wrinklyninja

@ Dark0ne: Yes, that is what I am suggesting. As for being encouraged to leave a comment, I am open to that. I'd prefer it if that could be done without a pop-up window, but perhaps an AJAX-y floating box like you've got somewhere else on the site (can't remember for what) would do the job. The floating box would then be dismissed when the user clicks outside of it (IIRC this is possible with JavaScript, could be wrong...). Basically, the idea is to simplify the process as much as possible and prevent user distraction from the page itself. @ Emma: Exactly my point. :) As for the issue of what to do when removing the endorsement threads, perhaps simply locking them (preventing further posting) would be enough? That way they can still be browsed, but they will also stop 'getting in the way' of the comment threads as some others have complained about the new system? Personally, I don't use the forums much if at all, but for those that do I can imagine trying to browse comment threads when endorsement threads are also present is a bit more time-consuming. If the endorsement threads were locked though, then as more comments were made for the mods, the endorsement threads would sink to the back of the forum. EDIT: Only 702 kudos Dark0ne? A shame, have another one. :P

I'll second the opinion that an endorsements thread/topic isn't required and just serves to confuse/clutter things. An endorsement simply tells people if you endorse the mod or not. If you want to say why you think the mod is good, or bad, you leave a comment. Hence there's no point in having endorsement messages. I'm going to ignore the thumbs down option here, as I know it's going to go at some point, but here's my proposed system: The thumbs up icon stays in its current position, and the number of endorsements is displayed as it currently is beside it. They retain their functionality. Below these, there is the "I want to endorse this file." button. Clicking on this simply registers your endorsement, no new window is opened or anything. If you've already endorsed the file, the text reads "I want to remove my endorsement.", and clicking on it removes the endorsement without any new windows opening. Quick and simple, without diverting the user's attention from the current page. If you make a mistake and click the button accidentally, that's OK, because you just have to click the button again, sidestepping the requirement for confirmation dialogs. Endorsing a file increases its counter by one, that is the only change, no new post in a thread or anything. Similarly, removing an endorsement just decreases the counter by one. If someone then wants to make a comment, all the need to do is click the comment tab and select "Add a comment" as normal. Since there have been no pop up windows or disruptions to the 'flow' of the page and the user experience, this is no more of a hassle than previously. Does that sound good or not? EDIT: Since the above is basically a request, I'll add a request that files you have editing access for appear in your comment tracker. Most of the files I manage here are not files for which I am the entry creator or sole author, and while I find the comment tracker is very useful for the three entries I have created, I'd like to have the same for the entries I can edit. Historically there's generally been a slight lag between the 'owned' entries and the 'editing access' entries feature sets and I hope this is simply the case here. So in summary: 1. Please get rid of endorsement messages/threads/posts/topics. 2. Please expand the comment tracker to cover files members have editing access for. Thanks for reading.

Maybe such legal action could be taken against Dark0ne and the Nexus sites, but who would be that big a dick - you? Making any sort of move against Dark0ne and the Nexus sites would be irresponsible as a member of the modding community, as it would probably result in the sites going offline (since site costs are high and income is not extra-ordinary, IIRC) and the loss of tens of thousands of mods not found elsewhere, not to mention the loss of a large hub of the modding communities of several games. I'd imagine that wouldn't go down well with the other 1.9 million other users... In this day and age, you've got to be an idiot to put personally identifiable information up on a site which doesn't explicitly require it. This internet is just as much a terrible place as it is a wonderful one, and pretty much everyone forgets that. Just as other people in life are generally OK, so too are people on the internet, but that's an average of the very good and the very bad, and it's wrong to assume the latter doesn't exist/is in the minority. LHammond's been posting about using separate passwords for every site you use - that's a good idea. I personally have 12 passwords spread roughly across three levels of security, ranging from 6 letter passwords (for sites with no personal info) to 30+ random character passwords for my most precious details. I don't write down these passwords, I have them memorised - my web browser remembers some of them (the most commonly used, like my Nexus one), but my computer is passworded and encrypted with the strongest of my passwords, and I never leave it unattended, so it's not really an issue. I also have about 10 email accounts I use regularly, most independent and used for different things (eg. I have one specifically for modding). Practising such careful computing is a much better solution to such a problem as this than class action lawsuits, seeing as it's a preventative to personal damages in the first place.

My 2p is that the kid should be reported to the police, his ISP and his parents. It's illegal to do what he did, and he is causing damage, so he needs to learn the lesson that such things are wrong and shall not go unpunished. On that note, if you can take any other legal action that will affect him negatively, that should be explored too. Otherwise, we just risk this child prankster turning into an actual threat as he grows older, and that's something that should be avoided. Nip criminality in the bud, I say.

A bug(?) report here, in contrast to the debate: When I edit any of my file's attributes, the drop down menu for Does your file contain assets used from other authors (that you have permission to use) that can't be redistributed without permission? always resets to "Yes", even when I have previously selected "No". Could this be fixed so your setting is remembered like the rest of the drop-down boxes? This also occurs with the checkbox for I would like to specify my own permissions in the "Permission instructions" text box below and not use the drop-down menus, which always resets to unchecked regardless to whether you previously checked it or not.

Like Khettienna, I'd like some further clarification for the usage of resources when contact with the author has proved to be impossible/fruitless. As an example of a mod that is apparently now caught in the grey area, sliding to black, is a mod that I've been heavily involved in: All Natural. It contains some resources from a number of mods, and an excerpt from the readme regarding the usage of these resources is: Now, I can't remember who gave permission and who never replied, but as it says above, contact was not always possible. We took every effort in doing so, however, and we've stated that usage permissions and ownership lie with the creators, but some posts in this thread make it seem like this mod is breaking the rules of Nexus being uploaded here. However, I don't think that we've done any thing wrong, and the general concensus by the userbase is overwhelmingly that it is a fantastic mod, it's in the top 50 mods on TES Nexus even, and nobody has ever challenged the inclusion of the resources that were included from other mods. If the author(s) we couldn't contact suddenly reappeared and demanded that their assets be removed from the mod, I would have course comply with their wishes: I'm a strong proponent from respect towards asset creators and modders, and I would not equivocate on the issue. Of course, I'd feel regret for it, as the assets were included because they were good, and while I could replace them with assets I do have permission for, or create equivalents, it wouldn't be the same, but I'd still do it. Could I please get some clarification on what is and isn't acceptable on the Nexus?

Good idea, but it looks like there's a small bug in the implementation: if I try to select the 'not without my permission options', they then get set to 'not under any circumstances'.

This has probably been brought up before, but what about a new catagory for Oblivion mods: "Nehrim Mods", and new file tags "Requires Nehrim" and a "Nehrim" attribute tag? This would make finding and keeping Nehrim mods organised a lot easier, and I think it's an important distinction to make.

One of my very few posts here, but: This is normal - Natural Weather is heavily bugged, and that's that. You can use Ryu Doppler's fixed version (also on Nexus), or another weather mod. It's one of these things that you just pick up after being in the community a while, or so I would hope, but it seems that despite my best efforts on educating users, heaps of newbies read old mod lists, which portray NE as the best thing since sliced bread (which is was, in its time) and aren't aware of the problems it (the weather section) has. Because they're newbies, they take the first info they get at face value, and don't know how to debug problems with mods (like finding out which mod is the culprit). Just look at the NE comments thread. I realise that I'm a bit biased, but Natural Weather is no longer the cream of the crop, there's 3 other weather mods out there that IMHO do a better job of it. That said, there is a fixed version available, and all it requires for people to stop having problems is for those who have found the solution to pass it on - so if you see someone else noting problems with NW weather, tell them about the fixed version, or recommend another mod. You might also want to check out my Environment Mod List in my sig for more info on your options.

Chrome gave me quite the surprise - I'm glad it's fixed though, and that it's now just an update lag issue.

1. Probably not ever going to happen. Allowing ANYONE to upload an HTML file that can be viewed directly from this site is asking for hackers to abuse the system and trash your computer...all from the safety of a trusted site like the Nexus. 2. Those options are there so you can identify who to ignore. The ONLY way to avoid drive-by-idiots is to do like AlienSlof does and disable ratings and comments. I don't have a problem with drive-by-idiots...I tend to educate them since the vast majority are new members that probably haven't downloaded 5 mods yet or have ever seen the Oblivion Mods FAQ or similar nuggets of information. I value the comments left by those that explain what they liked and disliked and I also realize that when I look at other mods I might like, the thumbs down votes that say "this mod does not work" when plenty of others say the mod is functional lets me know all I need to know. LHammonds 1. Oh, I'd forgotten about the security issue, I suppose I can always upload a separate zipped readme though. 2. Well, that explains why names are given, but I never said I didn't value negative feedback, I just said that one option was unnecessary, serving no purpose but to give the drive-by-idiots an option to use. What about my idea regarding versioned negative feedback display, I think that could be quite useful for everybody, you can keep the names, so something like: Thanks for the reply.

Some feedback and a suggestion here, I've been saving them up: :) 1. Suggestion first: Allow uploading of HTML readme files. I've spent most of my modding life writing .txt readmes, simply because they look the same on all machines and you can upload them here to be read online. However, there's a limit to how well you can convey complex information through them, and I've recently reached it. I dabbled in .RTF and .DOC, but was sorely disappointed by the lack of conformity even across different applications as to how the files were rendered (open an RTF in Wordpad and Word and Writer and they look pretty different, and spacing gets screwed up, etc.). I'm not going to put effort into formatting if it isn't consistent, and I need good formatting to make my readmes good, so I gave up on those. I then decided to switch to HTML, which provided all the formatting options I could ask for, and is pretty darn consistent across web browsers, with only a handful of tags not universally supported in the same way, none of which I've ever used. Including CSS in the head of my file gives me heaps of flexibility, and I can do all sorts of useful things like including hyperlinks and nice lists, etc. Unfortunately, I can no longer upload my readme to be read online here, as you only accept TXT files. Could you please, please add support for HTML files too? That would provide an opportunity for those wanting to upload formatted readmes to do so, which would cut down on modders' support overhead answering questions that are already answered in the readme, but hard to find in all that plain text. 2. Feedback: OK, I'm going to admit I am bias here, but when I'm checking out my file entries, and I see someone has given me a 'thumbs down' "I won't endorse this file", I click to see what the reason was. I don't mind if it was because of a conflict, or if they couldn't get it to work (though 90% of the time it's user error, I do realise my mods do have bugs that I later fix), as that's stuff I can work on improving, but what really hacks me off (to put it mildly) is when the reason is: The file did not fit in to the user's personal tastes or beliefs, etc. What the heck does that mean? Why does that option exist? If a user is offended by a file, they shouldn't download it. It's not as if no description is given, and nobody downloads files without descriptions anyway. If they don't like the look of it, they shouldn't download, just so they can complain. This is the Internet, where most of the stuff on it is something that doesn't conform to your tastes or beliefs, but somehow most of us struggle on because we ignore it. My point is, this option doesn't provide any useful information to modders or users, and only serves as a petulant child's way of marking down mods which have no fault. Why are files marked down if there is nothing wrong with them? The fault does not lie with the file for going against an unknown user's, who the author could not know about, tastes or beliefs. It's because of the user, not the file, that the file was not appreciated. I could go on to say that I don't think there should be any negative endorsements at all, because they are permanent, whereas the problems that cause them are most likely not. This gives a skewed picture to potential users, for example: A well known WIP mod is released at version 1.0. 500 people download it, but find it to have game-breaking bugs. The author is surprised, as they tested it thoroughly, but then quickly checks and finds that the CS screwed up some part of the mod (as it does) when he made a small edit just before release. Within a day, the author releases 1.1, which fixes all those issues. Unfortunately, because the 500 downloads already negatively endorsed it, they can't re-endorse it positively (apologies if you can, I've never negatively endorsed a file, and I'm not about to). Even if they can, some will forget, and this will lead other people looking at the mod to see negative endorsements where they are no longer applicable - the issues causing them have ceased to exist. This will scare some of these potential users away, who will miss out on a great mod. Now, I know you can click on the 'thumbs down' icon which will give version details, but casual browsers may not do that, and in any case it doesn't give enough info IMHO. The page gives the numbers of user who gave each type of negative endorsement, but only in total, before it then lists the users, and the file version. I'd much rather see those users given anonymity and have a type breakdown for each version that has negative endorsements. An example, taken from my Weather - All Natural page: Currently, it's: (smilies seem to be caused by the formatting, it's actually 0.9.8 ) I'd rather see something like (numbers are made up, since I don't know): I see no reason why usernames are given - all that tells me as a modder is that one of those usernames is the idiot responsible for the "1 The file did not fit in to the user's personal tastes or beliefs, etc.". All that might lead to is a campain of petty revenge (not me personally, but there are no doubt less forgiving authors). If you're going to have people marking files down, then at least let them do it without attracting any attention... I think that's all I had to report for now. I hope you'll take my points into consideration, thanks for reading. :) EDIT: Oh, and thank you for adding the ability to edit readmes of mods you have access to, but aren't the entry creator of, that was the last thing I requested. :)

I've got a couple of requests: 1. Allowing members with editing access, but who did not create the page, to upload readmes. They can do everything else, why not this? 2. When searching for files, do not return hidden files. The author has decided to hide the file - it turning up on searches makes little sense. I'd even suggest hiding it from display when browsing too, though that doesn't matter as much, as you're much less likely to find it that way. Basically, if a file is hidden, I don't think that anyone besides the users with editing access and site admins should be able to see it. Thanks for reading, do they look reasonable?

Sounds great, but could I request another feature: A forum thread button. Currently, we have to post this in our description, like we used to with our readmes, and that means as often as not it gets missed. If there was such a button that linked to a thread of our choice, that would be great! Keep up the good work, I upload my mods only to this site, I love it so much.