Suggestion New plugin rule(s)

Discussion in 'Community Feedback and Suggestions' started by Kyllian, May 14, 2017.

  1. Hello,
    I came up with 2 plugin rules to make the spigot page a bit more attractive.

    1. The plugin should be well descriptioned, if not it will be removed/hidden

    2. The plugin should be written in english, or should contain a english language file.
    else it will be removed.

    I came up with this because I see many plugins in french/german/dutch/chinese and it really makes the page look bad, as well as plugin pages that only contain "this is a heal plugin"

    I hope this will get accepted.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. electronicboy

    IRC Staff

    Increases the amount of moderation for no real improvement or reason other than "I want" pedantic-ness.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. If needed I'll report all of those plugins. Atleast the new ones.
  4. I don't think its the finding that's the issue mate.

    Its the telling the user what's wrong and then waiting for them to reply (if they do) then checking once again just to see if they fixed what was wrong.

    Think of how many free plugins there actually are...
  5. Hmm, then removing is a option + sending a message (maybe automated).
  6. md_5

    Administrator Developer

    This is already a rule.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Oh, missed that I guess. And the first one? that's a must have.
  8. But 9 out of 10 are still being uploaded in German, do have a German description with German reviews and questions whilst this rule should being enforced..:
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. electronicboy

    IRC Staff

    Staff would still have to run around and handle each and every single report, especially when plugins are reported several dozen times.

    Also, as with ^; but the simple problem is that sometimes a single line description is all a plugin needs to describe what it does, I'd much rather see developers pumping out releases of quality plugins than worrying that their resource description might not be "on par" with what somebody expects. What would you define as "suitable", how would you handle plugins where with what the resource does, really doesn't need all too much of a description. as a dev, I generally much prefer writing software that worrying about "does my commit description look pretty enough?! is my documentation going to look pretty to everyone?!?!!!"
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Alright, instead of well descriptioned we could do: 200 characters minimum, and add a check for duplicate characters. (?)
  11. electronicboy

    IRC Staff

    Character limits really don't do anything beyond cause grievance for people, sometimes resources just don't need well laid out documentation of what it is and what it does. Resource submission shouldn't be an essay.
  12. Well in my opinion it should atleast contain commands, how it works, or how to use it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. I don't know if i am doing offtopic or not but.. i posted antibot-ultra as free (always will be free) and it didn't got removed, of course i have contacted @Ittrio before releasing here and told him that i am going to release a new version of antibot-ultra here and said "yes you can" (i only have the email with this). If the resource will get removed, will this be enough proof to re-post it?
    Getting on-topic if i made offtopic: can we bring proof from an author of a plugin if he said that we can post it?
  14. -1 on this suggestion.

    People who actually spend their time making plugins and giving them out for free shouldn't be obligated to write an entire essay on what the plugin does, etc. The description is just to have a little nice paragraph or two about what the plugin does, not the entire commands, permissions, descriptions, wiki, and all that mess. Plus, some plugins actually have videos and most videos cover the commands and all that info.
  15. Gianluca

    Gianluca Retired Resource Staff
    Retired Patron

    This will just create a lot of unneeded work. With the current Premium Resource submissions and immense Resource reports, I cannot see this being added. A beginner developer could make a /heal plugin, for example. You can document everything it does in very minimal characters; they'd then add spam characters (like what happens with reviews), then?
  16. Choco


    Some people have their entire resource description as an image. This would kill a few resources.

    What defines an informative description? That can vary depending on the intention of the resource. Nevertheless, premium resources already have this is a rule as well:
    Really? Because English is superior to all other languages? Not everyone speaks English. Whether you think a language looks bad or not, people are still capable of speaking the language and should be free to use it whenever. For premium resources, this is a bit more limiting and the description should be in English, but that is only to allow the large majority of users on the forums to understand what they're purchasing before wasting their money on something they can't understand.

    We see no reason to moderate the descriptions of free resources because it's just not worth it
  17. Examples of resources that are unclear to understand to a sufficient extent because they have short descriptions?
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Choco


  19. Oh. I thought he was referring to those with minimal instructions (just a commands and permissions list).

    It would be nicer to have a cleaner resource system, less repeated plugins (like ping plugins) and more valuable contributions, at least somewhat well documented ones. Of course, adding all resources including free ones to the moderation queue may be excessive.
  20. Legoman99573


    -1 Not writing a school essay on what it does. Some can be well explained in under 100 characters.