TheThirdRace

In response to post #34721635. #34724495, #34739595, #34739755 are all replies on the same post. "...scanning left to right with a width of 1400px is a bit much when reading. It's why you'll never find a newspaper with text spanning across each page for the full width..." Sorry, but that's rubbish. Newspapers are designed in sections and subsections, blocks and sub-blocks, etc, but taken as a whole they do span across the entire page. People aren't asking for 1 block to span the whole screen, they're asking for putting more sections/blocks in a given screen. The Nexus is designed the same way as newspaper are, it is divisible by sections and subsections, blocks and sub-blocks, etc., it just doesn't span across all the available space for whatever reason. I'm all for more space between sections, making the site breath and whatnot, but I do have a problem when all that space is used to compress the information in a tight and tiny block on the screen because it displays better on mobile... For example, with the current layout I have 2/3 of my screen unused. All the information is tightly compressed in the remaining 33% of my screen. If you can't see how it's wasted space I guess you will never understand...

In response to post #34710385. #34710630 is also a reply to the same post. You can thank mobile and the plethora of users still using 1024x768 screens. I really don't mind so many users don't have at least 1980x1080, but web designers should make their site auto-adjust to the type of screen it's displayed on. They call it "responsive" if I remember correctly. It's a bit more work on their end, but it would be worth it.

Here are my 2 cents: - The new design is very nice - Be careful when putting emphasis on videos and images, the bigger they are, the lesser you see the actual information. So while it's good to have them, you don't want to drown us in them either. I like the mockup though, the videos and images size seems great, I'm just suggesting not having them bigger otherwise you'll transform into a hipster/marketing site where everything is beautiful but there's no information, thus useless at its core. - It's nice to simplify information like dates, views, likes and such, but some people are interested in the real numbers too. What I suggest is to display the simplified value by default, but a mouse over would display the real value, thus keeping information available if needed without cluttering the UI. - I hope there's room for a "tutorial" / "guide" section. The current section for that is lumped in "ressources", but they are 2 very different things. Tutorials are a bit special because they shouldn't be considered as "downloadable" content like the rest of the mods. Thus, an exception should be made for them so we can endorse them without having to download anything. Furthermore, they should have their own separate section as they're currently drowned amongst the "ressources" mods. Keep up the good work!

First thing first, I want to say how much I appreciate your work on these sites. You're doing an awesome job, keep up the good work. Now, there's something that irks me a bit with how you envision the whole NMM BETA situation. You firmly believe that labelling a software as BETA is warning enough. The truth is, it's not. Any software in BETA phase for more than 6 months is gonna be perceived as a final product. People do understand what BETA means, they're fully aware there might be problems when they first install your software. Then, time goes on and users see things are working pretty good, they have nothing to really complain about and their perception goes from BETA to "Yet Another Lazy GMail BETA tag". I mention GMail here because it became a joke after being in BETA for more than 2 years. GMail was already rock solid after 3 months, yet Google believed that labelling it BETA would relieve them from any responsibilities/expectations... they couldn't be more wrong. People used their product on a daily basis, they still do, because that was the only version available and they became dependent. Any hiccups at that point would obviously stir a commotion. NMM has been in BETA for more than 4 years, if you believe people perceive it as a BETA you're disconnected from reality on that point. You would have to either release it as a "BETA of BETA", an Alpha, an "Experimental version", anything that would tell people "we really mean it this time". Because right now, you cried wolf for 4+ years and people don't believe you anymore. The other problem with perception is your revision number. It's pretty old school, I don't mind it that much, but if a product is below revision 1.0.0 for more than a year while being supported constantly, people expect it to fully work. Again, it's perceived as crying wolf and it's not cutting it anymore after 4+ years. Had you release version 0.5x as 1.0 and release 0.6 as 1.1 BETA, you wouldn't be in that position today. No amount of "clarification" will work at this point. People ARE lazy, they see a new version, they don't even check the release notes anymore. They expect the new version of their "final" product to work just the same as the version they're using. Technically, it's not your fault, you're pretty straight forward about the fact it's a BETA with all the problems it could ensue, but public perception isn't on the same page as you are. That's a battle you can't win unless you put a tremendous amount of efforts to reverse the tide. At this point, the tide is more like a tsunami, good luck if you want to change it... If I were you, I'd just bend to the public opinion in this case. I would simply rename NMM versions so it's clear you have a current branch and a BETA branch. I know you'd love to have version 1.0 to be the new UI and all, but you'll need to realize people don't care if they install version 1.0 or 34.5 at this point. They just want to know what is the current "stable" version and which version is a real BETA. You're overcomplicating things and you're reaping what you sow. Anyway, that's just me playing devils advocate. I love the way this site is running. I think you have a pretty levelled headed team and you're doing great things for the community. Don't take my comment as anything bad, I'm not even remotely angry with the current situation, I didn't even installed NMM in the last 2 years. I just thought it would be a good opportunity to do a wake up call to you guys on something you've let on the back burner for too long now.

You could simply give a flag the user can toggle. Something like the endorse flag, but without any direct action. It would at least give us an indication we think we donated...

In response to post #24638949. #24639859, #24640084, #24640149 are all replies on the same post. Group mentality. 1 person alone can easily stay leveled headed, put 100 of them in a group and they become batshit crazy... I'm just saying that giving mod authors the choice to display a donation button or popup put the spot on them, makes it their responsibility and this in turn will make them accountable in the eyes of the lynching mob, however small it may be. Removing the choice from mod authors also removes their responsibility about it. They're basically untouchable. It doesn't take much for a mod author to just call it quit and bring all his mods down. All it takes is 1 rotten apple in the lot to just piss you off enough... What I suggest is simply to smooth out the transition to a modding world with money involved. People will complain and try to pin that frustration on someone. The Nexus can't afford to turn away mod authors because they're the blood of its business. Without mod author, is there any community? Why put them in a spot that could potentially harm them? As for a 14 years old teenagers that doesn't have an account for donated money, I say it's easy to solve. Either get your parents involved so you can get a hold on those donations, offer an option to give donations to the Nexus in support, offer an option to give donations to a charity chosen by the Nexus (which we know the Dark0ne is pretty transparent about his decisions so it shouldn't be a problem to chose one for him and present it pretty clear for everyone to see it's legit and clean).

My take on it is simple: Keep the mods 100% free but always display the donation option. I think the Nexus policy is spot on, mod authors shouldn't suggest or beg for endorsements, votes or donations. Mods should be free which will promote modding in itself and free exchange between authors. On the other hand, I disagree with the Nexus policy of "opening donations". This will put a stigma on any author that decides to activate donations. Because it's not activated on every mod, users can easily shun the mods that activate the option and this will eventually lead to animosity between people that accept donations and people that think it's unacceptable. You're opening a can of worms going that way... I believe it would be much better to simply display the donation option on each and every mod and make it an integral part of the Nexus. A "Pay what you want, it's 100% free" policy would go a long way in smoothing things out between those that think paying for mods is acceptable and those that think mods should be free. By letting users completely free to give money and removing the choice from the author to receive that money, you put in place a system where the user doesn't "pay" but freely donate and the mod author doesn't "ask" but simply receive the generosity. By making it an integral part of the Nexus, you'd get a much better reaction from both sides. You appeal to generosity while keeping modding free. That's something most people can get behind, the only people that would offend are those that believe they should be paid for their work, but then again the Nexus has never been a good fit for them anyway since mods are free here. But for this to work, you really need to make it an integral part of the Nexus. You need to show people it's not an afterthought, that your stance is "Pay what you want, it's 100% free". Otherwise you're creating yourself the rift between your users. Anyway, that's just my take on it. I hope you reconsider the way you're planning to do this because the modding scene has changed whether you want it or not. Money finally showed up and you now need to decide what you're gonna do about it. Your choices are simple: let things as they are and probably get left behind, adapt but stick to your principles, go money all the way. I cast my vote on the second option: adapt but stick to your principles. Anyone else?

In response to post #17321524. Oh no worries, I wasn't criticizing anyone. I said "most popular" because I assumed Skyrim was the game that generated the most traffic for the Nexus since it has the most files. If it had been World of Tank or anything else I would have assumed the same for that game. Keep up the good work, it's greatly appreciated.

In response to post #17309959. Nice, thank you for the very "specific" answer. I was assuming you would start with the more popular content (Skyrim) but it seems I was wrong... 80k files to go, not that much considering...

I was wondering if there was any ETA concerning this for the back catalogue? The original post said to wait about 2 weeks for the complete back catalogue to be scanned, but it's been almost a month and none of my mods have the green arrow (virus free) icon besides them. I'm just curious to know why it's taking more than twice the time anticipated? Or maybe somehow my mods didn't get scanned for whatever reasons? Keep up the good work!

Hi, On every Nexus site, hovering your mouse over the big Hotfiles image on the front page block the section from changing to the next mod. That way, you have all the time in the world to actually read the description at the right. The problem I have is when I put my mouse over one of the 5 thumbnails below the big Hotfiles image, the section changes to the next mod within 5 seconds. I understand this could be by design, but if I take the time to actually go over the thumbnails with my mouse, it's because I want to display the thumnail information in the big Hotfiles image so I can read the mod description. Having to go back and forth between the thumbnails and the big image to block the Hotfiles section from changing the displayed mod is a waste of time and just plain annoying. Would it be possible to make all the Hotfiles section behave the same. Hovering your mouse over the thumbnails should have the same behaviour as hovering your mouse over the big image, meaning it should stop the Hotfiles section from displaying automatically the next mod on the list. Anyway, keep up the good work, it's really appreciated! Regards, TheThirdRace

Well 99% sure it's like that, I just can't find the page saying it anymore :(

Pretty sure it remembers what files are overwritten with which. For example, mod A, B and C are installed in this order and each have a readme.txt file. You confirmed to overwrite the file each time the NMM ask for it. If you uninstall mod B, NMM knows it's not the current "readme.txt", so it wont uninstall it. But, since mod B isn't installed anymore, it checks its "overwritten archive" to see if this has any influence. Indeed, mod A was overwritten with mod B, so NMM know it needs to change that entry. To that end, it knows mod B was overwritten with mod C, so technically all it needs to do is to change the entries so it says mod A was overwritten by mod C and you're good to go. Then if you uninstall mod C, NMM knows it must removes the "readme.txt" file because it's the current "readme.txt", but it also remembers that file was overwriting mod A. So it will remove "readme.txt" from mod C and extract "readme.txt" from mod A. What you're left with is the "readme.txt" from mod A. That's why NMM is such a wonderful tool and why I hate when people insist you install mods manually...

Hi, A couple days ago I noticed the great functionality of linking your tabs directly in the URL wasn't working anymore. For example, before I could be on the POST tab and hit refresh and get back in the POST tab immediately. Now, the DESC tab is selected instead even if the URL says I should be on tab 4, which is the POST tab. The same is true if I use the URL directly. If I go on the POST tab, copy paste the URL in a new browser window, I now go the the DESC tab instead of the POST tab like it did before. I just wanted to report the issue so it could be fixed eventually. Keep up the amazing work! TheThirdRace ------ Edit: More info on this... If I use the notification window in the top of the site, it works perfectly. This is the URL used in that window: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/35567/?tab=4&navtag=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nexusmods.com%2Fskyrim%2Fajax%2Fcomments%2F%3Fthread_id%3D984631%26mod_id%3D35567 If I go on my mod page and click the POST tab, this is the NOT working URL used: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/35567/?tab=4&=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nexusmods.com%2Fskyrim%2Fajax%2Fcomments%2F%3Fmod_id%3D35567%26page%3D1%26sort%3DDESC%26pid%3D0%26thread_id%3D984631&pUp=1 There seem to lack the "navtag" just after the tab=4 parameter. Adding the "navtag" solved the URL problem for me. ------- More tests done... Only the POST tab is missing the "navtag". The TAGS tab is missing the mod ID 35567 http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods//?tab=6&navtag=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nexusmods.com%2Fskyrim%2Fajax%2Fmodtags%2F%3Fid%3D&pUp=1 It should be http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/35567/?tab=6&navtag=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nexusmods.com%2Fskyrim%2Fajax%2Fmodtags%2F%3Fid%3D&pUp=1

In response to post #10439537. #10444500 is also a reply to the same post. @lifestorock It's funny you used the "convenient" parts of the post without their context. So let's put what you wrote in context... lifestorock: With more context: If you read the first sentence of the paragraph where you took your quote, you can see the whole paragraph is about deleting comments, not the ban feature. The second part of the paragraph indicates mod authors' can't manipulate the post section to make a user look bad or to cover up their bad behavior toward a user. Nothing is about the ban feature, it's all about the post deletions. lifestorock: Let me ask you something. How can you prove the intent of a mod author if that author doesn't post their discriminating behavior and just ban the user outright? There's a big hole in your theory right there. To add to the mix, here's a quote from Dark0ne: So as long as the mod author doesn't offend the user and just ban him instead, there are no consequences for the mod author. The user will be punished with or without reasons and there's no appeal process. Dark0ne explicitely says here the staff don't want to get between the mod author and the user, which means they wash their hands from the blood spilled. For the final nail in the coffin, a couple posters and I have been posting about this for a week now and at no time ever did a moderator or Dark0ne himself contradicted what we interpreted from his original post. They did post about that it shouldn't get out of hands and they have faith in mod authors, but they never ever said our concerns were not founded. Why is that? Why aren't they head over heels trying to debunk our reactions if they aren't true? Simple, they know the system can be abused badly and they decided to wait until the problem rises instead of fixing the whole in the system right away. Granted, they've been very busy lately, but that is no excuse. They didn't have to roll out the tools if they didn't have time to deal with the consequences. As a professional programmer, I never change a system on Christmas eve because I know I don't have time for the problems that could come up. So they should suspend this feature until it cannot fail in a bad way or until they have time to act on those problems. As for personal experience, yesterday I was debating to some guys on someone's else mod page that the author should consider to make his mod NMM compatible. The users derided me (NOT the mod author, the USERS) because they felt it wasn't hard to copy 2 files (which is besides the point). No amount of logic changed their minds and they became rude but with some restraints which didn't warrant a permanent ban. What do you think I wanted to do in the spur of the moment? I looked on how to ban them from my mods. The problem is, I didn't go overboard in my posts and stayed relatively polite, so if any moderator would have checked the situation, they would have conclude we were just in a squabble and stayed out of it. What would happen then? Well, I now tasted the power of this tool, so why not use it? It's there, it's easy and nobody cares except the user. As for the user, getting ban out of the blue for an insignificant squabble will lead him to just stop posting or begin to kiss mod authors' posterior. That won't show immediately in any hard data, but the problem will creep up relatively slowly over the years and stay undetected. The morale of this story is as long as I mind my manners, I can ban whoever I want for whatever reasons at the blink of an eye without anyone doing anything about it. And I don't think it's right...

In response to post #10331716. #10352651, #10370336, #10374896, #10381170, #10388943, #10393106, #10402784, #10407275, #10407912 are all replies on the same post. @jim_uk Sorry, but yes you are missing the point. You still prove it by repeating your misconception over and over. I said SOME (not all) authors. So stop thinking I (and the others) say that every authors are evil egomaniacs. They're not. You aren't a professional programmer (or at least I hope so because that's basic 101) so let me tell you about one of the very first law we learn: Murphy's law. Murphy's law says: You can also supplement this with: What you should now see is that no matter how good are your intentions, if you let a door open for the system to fail then it will fail, it's absolute certainty. You can argue however you want, but you can't win against mathematics... Now the real question is: When this will happen, are the consequences acceptable? That is a subjective matter, from the looks of your answers I guess you're thinking it is. By the looks of my answers you can guess I'm thinking it's not. Your approach will be abused for the wrong reasons, mine can't and this isn't subjective.

In response to post #10331716. #10352651, #10370336, #10374896, #10381170, #10388943, #10393106, #10402784 are all replies on the same post. @jim_uk Sure, mod authors aren't human... They never get moody, they never had a bad day, they never ever been rude and they all have exemplar manners... In fact, they're so beyond reproach they've been given free reign over user with appeal process... You're missing the point like Saerileth did. I'm not saying ALL mod authors will do that, I'm saying SOME will. Their reasons can be good or bad, but if the possibility exists for the system to be abused, it will. If you cannot understand what I'm saying then you're blind to most things in life.

In response to post #10331716. #10352651, #10370336, #10374896, #10381170, #10388943 are all replies on the same post. @Saerileth Here's what I had to say about this point a couple post down...

In response to post #10331716. #10352651, #10370336, #10374896 are all replies on the same post. @Saerileth You're missing the point completely. I can't speak for everyone else that said they disagreed, but I think we share the same opinion in the matter. We're not against banning impolite, harassing, misguided and/or devious users. We agree with you 100% that people should mind how they post. With that said, no matter how polite, helpful, constructive, gentle and whatnot a user might be, the mod author can still ban the user with no appeal process. That's the only grippe we have with the new tool. It sets a precedent where the only thing 100% safe to do is to just avoid commenting alltogether. It's never been against people that deserves it, it always have been for the cases where the users don't deserve it.

In response to post #10330114. #10330682, #10331242, #10337418, #10337785, #10338207, #10340385, #10341515, #10346703, #10347280, #10354729 are all replies on the same post. @jim_uk I agree with you, a problematic user should be dealt with swiftly. Where I disagree is that should done by the moderator staff, not the authors to eliminate potential unfair bans. As far as I'm concerned, if an author removes his work from the Nexus just because of 1 user, he's definitely a childish spoiled little ...(something I will refrain from saying out loud). If you quit all your jobs as soon as a customer makes you angry, you've got a problem and should seek professional help. Getting angry against a user is normal, it happens all the time and mostly (99.999%) is the user's fault. All I'm asking is that the ban hammer isn't wielded by the angry emotional guy, but the impartial moderators. I think authors should have the tools to silence the treat immediately and use the existing ones to report the user if necessary.

In response to post #10330114. #10330682, #10331242, #10337418, #10337785, #10338207, #10340385, #10341515 are all replies on the same post. @ jim_uk When you're angry, the best solution is to get a hold of yourself or leave until you're cooled down. Acting out of rage isn't a good strategy. As for the one causing the problem, it will most certainly be the user, but you can't deny it can be the author. I agree the problematic users should be dealt with, but so should the authors. The problem is the authors won't be as Dark0ne said there will be no appeal. It's been proven in a lot of psychological studies that giving more power to one group and make them believe they are "right" and the other group is "wrong" will inevitably lead to a widespread abuse of power, it's human nature. So you can argue how you want about the "good" nature of the banning tool, but overall it's gonna be misused just as much if not more because it's human nature. And I'm not preaching for users here, both users and mod authors are the same, they're all humans.

In response to post #10330114. #10330682 is also a reply to the same post. Don't worry, we all realize it won't be all mod authors doing this, we know it will be only a very few rotten apples. What we're debating about the process is the blank check written. On one side you allow mod authors to ban users and on the other Dark0ne says there will be no intervention, no appeal. I'd be fine with mod authors banning users (even if it's only for their mods) if there were an appeal process, but there is none. The problem with an appeal process is you won't reduce your workload. So it's not realistic to go that way. Thus you put yourselves in a dead-end. I know some authors asked for this feature, but as a professional programmer I know that what is asked and what should be done for users are two completely different things. When a user ask me something, they're often blinded by their own problem, they don't see outside of it, they don't see how to make it work with the whole system. That's what they pay me for, to give them a solution to their problem, not necessarily their solution, but a solution. In this case, authors that asked for this feature were probably about to "kill" some users. I don't think it's wise to give them banning power in this situation because they're too emotional, moderators are (or should be) impartial. That's why I've been trying to explain how simply banning communication would be sufficient. Moderators would still get demands to ban users, but anything else not moderator "worthy" would be done by the mod author. I also think it's better to talk about this right now and not in 3 months because you can't calculate the perception of people and how it will affect them. What you'll see is only the results. You won't see what I didn't post by fear of reprisal no matter how good were my intentions. As for the results you'll see, I think they will be skewed the same way you don't see changes about someone if you spend a lot of time with him/her. Because you're so close, you don't see the changes as they are tiny and irregular, but if you didn't see someone for 10 years, you'll see those changes immediately. What I'm saying is you won't see any difference after 3 months, not because there isn't any, but because you'll be comparing the results to a vague memory of what it was 3 months ago and you'll fill-in the blanks with your experiences from the last 3 months. I'm not an alarmist, I know the Nexus will be there in a year and probably the next decade too. I'm just saying you're laying the foundations to something that has the potential of changing the community as a whole. That potential could be good, but it could be bad too. There are other ways to insure only good outcomes, banning user with no appeal isn't one of them.

In response to post #10324757. #10327504, #10328571, #10329098 are all replies on the same post. What I was saying is more like this: If you really do what Dark0ne said and don't intervene when a mod author bans a user, moderators won't be necessary for those cases as the work will be done by mod authors. Don't get me wrong, I don't think moderators will see their workload vanish. I know you will get your fair share of work elsewhere and the new tools are there to ease the growing number of reports.

In response to post #10304675. #10305749, #10305863, #10305967, #10305983, #10306530, #10307194, #10308370, #10315790, #10317074 are all replies on the same post. @emieri00 Before jumping to conclusions, you must understand the underlying problem. Before the tools introduced this week, every time a mod author wanted something gone from their mod page they had to file a moderation report. This in turn means it required a staff moderator to judge every single complaint. This is unsustainable as the number of reports grows as the Nexus grows. And we all know the Nexus sites have grown almost exponentially these last 2 years... The solution given by Dark0ne and his team was to give mod authors more power. They gave mod authors 2 tools. The first tool allow a mod author to "delete" posts directly without any moderator's intervention. This will free up a lot of time for moderators. The second tool allow a mod author to ban a user from one or all the author's mods without any moderator's intervention. This effectively remove almost any need for moderators... With that said, there is a fatal flaw in both tools. The first tool gives the mod author only a way to react after the fact. You can't delete a post that hasn't been posted yet. It's the "slap on the wrist" option. The second tool gives the mod author a way to abuse a user by banning him completely on a whim. Since no moderators are involved, the potential and extent for abuse is pretty big. It's the "nuclear" option. What I would have liked to see is something to complement the first tool by not going "nuclear" at the first sign of problems. If you give mod authors the power to block communication entirely without banning the user to use the mod, you get a nice middle ground without any side being abused. If the user should be banned for something, there's always the report option. That option always existed and the bans should come from moderators only. Moderators are the only ones "impartial" in this whole process and they've been doing a great job in the last 10+ years. I understand the need to cut the workload for moderators, but I think there are other ways than just give full powers to mod authors and be done with it. For example, I suggested earlier that a user could be banned automatically if blocked from communication from 3 different authors in the last 300 days. I think this would alleviate even further the moderators' workload. There are solution that don't involve a nuclear response. It's not a matter of removing moderators from the equation or getting more of them. It's a question of giving moderators a lesser workload so they can use their time to something else without compromising the good job they did all those years.

In response to post #10304675. #10305749, #10305863, #10305967, #10305983, #10306530, #10307194, #10308370 are all replies on the same post. @ BloodrendX001 As a mod author, if I ever go the extra step of blocking a user from downloading my file, you can be sure that this user will be banned for my life, the life of my children, their children's children and so on... Believing a mod author will care enough to give back access to his file willingly to a banned user is pure fantasy. It can happen, but I'm pretty sure you've got more chance to win the lottery twice in a row. Don't be blind, a ban will stay a ban. I'm all for blocking a user from communicating with the mod author, but I will always be against blocking downloads. I seriously considered asking for a refund for my Premium membership when I learned about this. It's the very first time in over 10 years I see something so totally wrong on this site I considered just parting away with it. That's how wrong I think it is...