered a workaround.

If the add-on has been missold, you'd then be entitled to ask for your money back. That's a different matter entirely.

sbj seems to assume that for $20 he has exclusively paid for tens of hours worth of development time, therefore a single additional feature should be added for only a fraction of the price already paid.

That is not realistic. For the most part it is more than reasonable to assume that any feature to be added is likely to cost $y * x hours. How would that not be fair?