dogier

Hey all It would be nice to see a mod that would show some more info about the character on the load game screen. This way you could see some details before loading up a save. Ideally there would be an mcm where you could choose what info to show. This could make testing mods or settings easier: for example when testing you could see at a glance which save is for a character that has free perks or has perks already allocated in certain skill, etc, etc. I have no idea if this is feasible :-) cheers all and a Happy New Year to everyone.

:: MASSIVE facepalm :: all this time I thought this was a filter that would show mods that are in fact "save files" such as clean saves or people sharing their characters, etc. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction and for an old feature that I was missing :D feel free to delete the topic

EDIT: A word of advice: Ask for an existing feature and you shall receive it! I basically asked for an already implemented feature because I was missing the obvious :) Hello I have a request / suggestion for a simple feature: When browsing the New Today section I'm only interested in mods that had their files updated. I choose the 'files' filter each time so I need to uncheck all the other filters that are checked by default. My request is for the filter checkboxes to remember my chosen settings i.e. stay unchecked if I uncheck them. That's 5 clicks AND a page refresh less each time. Thank you

In response to post #7616952. In such case you can click the Get missing mod info button (i+) and chose the correct mod from a list you'll be presented with

Here's an idea: (btw, I'm probably reinventing the wheel here, hope it's not the case) Would you consider letting users upload their load order with a simple evaluation of how this collection of mods 'behaves' and perhaps a separate description/comments? This would be targeted in the beginning at people with 'rock solid' load orders - their input would create a database of stable mod collections. This could be then expanded to any mod collections - you would see some stats for each load order: - what % of users have no problems with this load order - how many users use/have used this load order - comments on what issues they found when using this load order/mod collection *Obviously there are more identical mod collections used than there are load orders of the same collection. I alternate the two terms but in fact this would probably have to be mod collections primarily with an option to process the exact load order. I see this as a variation of the www.hijackthis.de system. In case you're not familiar with it: It's a community based evaluation site used to determine the 'maliciousness' of all processes running on your system. You upload a txt file and you get an online evaluation of each and every process. This evaluation is based on user-provided feedback with a simple scoring system and optionally a short description from the contributing user. The difference here would be that it's not individual mods that would be evaluated but the entire collection or even a particular load order (maybe 2 separate options). What I can imagine is that a user makes a selection of mods (making a virtual list online or directly uploading their mod list through NMM) and this collection gets a score based on previous community input. This would allow users to: -first, upload their current mod list -check that it's 'bullet-proof' -add a mod to the list -check if it's still as stable as before, and if not, then ~what % of users experience issues with it. There could be an option to get feedback about collections that are larger but include every mod that I want to use. You could add more criteria to these lists such as skyrim version, system, minimum graphics card etc. all info provided by users. I probably make it sound too simple and in reality it would obviously be a complicated, time-consuming, resource-devouring endeavor. I believe that it's also a question of providing an interface and after that you could use the power of the numbers that the nexus users make. I'm also sure that I only scratched the surface of both the issues that would arise and the possibilities of such a concept. Anyway, thought it could be interesting. cheers

In response to post #7613500. tl;dr - go to NMM General options and UNcheck the "Don't extract Readme files". Reinstall the mods that haven't been installed correctly since the last update. If you skim through the comments you'll see there's an issue with one of the new features that's turned ON by default (feature 1): If you don't turn the feature off in the options, some txt files won't get installed in the proper folders. I believe fnis and asis are among these. Probably frostfall too if this is your experience.

In response to post #7613424. Before the recent changes, you had to click the search box once to make it active (the cursor would appear inside). After the changes you had to click the search button once, then click the now visible search box = 2 clicks Now when you click the search button, the search box is already highlighted = 1 click as in the beginning.

Great improvements all around. Seriously, I appreciate every single change listed, no matter how small it seems! (I actually wanted to post something before as I noticed the changes being implemented.) Thank you Nexus :-)

Blame it on my mild color-blindness but the orange and green endorse and vote buttons are not easily distinguishable for me. It's mainly because both colors are similar in tone levels. In fact the previous UN-ENDORSE button made it easy to see at a glance. So for me personally this change is for the worse not for better. The Vote button could also use a special text to show that you voted for this file... AND the Vote button could reflect the fact that you already voted this month. (so if I vote then all vote buttons become grayed out for example AND the file I currently vote for has it's button orange + preferably with a new line: for example VOTED!)

1) I always found it convenient that the 'link' pop-up had two fields: one for the url and second for displayed text. It's no biggie though, I'll get used to the way it is now, with only the url field. 2) The flip-switch is very cool (although maybe it was there before too, idk :D ). 3) I believe there's always enough room for all smileys on the right (below the post options), although I have a 16:9 screen, maybe others have less work space). Pity they're hidden now, it was convenient having them all visible. That said, it really looks nice! and don't mind this line :D , just checking if Superscript works in comments now. Edit: it doesn't One more change I don't quite like (but I'm not making complaints, I'll do alright with anything you throw at me): In the 'My conversations' view the new visible avatars are nice, but a separate column showing who the message was sent to and not only from would make it clearer I think.

You're absolutely right! I forgot about the tag search. I still think that a somewhat unified info pane with installation/upgrading instructions would be nice :D I do not expect you to implement it though! I'm not in a position to demand anything :D especially as I understand your explanation about forcing mod authors to do anything. If this is added 5 years from now when you make a complete overhaul of the site, that's fine. If it's a crap idea and it's never implemented I won't lose sleep over it either. i.e I'm not going to nag you until you do something about it :D I just thought I had a nice idea and wanted to share it.

Well, I certainly didn't mean to sound pushy! I can see my post might have been read that way. I was genuinely curious. Now here, I fear I was misunderstood though. I didn't mean for the nexus site to be able to compare the mods and assess their compatibility in regards to any possible load order the players use... maybe it's possible but a bit above and beyond my programming knowledge :DWhat I mean was for mod authors to apply standardized flags to their mods instead of them writing poems in the description section. It's really cool when a mod author thinks that every mod user is a seasoned mod author too and that they know what's compatible with what and why. It just doesn't work that way and so the mod comments sections get flooded with pretty simple yet repetitive questions. Now in response to that barrage of questions the mod author considers adding some info on the front page and ends up making the description longer by another 3000 charachters and even fewer people read it. What I suggest would be a condensed info pane with answers to specifically chosen, "critical" questions. I do believe it would be better to force such a section on mod authors rather than force the users to scrupulously search for info between the often 'poetic' Description section, the ever so lightly treated Readme section and the constantly changing and living Comments section. A series of tickboxes (compatible, incompatible, required) corresponding to each of the DLCs (hey, there are a whole 3 of them) and some most popular mods would not be a big burden on the authors (I think). By popular mods I don't mean retextures etc. just the more critical ones, those that really pose the issue of compatibility in the first place. In the end this could even be a totally open list and an author could choose to fit everything in there or nothing at all, with no forced choices. There could even be a 'Pending' flag which could point the user to the comments section where a specific compatibility/incompatibility issue is being discussed. As far as filtering goes I believe that if you force ask nicely all mod authors to update their mods with flags related to DLC incompatibility/requirements and say SkyUI or MCM or SKSE incompatibility/requirement then the filtering will automagically happen by itself. I know I'm making it sound simple and I already admitted to not knowing a whole lot about programming. I realize this would be a lot of work. I'm not tying to diminish your efforts in making the Nexus as useable as possible. In fact I genuinely respect and appreciate this wonderful community hub! It's because I care that I post these suggestions. It is criticism, I admit, but I am trying to make it constructive. I sure as hell don't mean to sound demanding. all the best dogier

I'll shamelessly bump my previous post :D Does anyone actually read what's in here? Just curious. Anyway, what occurred to me also was that adding compatibility flags (with DLCs or major mods) EDIT: or more importantly incompatibility flags, you could use it as a filter feature in searches, i.e. one could filter out all mods that are incompatible with installed dlcs or chosen mods. Not much maybe but still... there are ~22K files so filtering is never a bad option.

I have a couple of suggestions that are somewhat connected to each other. This post is in regard to: the increasing number of mods, overhauls, dlcs and their interactions the number of users installing hundreds of mods at the same time number of users trying to 'help' mod authors by uninstalling mods one by one for testing purposes and thus eiher corrupting their saves or finding a 'false culprit' (I know the author of the very popular Footprints mod has a hard time getting it through to users that uninstallation is simply not supported for that mod and in fact for any mod. It's equally difficult to explain that uninstalling a mod and not having trouble afterwards does not prove the said mod's fault in causing trouble in the first place) number of user who are not up to date about installation procedures, requirements and still don't bother to even read mod descriptions number of authors experiencing ruthless, undeserved lash-back from inconsiderate and rash mod users (accusations are easily repeated and a bad reputation is very quickly obtained and we all know that there are more complaints posted than praises) What I think is missing in the mod pages is a standardized section dealing with installation/uninstallation and upgrade procedures. I am one of those users who religiously read the entire Description and Readme parts (if a readme exists) and even go as far as skimming through the entire forum thread for the mod. If the thread is 2564 pages long I at least look for authors responses and do a couple of searches for things like "clean" (save) or "update" or "compatible" etc. Despite my efforts it sometimes happens that I am unable to find any consistent, reliable information due to either apparent complete lack of it or because for example the mod's description contains outdated/incomplete information. I know most authors do their best to supply us with complete info on every aspect of their mod be it functionality, compatibility or installation etc. Their efforts aren't always appreciated and oftentimes people prefer to ask silly questions over and over again rather than read the description (RTFM). Since it may be frustrating for mod authors - having to answer the same questions a million times - they're sometimes 'edgy' even when confronted with requests that are not so obvious. Closing the comments section before or after an important update has become notorious and I believe necessary for the mod authors' mental health. I totally understand the authors' desperation when faced with a flood of blind fingerpointing and unjust blaming. I am also aware that there are authors like Chesko who go to great lengths to provide a super complete manual for their mods! I appreciate it and as such I hope my suggestions below are not going to be seen as adding unnecessary work. Now as much as I realize that an additional section will provide extra work for mod authors, I also see it as a way to simplify their efforts. It could be mandatory for the mod users to read that section before downloading a mod! This might be harsh or you could argue that it won't work anyway - I mean even I don't read all EULAs I'm presented with - but if it's presented in more user-friendly manner than your everyday EULA then I believe it could work to some extent. A few separate tabs, each dealing with requirements/installation/compatibility and each presented with bullet style lists should not prove too much of a hassle, neither for authors nor users. What this should improve most definitely is the percentage of mods that contain complete information. A standardized form should also help users find what they're looking for on one hand and authors to not to forget some details they should provide on the other. These sections should be configurable by the authors but I believe some parts should be mandatory. There could be a pre-configured setup based on what type of mod it concerns. Authors should have the possibility to update these easily and users should be able to 'report' each section to the mod author - if for example the mod is supposed to be compatible with mod X v1.0 and many users report that this is in fact not true then the author can decide to verify this based on number of reports and correct the said field. Also user suggestions in fields such as compatibility could be useful. Another goal that this would accomplish (maybe) is unclutter the comments section a little. Instead of a thousand people asking the same question or reporting the same issue on every other page, they should be able to report it to the author with an automated system pointing to the problematic section and with a small text field for description. It's anything that's impossible to report in this way that should go in the comments. I realize this may sound utopian and I probably don't even need to admit that I am not a programmer :) So to sum up my wish-list: -A new mandatory section on the site dealing with: requirements installation (manual, nmm, other) uninstallation update procedure (most important IMHO) incompatible/conflicting mods I would suggest having this list (maybe in a tab view) show up before a download starts. -A complimentary/ optional section: interacting mods that enhance the experience superceded mods fully compatible mods (maybe user verified or even user submitted and verified by the author) - this should be read as 'my mod is fully compatible with mod X on its own, it might not work with mod X AND 230 other mods' etc I also think that a separate requirements tick marks list for dlcs and major mods/overhauls is something that could prove useful although I don't know how to make it visible without cluttering the page. Again, it should be standardized and as trouble-free to set up as possible. So maybe a color-coded list of DLCs and mods is in order here. Required: like a DLC Strongly Suggested but not utterly necessary: like SkyUI or it's MCM functionality Fully Compatible Mostly Compatible with limited functionality Incompatible/Conflicting I'm sure mod authors will have a lot to say about this (whether it's a separate tab or a new color-coded compatibility sidebar on the main page). They might prefer to make a quick choice based on what type of mod it is they're uploading. For example a retexture mod won't need most fields and it would be cool if it was possible to just tick a field stating that it's a retexture and all the other fields would be pre-configured accordingly. Probably some beta tests with mod authors' participation would prove informative. Either way a standardized info tab/column/popup should help users find out what they need without compromising the author's effort to make their mod page unique and personal. And finally I understand this is not a priority issue and keeping the site up, managing ads, servers etc is much more important (Yes, I read the recent blog pieces and re-enabled ads on the site even if my ISP is the bottleneck here and I can only get ~480kb/sec tops). Still I believe implementing such a system would improve the overall experience significantly. dogier