Mod Picker: The Fearsome Juggernaut

[Reneer]

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with database dedicated to maximizing compatibility between mods. It's actually really needed in a community as massive as ours. Why would mod authors want to opt out of it when it's supposed to make act of modding so much easier for users?

 

Edit: Btw Reneer and mlee, I don't mean my questions to pose as accusations. I just wanted to know the reasons why you don't want to participate in something like this.

For me personally, the reasons I don't want to participate are these:

 

1. There is a "reputation" system tied to the database / compatibility list / reviews. Think Wikipedia but you can't correct anything unless your reputation is 40 or above. And you gain reputation by making "correct" statements / changes to mod reviews / compatibility lists. Which are only deemed "correct" if 40%-60% of the users vote that your information is "correct". Oh, and if your "correction" goes a week without getting that 40%-60% of users? It's gone. And even if you do get that 40%-60% of users to vote for your correction, you (or someone else with a reputation of 320+) can make the changes. Granted mod authors will get (some) reputation simply for making mods (through some weird Nexus link thingy, I don't really know) but that 40%-60% voting thing scares me for a lot of different reasons.

 

2. You cannot opt-in, only opt-out, of the system.

 

3. It's another place that I'd have to go to check to see if people say my mods are broken - and correct that information, or try and figure out if that "broken" information is actually correct. I have enough trouble dealing with that here on the Nexus, let alone a site like Mod Picker.

 

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to this: I have my mod pages here at the Nexus where my mods are hosted. I want users to tell me about bugs here, on the Nexus. I don't want to have to go and search through another website to find bugs. I have an extremely limited amount of time to mod as it is and I don't want to have to worry about whether I'm missing some vital information because it's on a different website. And the fact that any "correction" I wanted to make about my mods has to be voted on? That's complete rubbish.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Reneer

[Arthmoor]

I just want to add that my own reservations are more or less the same as Reneer's.

[Laereal]

A reputation system reminds me more of the system I see on Amazon where customers up-vote third-party dealers on reliability, which I presume is applied to MP's user-submitted feedback as well. That doesn't seem too bad to me if it gives validation to certain reviewers who are known to post helpful and reliable information. Needing to have that many users vote on corrections on mods that you've created, however, does sound counterproductive. Mind you, I have heard/seen other mod authors be utter jerks to users providing feedback by deleting them or turning off the ability to comment on the mod itself, and I can see why some power being given back these users can seem appealing to some people.

 

I really do wish I could see what the MP team actually posted and the responses this gathered. I'd like to see matortheeternal et al. clarify some of the features Mod Picker provides that would be really beneficial to mod authors themselves.

[Reneer]

As I said earlier, I'd gladly have this out in the open. It just so happens that all the discussion went on in the Mod Author forum. The only thing I could think of to get it out of there would be to ask Dark0ne to yank the thread out of there and merge it with the other thread here on Skyrim Mod Talk.

[mlee3141]

I second Reneer's proposal as well. Having the discussion out in the open would be of great benefit.

[matortheeternal]

If you have direct questions I'm happy to answer them, Laereal.

 

Also @Reneer: The whole % stuff seems really daunting, but it's a means by which we limit the "chaos" a pure wiki would create. The fact is people often don't agree on stuff, and there has to be some kind of arbitration to such disagreements. Moderators can't do this arbitration because they're just people, and they're biased just as much as anyone else. Rather than allowing things turn into an edit war, we have a correction system whereby a user (who has at least made a mod or made some large contributions to the knowledge-base on the site) can suggest a correction on an existing piece of content, opening a place for it to be discussed by other users who have a similar level of reputation within the system (because random people don't have the expertise/knowledge to engage in these often technical discussions). This provides a place where a user can make a case for why the content is incorrect and provide evidence to support their stance. This is better than putting all the power in a single person's hands because people are biased and people make mistakes. By having a correction system like this we take disagreements out into the open and allow the important members of the community to hash it out and come to some kind of consensus. If a consensus can't be reached within a week something is really wrong (either people aren't communicating well or there just isn't enough information to actually make a factual assertion about the contested information).

 

Honestly the details are still being hashed out and are just details. If we find that a detail of the implementation doesn't serve to drive positive results on the platform we can re-evaluate or change it. E.g. maybe we should just require any majority (51% to 49%) to have an correction be approved. Maybe we should only allow the submitter of the correction to edit the original content. Maybe we should not close incorrect notes regardless of how long the discussion takes to become resolved. These are all completely reasonable ideas which honestly make sense now that I'm saying them out loud.

 

The only reason I started providing these numbers at all (when they aren't really determined) was out of desperation to give people a better understanding of how things worked (because so many people were taking pot shots at us for saying our algorithms would handle things without providing details on those algorithms).

[Elias555]

 

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with database dedicated to maximizing compatibility between mods. It's actually really needed in a community as massive as ours. Why would mod authors want to opt out of it when it's supposed to make act of modding so much easier for users?

 

Edit: Btw Reneer and mlee, I don't mean my questions to pose as accusations. I just wanted to know the reasons why you don't want to participate in something like this.

For me personally, the reasons I don't want to participate are these:

 

1. There is a "reputation" system tied to the database / compatibility list / reviews. Think Wikipedia but you can't correct anything unless your reputation is 40 or above. And you gain reputation by making "correct" statements / changes to mod reviews / compatibility lists. Which are only deemed "correct" if 40%-60% of the users vote that your information is "correct". Oh, and if your "correction" goes a week without getting that 40%-60% of users? It's gone. And even if you do get that 40%-60% of users to vote for your correction, you (or someone else with a reputation of 320+) can make the changes. Granted mod authors will get (some) reputation simply for making mods (through some weird Nexus link thingy, I don't really know) but that 40%-60% voting thing scares me for a lot of different reasons.

 

2. You cannot opt-in, only opt-out, of the system.

 

3. It's another place that I'd have to go to check to see if people say my mods are broken - and correct that information, or try and figure out if that "broken" information is actually correct. I have enough trouble dealing with that here on the Nexus, let alone a site like Mod Picker.

 

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to this: I have my mod pages here at the Nexus where my mods are hosted. I want users to tell me about bugs here, on the Nexus. I don't want to have to go and search through another website to find bugs. I have an extremely limited amount of time to mod as it is and I don't want to have to worry about whether I'm missing some vital information because it's on a different website. And the fact that any "correction" I wanted to make about my mods has to be voted on? That's complete rubbish.

 

1. It's a crappy system, they should implement what ever crappy system they want.

 

2. If it's out there, people should be allowed and are allowed to reference anything they want as long as it's within the terms they've agreed to, laws etc. You can't dictate what advice, guide, WRONG info etc people are going to give based on your mod. If it's bad advice, they're site will do poorly and die off, as capitalism intended.

 

3. No you don't. I won't be. I don't have any reason or incentive to. What does 'have to' mean to you/those that agreed with you? You don't owe anything to anyone. Mate, you can say 'I'll be making patches and fixing bugs shortly' and then never do it. PC part picker is only successful because the info is correct 99% of the time. It's on them to make sure of that, not you or I. It's not a reflection of AMD if they say a GPU can fit in your case when it can't.

 

The only thing I could think of to get it out of there would be to ask Dark0ne to yank the thread out of there and merge it with the other thread here on Skyrim Mod Talk.

Whoa there! Some people were speaking as if users would never see their comment. I think if you've got some argumentative points there, you should just bring them here.

 

Overall, I think there's lots of ideas I don't like or think they'll work out, especially those under discovery and accuracy. If they want to do it, they should. I won't be helping out though. Use the comment section if you want to talk about my mod with me.

[Reneer]

1. It's a crappy system, they should implement what ever crappy system they want.

 

2. If it's out there, people should be allowed and are allowed to reference anything they want as long as it's within the terms they've agreed to, laws etc. You can't dictate what advice, guide, WRONG info etc people are going to give based on your mod. If it's bad advice, they're site will do poorly and die off, as capitalism intended.

 

3. No you don't. I won't be. I don't have any reason or incentive to. What does 'have to' mean to you/those that agreed with you? You don't owe anything to anyone. Mate, you can say 'I'll be making patches and fixing bugs shortly' and then never do it. PC part picker is only successful because the info is correct 99% of the time. It's on them to make sure of that, not you or I. It's not a reflection of AMD if they say a GPU can fit in your case when it can't.

Yeah, they can implement whatever crappy system they want, sure. The problem is that crappy system is, in all likelihood, probably going to make mod authors look bad. And, surprise, the mod authors aren't happy about that.

 

And you're right - I don't need to participate if I don't want to. That's not really the point, though. I'm not going to participate in their site, but that doesn't mean that modders' reputations are not going to be impacted by what goes on on that site. I have absolutely no problem with people saying whatever they want about my mods - it hurts sometimes, sure - but that's their right. What I have a problem with is a system that I think is inherently flawed and trying to make itself an authority doing that same thing.

 

Whoa there! Some people were speaking as if users would never see their comment. I think if you've got some argumentative points there, you should just bring them here.

Yeah, that was poor comment on my part, wasn't thinking clearly about the consequences of it.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Reneer

[Elias555]

 

1. It's a crappy system, they should implement what ever crappy system they want.

 

2. If it's out there, people should be allowed and are allowed to reference anything they want as long as it's within the terms they've agreed to, laws etc. You can't dictate what advice, guide, WRONG info etc people are going to give based on your mod. If it's bad advice, they're site will do poorly and die off, as capitalism intended.

 

3. No you don't. I won't be. I don't have any reason or incentive to. What does 'have to' mean to you/those that agreed with you? You don't owe anything to anyone. Mate, you can say 'I'll be making patches and fixing bugs shortly' and then never do it. PC part picker is only successful because the info is correct 99% of the time. It's on them to make sure of that, not you or I. It's not a reflection of AMD if they say a GPU can fit in your case when it can't.

Yeah, they can implement whatever crappy system they want, sure. The problem is that crappy system is, in all likelihood, probably going to make mod authors look bad. And, surprise, the mod authors aren't happy about that.

 

And you're right - I don't need to participate if I don't want to. That's not really the point, though. I'm not going to participate in their site, but that doesn't mean that modders' reputations are not going to be impacted by what goes on on that site. I have absolutely no problem with people saying whatever they want about my mods - it hurts sometimes, sure - but that's their right. What I have a problem with is a system that I think is inherently flawed and trying to make itself an authority doing that same thing.

How does it make us look bad? When I go through something like GEMS and see a mod that could have problems if uninstalled, I don't think ill of the author since they mention possible problems, I think that GEMS should probably add the info or remove it from their list.

I don't see how anyone's reputation is at stake here. Modders don't owe anyone anything anyway, you responding this way makes it out as if we do.

 

They'll never become an authority since most mod authors aren't going to bother with it even if they like the idea lol. You can put a poll in the mod discussion page and we can see how many will actually be willing to put in MORE free time. Strawpoll.me will work if no one messes with it.

 

Edit: I just made one myself. Go vote.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Elias555

[Reneer]

 

 

1. It's a crappy system, they should implement what ever crappy system they want.

 

2. If it's out there, people should be allowed and are allowed to reference anything they want as long as it's within the terms they've agreed to, laws etc. You can't dictate what advice, guide, WRONG info etc people are going to give based on your mod. If it's bad advice, they're site will do poorly and die off, as capitalism intended.

 

3. No you don't. I won't be. I don't have any reason or incentive to. What does 'have to' mean to you/those that agreed with you? You don't owe anything to anyone. Mate, you can say 'I'll be making patches and fixing bugs shortly' and then never do it. PC part picker is only successful because the info is correct 99% of the time. It's on them to make sure of that, not you or I. It's not a reflection of AMD if they say a GPU can fit in your case when it can't.

Yeah, they can implement whatever crappy system they want, sure. The problem is that crappy system is, in all likelihood, probably going to make mod authors look bad. And, surprise, the mod authors aren't happy about that.

 

And you're right - I don't need to participate if I don't want to. That's not really the point, though. I'm not going to participate in their site, but that doesn't mean that modders' reputations are not going to be impacted by what goes on on that site. I have absolutely no problem with people saying whatever they want about my mods - it hurts sometimes, sure - but that's their right. What I have a problem with is a system that I think is inherently flawed and trying to make itself an authority doing that same thing.

How does it make us look bad? When I go through something like GEMS and see a mod that could have problems if uninstalled, I don't think ill of the author since they mention possible problems, I think that GEMS should probably add the info or remove it from their list.

I don't see how anyone's reputation is at stake here. Modders don't owe anyone anything anyway, you responding this way makes it out as if we do.

 

They'll never become an authority since most mod authors aren't going to bother with it even if they like the idea lol. You can put a poll in the mod discussion page and we can see how many will actually be willing to put in MORE free time. Strawpoll.me will work if no one messes with it.

 

Edit: I just made one myself. Go vote.

I never once said that modders owe anyone anything. Don't put words in my mouth.