How can we suck less?

[Death]

31 minutes ago, dustyhansen said:

It is 100% clear that you do not like a review that is critical of the author or the plugin. You have obviously been jaded by this in the past as a developer yourself. You have no business running this community or making decisions like this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that review.

Yeah, sorry, I don't know how else to help you. You're intentionally skimming over all of the information I've provided, trying to find anything and everything to become a victim here. Your review is not going to be approved because the review consists of complaints/suggestions/support issues that were not reported. Either follow the appropriate steps or stop leaving reviews. 

[dustyhansen]

Just now, Death said:

Yeah, sorry, I don't know how else to help you. You're intentionally skimming over all of the information I've provided, trying to find anything and everything to become a victim here. Your review is not going to be approved because the review consists of complaints/suggestions/support issues that were not reported. Either follow the appropriate steps or stop leaving reviews. 

I literally address each of your points! What are you talking about?

You are literally stating that you cannot put anything negative/critical in a review that you haven't brought to the developer's attention beforehand, correct?

[Death]

27 minutes ago, Bubbafett said:

Honestly, I think that a lot of my issues with the review system could be completely ignored if ALL support request were public. I again, have no way of knowing if there is 1 or 100 unanswered support request on a plugin that hasn't had a request in a while. Making reviews more transparent would be the way I would expect something like to be handled, however if I could see all support request that would also increase platform trust.

I have spent no small amount of money on this site, and will continue to do so. I would just like to have to a better picture of what I am getting BEFORE i buy it. Some plugins can be $40 or more and this is no small amount to spend basing it off the description, potentially HUNDREDS post in the discussions tab (Many of which will just be rambling of confused users who can't edit a config), a potentially incomplete picture of a support page, and filtered reviews. I understand that no matter what it will be an educated guess on my part on if a plugin will be good or not, however making this guess easier be pretty great.

Support requests being private is not that common and are usually done for the sake of concealing sensitive information. Reporting exploits, sharing customer/purchase data, etc. The option needs to be there for when you need it. 

[Bubbafett]

2 minutes ago, Death said:

Support requests being private is not that common and are usually done for the sake of concealing sensitive information. Reporting exploits, sharing customer/purchase data, etc. The option needs to be there for when you need it. 

Maybe put a counter on the page that shows the number of open private request? Or just have number like you do for discussions and reviews that shows the total number of open request.

[Death]

Just now, dustyhansen said:

You are literally stating that you cannot put anything negative/critical in a review that you haven't brought to the developer's attention beforehand, correct?

By negative or critical, do you mean leaving a review based on a support issue you made no effort to reach out for support on? Why are you generalizing it as just negative and critical reviews? You're being questionably dishonest with your responses. You've cherry-picked things I've said to victimize yourself with and have managed to personally insult me 2 times within the span of an hour.

You clearly don't take criticism very well yourself. You still think you're in the right despite the amount of time I've dedicated here, providing you with all the information you need to understand how reviews are moderated. You're choosing to play ignorant, and I don't understand why.

The personal attacks end here, or I'll begin enforcing our terms of service.

 

[Death]

1 minute ago, Bubbafett said:

Maybe put a counter on the page that shows the number of open private request? Or just have number like you do for discussions and reviews that shows the total number of open request.

This is planned, but I'm not sure if the count would be separate for the two. I think a better solution is to perhaps show the support request but not allow it to be clickable so you know it exists. I'm not entirely sure how we'd approach that, but I don't really think this is really an issue. Have you encountered this? I'm a bit confused.

[HunterZ]

20 hours ago, Death said:

That's not possible. Discord does not have any guild information associated with their invite URL. That's all internal. We could use the API to get this data but the API requires the guild ID and the invite URL does not contain this.

Never mind, it seems to be working better than I thought. I swear sometimes when people post links to CF pages on discord it just shows a generic site banner+summary, but when I went to look for an example I could only find things working more like I'd expect.

[dustyhansen]

Just now, Death said:

By negative or critical, do you mean leaving a review based on a support issue you made no effort to reach out for support on? Why are you generalizing it as just negative and critical reviews? You're being questionably dishonest with your responses. You've cherry-picked things I've said to victimize yourself with and have managed to personally insult me 2 times within the span of an hour.

You clearly don't take criticism very well yourself. You still think you're in the right despite the amount of time I've dedicated here, providing you with all the information you need to understand how reviews are moderated. You're choosing to play ignorant, and I don't understand why.

The personal attacks end here, or I'll begin enforcing our terms of service.

 

I literally mean negative or critical. Such as the zombies not looking like zombies or being overpowered. These are not "support issues" as they are not bugs or broken issues with the plugin. 

14 minutes ago, Death said:

Your review is not going to be approved because the review consists of complaints/suggestions/support issues that were not reported.

You say here that we cannot complain about the plugin in a review or make a suggestion in a review unless we have reported it to the developer first? That is ridiculous. You are literally saying you only approve positive reviews about a plugin. 

 

5 minutes ago, Death said:

You still think you're in the right despite the amount of time I've dedicated here, providing you with all the information you need to understand how reviews are moderated.

I am in the right. I am the customer and nobody else is coming to your defense here saying that your review process is fair and unbiased. You are providing me with information on how YOU have decided reviews should be moderated on this site and I am telling you it is wrong and am doing so in a forum where you asked for feedback to improve your site.

[Death]

Just now, HunterZ said:

Never mind, it seems to be working better than I thought. I swear sometimes when people post links to CF pages on discord it just shows a generic site banner+summary, but when I went to look for an example I could only find things working more like I'd expect.

Got a screenshot of what you mean? Perhaps I'm referring to the wrong thing

[Bubbafett]

2 minutes ago, Death said:

This is planned, but I'm not sure if the count would be separate for the two. I think a better solution is to perhaps show the support request but not allow it to be clickable so you know it exists. I'm not entirely sure how we'd approach that, but I don't really think this is really an issue. Have you encountered this? I'm a bit confused.

I have no idea if I've encountered this, and that is the point. As a customer I don't have a way to see if there is 1 or 100 private support request I can't see. I think your solution of making the request seen but not clickable is also pretty good. Possibly replace the request title string with a static "Private Support Request" in case the post something sensitive in the title.

While you and other staff may know that private request are fairly rare, the customers do not.

[Death]

Just now, dustyhansen said:

These are not "support issues" as they are not bugs or broken issues with the plugin. 

They are suggestions. So make a suggestion in the appropriate channel as mentioned numerous times. This has nothing to do with your rating but the fact that's the premise of the review. It's not that complicated. We aren't going to let you abuse reviews to facilitate feature requests.

3 minutes ago, dustyhansen said:

You say here that we cannot complain about the plugin in a review or make a suggestion in a review unless we have reported it to the developer first? That is ridiculous. You are literally saying you only approve positive reviews about a plugin. 

Correct, you cannot leave a review based on a suggestion or support issue for which you made no effort to reach out to the author for. So I ask again, why would you rather leave a bad review about something you'd like to see improved instead of just contacting the author? That doesn't make any sense at all.

[Bubbafett]

17 minutes ago, Death said:

Got a screenshot of what you mean? Perhaps I'm referring to the wrong thing

I found this example on my discord of a link not displaying the picture they have uploaded to the plugin.

The description is right though.

[Death]

@Bubbafett Ah yeah I was way off. Not sure what's wrong with that one but thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Bubbafett]

32 minutes ago, dustyhansen said:

I literally mean negative or critical. Such as the zombies not looking like zombies or being overpowered. These are not "support issues" as they are not bugs or broken issues with the plugin. 

You say here that we cannot complain about the plugin in a review or make a suggestion in a review unless we have reported it to the developer first? That is ridiculous. You are literally saying you only approve positive reviews about a plugin. 

 

I am in the right. I am the customer and nobody else is coming to your defense here saying that your review process is fair and unbiased. You are providing me with information on how YOU have decided reviews should be moderated on this site and I am telling you it is wrong and am doing so in a forum where you asked for feedback to improve your site.

I mean, Death is right. That review you wrote kinda sucks. It feels like you were blaming the dev for population loss because you uploaded a plugin to a live server without testing or configuring it to fit your server.

As far as the "math logic issue", I can only assume that the dev is using a random number system for their chances (I didn't buy it, so I'm just guessing). So when you break a rock, the plugin would generate a random number between 1 and 100. If that number is less than your config value it will spawn a zombie.

Probabilities never really work out to be a perfect 1 in 10 for a 10% chance and rely solely on your sample size. To achieve the kind of system you are looking for, you would have to increase the chance of a zombie spawning every time the user breaks a rock and reset the chance when one actually spawns. This would give a more organic 1 in 10 feel but wouldn't really be a true 10% probability.

EDIT: While I completely disagree with filtering reviews, as I the buyer should be responsible for making my own educated decisions on if a review is bad or not, I would completely ignore your review if I read it somewhere.

Edited Sunday at 03:26 AM by Bubbafett

[dustyhansen]

3 minutes ago, Bubbafett said:

I mean, Death is right. That review you wrote kinda sucks. It feels like you were blaming the dev for population loss because you uploaded a plugin to a live server without testing or configuring it to fit your server.

As far as the "math logic issue", I can only assume that the dev is using a random number system for their chances (I didn't buy it, so I'm just guessing). So when you break a rock, the plugin would generate a random number between 1 and 100. If that number is less than your config value it will spawn a zombie.

Probabilities never really work out to be a perfect 1 in 10 for a 10% chance and rely solely on your sample size. To achieve the kind of system you are looking for, you would have to increase the chance of a zombie spawning every time the user breaks a rock and reset the chance when one actually spawns. This would give a more organic 1 in 10 feel but wouldn't really be a true 10% probability.

Yea, you are right. My entire point is invalid and he is right because my review states I lost pop. Regardless of the fact that the zombies may be overpowered for a default config. You are right the whole review is garbage and boy if there were only a way for a developer to reply to a review, wouldn't that be nice? Oh wait...

Then the config shouldn't be worded like this dude:

  "Node spawns": {
    "Stone Nodes": {
      "Can spawn from stone nodes": true,
      "Spawn chance (1-100%)": 10.0

 

[YaMang -w-]

It would be nice to offer a percentage discount on selected plugins.

[Death]

12 hours ago, YaMang -w- said:

It would be nice to offer a percentage discount on selected plugins.

https://codefling.com/?do=bulkSale

[IIIaKa]

 

[IIIaKa]

 

[IIIaKa]

 

 

Edited Monday at 08:00 AM by IIIaKa

[IIIaKa]

It would also be great to have the ability to pin messages in the discussion section on the plugin page.

[Mikel Rae]

On 11/2/2024 at 9:52 PM, dustyhansen said:

I am in the right. I am the customer and nobody else is coming to your defense here saying that your review process is fair and unbiased. You are providing me with information on how YOU have decided reviews should be moderated on this site and I am telling you it is wrong and am doing so in a forum where you asked for feedback to improve your site.

I believe the review process here is fair and unbiased.

[dustyhansen]

4 hours ago, Mikel Rae said:

I believe the review process here is fair and unbiased.

Well I am sure your 1 negative review and 4 support requests really back that up.

[IIIaKa]

Is it possible to set a commission limit of no more than approximately 30% of the price?
This would be helpful for plugins that are low-priced. Or for renewal, for example, if a plugin costs hypothetically $10+, and the license renewal(symbolic support) will cost $1-2 each year.

For example, if a plugin costs $1, the current commission would be 12% ($0.12) + $0.49 = $0.61, this is more than half of the price.
If you add a check to ensure that the commission does not exceed approximately 30% of the plugin's price, then the commission for a plugin priced at $1 would be no more than $0.30, and this would not affect the commission for more expensive plugins. With the current settings(and 30%), the limit will activate up to a price of ~$2.72.

Something like this:

const double MaxCommission = 0.3d;
double price = 1d;
double commission = Math.Min((price * 0.12d) + 0.49d, price * MaxCommission);//In this case, it will be $0.30 instead of $0.61

 

Edited Tuesday at 02:24 PM by IIIaKa

[Death]

8 hours ago, IIIaKa said:

If you add a check to ensure that the commission does not exceed approximately 30% of the plugin's price, then the commission for a plugin priced at $1 would be no more than $0.30, and this would not affect the commission for more expensive plugins. With the current settings(and 30%), the limit will activate up to a price of ~$2.72.

This doesn't make any sense. If, for example, we capped the fee to 30 cents for something that costs $1, we'd lose money? PayPal transaction fee alone is 0.49 cents