Spigot-Dev section?

Discussion in 'Community Feedback and Suggestions' started by gluebaby, May 5, 2017.

  1. I know this has been mentioned before, and been denied because there wouldn't be enough staff to moderate the section for actual decent plugins, but here's my opinion.

    The amount of Skripts, shitty plugins, overused ideas (join message, etc), has grown largely. I think it's fair to say that many server owners and developers find this fact to be, well frankly, annoying.

    To combat this solution, there should be a section of resources called "Spigot-Dev" or something similar. This system can be moderated largely by the community, and at a certain point, (maybe you have over 3 resources with a certain amount of good reviews) you don't have to have your resources approved before submitting into this section. For users who don't meet this threshold, but feel that they have a valid or important resource to upload, can do so and it will be moderated by a resource staff member. Similar to a resource staff, but more based on the community. Maybe members can apply and if they meet certain requirements they can volunteer to help out. I think this section is desperately needed if spigot is to succeed.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. I can see that some ideas are getting very saturated, and half of these might be abandoned. I think if enough effort is put into a plugin there shouldn't be a reason for why it can't be approved, making this a pretty good idea in my opinion. What this might cause is a shitstorm for people that are angry about the fact that their plugin didn't get approved, despite it being really unneeded. I can +1 something like this, but who will be allowed to judge which plugins are accepted or not? Everyone collectively? When you have an accepted resource yourself?
  3. I assume community volunteers with a good rep and some good knowledge of programming. Maybe not up to par with the premium resource staff, but not trash developers either. It would be based on the uniqueness of the plugin, the functionality, and the professionalism. Things like spelling and grammar errors or short/poor descriptions should be fixed before a plugin is accepted to Spigot Dev, and code should be decent (at least not poor quality with errors/memory leaks, etc).
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Devs that put time into plugins like @AMinecraftDev deserve more reputation for others to see his plugins. Not just that, every "good" "quality" dev should be better found. Not to disrespect "smaller" devs but you get the point and that's my opinion, i like the idea, maybe we could get a verified "tick" like twitter etc and have a verified area or just have the usual but with a tick next to devs with x.amount of downloads; let's say 1,000.
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  5. I would say get the average downloads per plugin, the amount of plugins, and average rating per plugin should all be taken into account if you were to automate it.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. yeah sounds like a good nice way
  7. Maybe a different approach:

    The section is automated at first, and then once a week someone does a "sweep" of the section to make sure nothing that doesn't belong there made it in.
  8. Better idea: Fix the sorting of resources, especially when sorting by rating.


    Currently there seems to be no standard for sorting by rating. 4/4.5/5 stars are mixed, not ordered. Number of ratings are not considered into the factor (10k 4.5 stars should be worth more than 10 5 stars, etc).
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Choco


    The way I believe it's sorted is based on its rating score (which would explain the strange ordering). Take for example two resources:

    Resource 1:

    - 5 * 5 Star Rating: (25 points)
    - 1 * 4.5 Star Rating: (4.5 points)
    Total Points: 29.5 points
    Overall Rating: 5 stars
    Resource 2:
    - 4 * 5 Star Rating: (20 points)
    - 7 * 4.5 Star Rating: (31.5 points)
    Total Points: 51.5 points
    Overall Rating: 4.5 stars
    The second resource has less 5 star ratings, more 4.5 star ratings, and has an overall rating of 4.5. Compared to the first resource having more 5 star ratings, less 4.5 star ratings and an overall rating of 5 stars. Sure, resource 1 is obviously better rated than resource 2, but that does not mean it has more ratings and the total points is lower than that of resource two. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the resource rating system is based on points. For every rating, you receive points (i.e. 1 star = 1 point, 2 stars = 2 points, etc.). This way people can't make alternate accounts to give themselves a 5-star rating and still make it to the top of the rating even if it's just a KitPvP plugin. This isn't a fact; I did not program this rating system. It's just a guess and it makes the most logical sense.

    Just because something has 4.5 stars, doesn't mean that it's worse than something with 5 stars :) Some people are poor critics, and others just don't enjoy the project because it doesn't apply to them. Unfortunately, that's just the case. Although it may not work specifically for some people doesn't mean that it's a crappy resource and doesn't deserve to be based on its overall rating.

    TL;DR: Yea, I actually do believe that the amount of ratings are taken into consideration
  10. There's just one problem with this. What if a really nice plugin got a really low rating just because a stupid person decided to report their bug in a one-star rating?
  11. We used to be able to report those reviews and Spigot staff would remove them. Repeat offenders would lose their access to review resources. However, there seems to have been a change of heart on the Spigot staff side of things, because they removed the report button from reviews and no longer honor requests to remove bogus reviews.
  12. Choco


    Not necessarily a change of heart. It was more of a situation of, "This is why we can't have nice things". It was abused to no end. There were up to dozens of review reports on a daily basis simply because the review was indicating that a bug was present, or that it was less than 5 stars. Authors want 5 stars and if it were not, they would report it. There's no point in having something if most people are going to abuse it. Yea, that really sucks for the minority of people that used it responsibly; but again... this is why we cannot have nice things. This topic was, and has been, discussed numerous times on the forums. You can take a Google around "Report Reviews Spigot" and you'll find dozens of threads.

    As for us not honouring requests to remove bogus reviews, that's untrue. I, personally, remove reviews if I find them to be invalid. There are situations where it's a targeted review, or it breaks one of our Spigot Rules (generally harassment). Those will get removed if you report your own resource and state that there is an invalid review
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Yeah I agree, and find it annoying when I search for resources and get all these oversaturated ideas and resources posted just for the sake of a player upping the number of resources they have. Ideas are easier said than done, a community moderated forum section would, one, be very messy. Two, spin out of control. And three, require a lot more work to maintain.

    Yes, it's a good idea but execution of it would require a lot of work.
  14. Thats understandable. I just dont see why the "repeat offenders lose access" could not be applied to both ends. The Xenforo software/addons have fine grained permissions systems for things like that. If someone is a repeat offender of reporting less than 5 star reviews just because they're not 5 stars, then they should lose the privilege to report reviews. Pretty standard accountability, imho.

    Then there is a case of miscommunication and/or inconsistency between the staff. I wish I could link to one of my resources where I could not get someone's 1 star review off my resource because they didnt read the instructions (what they were claiming was untrue), but I've had all my resources removed so I cant link it. The staff member (I forget who) said they dont remove reviews anymore, even if they are clearly bogus reviews. *shrugs*
  15. Choco


    That would be something you could bring up to md_5, because I honestly have no say in this. What we do currently is give a warning at most.

    Yea, it really does depends on who you talk to. Quoted from the rules:
    So we give punishments, but it's all based on who you're talking to because some have a different perspective than others. I'm generally a little more strict on things like that. I understand that resource authors aren't particularly pleased when people leave reviews like the one you mentioned, but I may think it's invalid whereas someone else may not. Pretty inconsistent, yes, but eh...
  16. Since the real problem is the "fart app" plugins, do what Apple did - ban and cull them from the "store". The good ones float back to the top again. At least, I think this is what you're getting at.

    Not sure how feasible it would be, but I'm thinking a "report as useless" link on each resource page, which brings up a little form for stating why a user believes it's a useless plugin. The reports go to a dedicated team (not necessarily the existing mods) who check the reasoning against the plugin listing. If they agree with the report, the plugin is moved into a hidden-by-default category for useless plugins, and the author of the plugin contacted about it (in case they disagree, or the plugin's purpose was misunderstood).

    I know that means manual work... But as I hinted above, it doesn't need to be assigned to existing mods. I'd be happy to take part in such a cull because I'm sick of seeing the "hello world" plugins too (especially the ones with names like "Super New Essentials Pro").