Why did someone removed active maintainers from most active applications?
Do you guys even care who active who not? I was the only one doing _anything_ on Steam AppDB entry. And I was removed by Ken Sharp because he didn't like 9 "oldish" posts??? WTH?
This got to stop! If someone doesn't like old entries - well that's just too bad. Don't go to those apps, or fix AppDB to split comments into several pages.
I'm appreciate what Ken was doing but not anymore. Please remove him from the admin role an AppDB. This is way over the head of what he's been doing.
Vitaliy.
There were 300 comments, all removed. I asked you to do this, between 15 maintainers, and you couldn't be bothered. That is why you were removed.
Doing nothing is no help to anyone, as you have already been told, many times.
Yet you're the only one complaining. Amazing.
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Why did someone removed active maintainers from most active applications?
Do you guys even care who active who not? I was the only one doing _anything_ on Steam AppDB entry. And I was removed by Ken Sharp because he didn't like 9 "oldish" posts??? WTH?
This got to stop! If someone doesn't like old entries - well that's just too bad. Don't go to those apps, or fix AppDB to split comments into several pages.
I'm appreciate what Ken was doing but not anymore. Please remove him from the admin role an AppDB. This is way over the head of what he's been doing.
Vitaliy.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:41:39 +0100 Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk wrote:
There were 300 comments, all removed. I asked you to do this, between 15 maintainers, and you couldn't be bothered. That is why you were removed.
Doing nothing is no help to anyone, as you have already been told, many times.
Yet you're the only one complaining. Amazing.
If there has been a recent discussion amongst the admins as to when it is appropriate to remove maintainers, I was left out of it. The only official policy I know of is tied to the failure to process test reports within a week, and the automatic mechanism for doing that isn't even working at the moment.
If maintainers are to be removed for other reasons, I think the admins need to come to a consensus about when, why, and how this should be done.
2009/6/25 Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:41:39 +0100 Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk wrote:
There were 300 comments, all removed. I asked you to do this, between 15 maintainers, and you couldn't be bothered. That is why you were
removed.
Doing nothing is no help to anyone, as you have already been told, many times.
Yet you're the only one complaining. Amazing.
If there has been a recent discussion amongst the admins as to when it is appropriate to remove maintainers, I was left out of it. The only official policy I know of is tied to the failure to process test reports within a week, and the automatic mechanism for doing that isn't even working at the moment.
If maintainers are to be removed for other reasons, I think the admins need to come to a consensus about when, why, and how this should be done.
-- Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net
there has not been any discusson on that. my view on removing maintainers is that it should be done only when the maintainer is verified unresponsive and does not catter for his activities, for example when we see test results pending for more than 1/2 weeks it's a good reason to see if the maintainer is active.
on this particular case i feel ken and vitaly should have communicated more to understand each others points of view and reach a consensus. although i can totally see why ken decided to remove him from maintainer this should not be done lightly.
Ricardo Filipe wrote:
on this particular case i feel ken and vitaly should have communicated more to understand each others points of view and reach a consensus. although i can totally see why ken decided to remove him from maintainer this should not be done lightly.
Ken asked Vitaliy to do this twice. His "consensus" was to remove all the other maintainers and leave him as the only one.
Ken Sharp wrote:
Ricardo Filipe wrote:
on this particular case i feel ken and vitaly should have communicated more to understand each others points of view and reach a consensus. although i can totally see why ken decided to remove him from maintainer this should not be done lightly.
Ken asked Vitaliy to do this twice. His "consensus" was to remove all the other maintainers and leave him as the only one.
Based on what policy was I removed? Where are the requirements to what comments should be kept? What comments should be removed? What consequences of not doing something that's not even spelled anywhere? I did remove all old comments _I_ deemed appropriate to be removed.
If your goal is to remove all active maintainers from AppDB because they are not complying with some unwritten rules, then by all means, get rid of the whole AppDB. No one will be "maintenance" it as stipulated by the said rules.
Vitaliy.
Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
If there has been a recent discussion amongst the admins as to when it is appropriate to remove maintainers, I was left out of it. The only official policy I know of is tied to the failure to process test reports within a week, and the automatic mechanism for doing that isn't even working at the moment.
If maintainers are to be removed for other reasons, I think the admins need to come to a consensus about when, why, and how this should be done.
Agreed, but in this case it is a moot point. The particular application, Steam, often has test results waiting for > 8 days, so all FIFTEEN idle maintainers would have been removed long before I had to do it manually, had the automatic deletion mechanism been working.
This is true of all maintainers we have been removing. More need to be removed as the test results in the queue are well over this 8 day threshold.
To give a scale of the problem: There are approx. 7700 program in the appdb. There are approx 21,730 comments going back to 2004. If it's not the maintainer's job to make sure the comments aren't tidied up, whose is it?
I'm not the only admin cleaning up comments.
2009/6/25 Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk:
To give a scale of the problem: There are approx. 7700 program in the appdb. There are approx 21,730 comments going back to 2004. If it's not the maintainer's job to make sure the comments aren't tidied up, whose is it?
I'm not the only admin cleaning up comments.
It's not entirely clear to me why old comments need to be deleted.
Henri Verbeet wrote:
2009/6/25 Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk:
To give a scale of the problem: There are approx. 7700 program in the appdb. There are approx 21,730 comments going back to 2004. If it's not the maintainer's job to make sure the comments aren't tidied up, whose is it?
I'm not the only admin cleaning up comments.
It's not entirely clear to me why old comments need to be deleted.
What use is 300 comments in appdb entry?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Henri Verbeethverbeet@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/25 Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk:
To give a scale of the problem: There are approx. 7700 program in the appdb. There are approx 21,730 comments going back to 2004. If it's not the maintainer's job to make sure the comments aren't tidied up, whose is it?
I'm not the only admin cleaning up comments.
It's not entirely clear to me why old comments need to be deleted.
Without having looked at the pages in question, I can say that often when reading through the AppDB, the comments are often (months/years) old, with outdated information, e.g.,: "to get foobar running in wine, install riched20, gdiplus, dcom98, riched30, msxml3, comctl32, and vcrun6 with winetricks," even though the only thing _actually_ needed is vcrun6.
For popular applications, there's also a lot of 'me too' comments crowding the page, howto's that should be at the top, bug reports that should be in bugzilla, etc.
Henri Verbeet wrote:
2009/6/25 Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk:
To give a scale of the problem: There are approx. 7700 program in the appdb. There are approx 21,730 comments going back to 2004. If it's not the maintainer's job to make sure the comments aren't tidied up, whose is it?
I'm not the only admin cleaning up comments.
It's not entirely clear to me why old comments need to be deleted.
Obviously, because the things said in comments may have expired. A comment written one year ago saying "I get a crash in Wine 1.1.14" is only confusing to users visiting appdb. A howto on getting a game or program to work in Wine 0.95.x has no meaning if the application has platinum score in Wine 1.1.24.
If you meant, why should they be deleted instead of kept for reference; there could be an archive, but currently they are deleted, afaik.
Sjors
Sjors Gielen wrote:
If you meant, why should they be deleted instead of kept for reference; there could be an archive, but currently they are deleted, afaik.
Why don't you just save an outdated: true/false information? Those posts could just be not displayed by default, but if someone ever needs one of those, he could just click the magical "Show all"-button. And for the admins/maintainers just a per post "mark outdated"/"mark relevant" link.
Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
Sjors Gielen wrote:
If you meant, why should they be deleted instead of kept for reference; there could be an archive, but currently they are deleted, afaik.
Why don't you just save an outdated: true/false information? Those posts could just be not displayed by default, but if someone ever needs one of those, he could just click the magical "Show all"-button. And for the admins/maintainers just a per post "mark outdated"/"mark relevant" link.
Because the AppDB isn't supposed to be a forum. I can see no useful reason for keeping old comments, and "Same here" comments are plain useless, but are left anyway.
I would also like to point out that comments being deleted has been standard since long before I'd even heard of Wine. Few maintainers do this themselves, but it's usually left up to admin to do it.
Nobody said anything when I raised this: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18287 Probably because it is the obvious resolution to old and useless comments - delete them.
Ken Sharp wrote:
Because the AppDB isn't supposed to be a forum.
Who said that? It was _the_ only "official forum" long before forum.winehq.org came to be.
I can see no useful reason for keeping old comments
I can name several reasons: 1. Apps that don't change much and old problems still exit (years later) 2. Historical records of what got eventually fixed or worked around. Useful if anyone wants to test old Wine version. Or do the same bad things. 3. Problems that still apply to lots of other applications. Or all games run under Steam. 4. Lots of new problems are well forgotten old problems. 5. Knowledge never gets old.
What are the reasons to remove old comments, other then being too slow to refresh page?
I would also like to point out that comments being deleted has been standard since long before I'd even heard of Wine.
I've only heard of few such cases, mostly with hot games like WoW or programs like IE. Former had too much noise and same problems over and over again. Later had too much of invalid / obsolete information. Neither is the case with Steam.
Nobody said anything when I raised this: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18287
All the bug talks about is how painful it is to remove comments. Now why they should be removed, where that information is published for _everyone_ to see, comment, discuss.
Vitaliy
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Ken Sharp wrote:
Because the AppDB isn't supposed to be a forum.
Who said that? It was _the_ only "official forum" long before forum.winehq.org came to be.
I can see no useful reason for keeping old comments
I can name several reasons:
- Apps that don't change much and old problems still exit (years later)
- Historical records of what got eventually fixed or worked around. Useful
if anyone wants to test old Wine version. Or do the same bad things. 3. Problems that still apply to lots of other applications. Or all games run under Steam. 4. Lots of new problems are well forgotten old problems. 5. Knowledge never gets old.
What are the reasons to remove old comments, other then being too slow to refresh page?
You've just described what notes are for.
I would also like to point out that comments being deleted has been standard since long before I'd even heard of Wine.
I've only heard of few such cases, mostly with hot games like WoW or programs like IE. Former had too much noise and same problems over and over again. Later had too much of invalid / obsolete information. Neither is the case with Steam.
Nobody said anything when I raised this: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18287
All the bug talks about is how painful it is to remove comments. Now why they should be removed, where that information is published for _everyone_ to see, comment, discuss.
Because it's bloody obvious or THEY WOULDN'T BE REMOVED LONG BEFORE I STARTED DOING IT.
Vitaliy
Ken Sharp wrote:
Because it's bloody obvious or THEY [comments] WOULDN'T BE REMOVED LONG BEFORE I STARTED DOING IT.
I've never seen anything on wine-devel / wine-forum / winehq.org front page / wiki about removing old comments until one day I got 100 or so notifications of comments removed by you. And message threatening to remove all maintainers if they don't remove old comments themselves...
I wouldn't call this an official means of communications and discussing wholesale changes. If you think that old comments must be removed, you should ask first interested parties on at least wine-devel if there are any objections/comments/etc. You failed to do so.
Vitaliy.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Vitaliy Margolenwine-devel@kievinfo.com wrote:
Ken Sharp wrote:
Because it's bloody obvious or THEY [comments] WOULDN'T BE REMOVED LONG BEFORE I STARTED DOING IT.
I've never seen anything on wine-devel / wine-forum / winehq.org front page / wiki about removing old comments until one day I got 100 or so notifications of comments removed by you. And message threatening to remove all maintainers if they don't remove old comments themselves...
I wouldn't call this an official means of communications and discussing wholesale changes. If you think that old comments must be removed, you should ask first interested parties on at least wine-devel if there are any objections/comments/etc. You failed to do so.
Everyone, let's calm down please. We're all adults here (or so I hope...).
As far as 'official guidelines', there is: http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_guidelines
but it doesn't have any timelines/etc. Perhaps we should focus energy on that instead of arguing on bugzilla.
Austin English wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Vitaliy Margolenwine-devel@kievinfo.com wrote:
Ken Sharp wrote:
Because it's bloody obvious or THEY [comments] WOULDN'T BE REMOVED LONG BEFORE I STARTED DOING IT.
I've never seen anything on wine-devel / wine-forum / winehq.org front page / wiki about removing old comments until one day I got 100 or so notifications of comments removed by you. And message threatening to remove all maintainers if they don't remove old comments themselves...
I wouldn't call this an official means of communications and discussing wholesale changes. If you think that old comments must be removed, you should ask first interested parties on at least wine-devel if there are any objections/comments/etc. You failed to do so.
Everyone, let's calm down please. We're all adults here (or so I hope...).
As far as 'official guidelines', there is: http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_guidelines
but it doesn't have any timelines/etc. Perhaps we should focus energy on that instead of arguing on bugzilla.
The scripts remove idle maintainers after eight days. Vitaliy, along with many others, would have been removed long before now if they had been working.
Instead, maintainers get the names of the admin removing them, and then "they" complain about that person directly.
Let me say this, yet again, maintainers would have been removed long before now had the scripts been running correctly.
Alexander added that he will email Jeremy (sorry, I don't know who you are) to check why the scripts aren't running.
I will add this again. Vitaliy, along with others, will have been removed automatically long before now.
The problem here is with the script, but there is a bug open for that. http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18947
I maintain two apps. I haven't updated their status in months. Yet, I'm not removed. Apparently, this is because no other people added something to these pages either.
The problem, as I see it, is with the job of maintainer. It's really two jobs in one: you're a moderator of user contributions, and you're the page editor. Now, I don't really care about user contributions. I'll confirm them when they get in my inbox, but it's not why I become a maintainer of an app. The only reason I became a maintainer for those two apps, is because I wanted to add notes and howtos. Maybe that could be governed more like a wiki: anyone (who's logged in) can change the page, and every edit is listed in a changelog. Just like with wikis, you can 'watch' pages for changes, which is sort of analogous to becoming a maintainer. The comments would then be analogous to a wiki talk page.
Remco
Remco wrote:
I maintain two apps. I haven't updated their status in months. Yet, I'm not removed. Apparently, this is because no other people added something to these pages either.
The problem, as I see it, is with the job of maintainer. It's really two jobs in one: you're a moderator of user contributions, and you're the page editor. Now, I don't really care about user contributions. I'll confirm them when they get in my inbox, but it's not why I become a maintainer of an app. The only reason I became a maintainer for those two apps, is because I wanted to add notes and howtos. Maybe that could be governed more like a wiki: anyone (who's logged in) can change the page, and every edit is listed in a changelog. Just like with wikis, you can 'watch' pages for changes, which is sort of analogous to becoming a maintainer. The comments would then be analogous to a wiki talk page.
Remco
I think the popular apps have their own Wiki page (or they were created but not maintained). http://wiki.winehq.org/AdobePhotoshop for example.
If the HOWTOs are particularly complicated for an app, it would make sense to host a Wiki page.
Fredag 26 juni 2009 03:24:31 skrev Ken Sharp:
Austin English wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Vitaliy
Margolenwine-devel@kievinfo.com wrote:
Ken Sharp wrote:
Because it's bloody obvious or THEY [comments] WOULDN'T BE REMOVED LONG BEFORE I STARTED DOING IT.
I've never seen anything on wine-devel / wine-forum / winehq.org front page / wiki about removing old comments until one day I got 100 or so notifications of comments removed by you. And message threatening to remove all maintainers if they don't remove old comments themselves...
I wouldn't call this an official means of communications and discussing wholesale changes. If you think that old comments must be removed, you should ask first interested parties on at least wine-devel if there are any objections/comments/etc. You failed to do so.
Everyone, let's calm down please. We're all adults here (or so I hope...).
As far as 'official guidelines', there is: http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_guidelines
but it doesn't have any timelines/etc. Perhaps we should focus energy on that instead of arguing on bugzilla.
The scripts remove idle maintainers after eight days. Vitaliy, along with many others, would have been removed long before now if they had been working.
Instead, maintainers get the names of the admin removing them, and then "they" complain about that person directly.
Let me say this, yet again, maintainers would have been removed long before now had the scripts been running correctly.
Alexander added that he will email Jeremy (sorry, I don't know who you are) to check why the scripts aren't running.
I will add this again. Vitaliy, along with others, will have been removed automatically long before now.
The problem here is with the script, but there is a bug open for that. http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18947
It's important to note that the script would also have warned maintainers that there are queued items for the apps they maintain.
We can make it so only the first 25 threads are shown by default, then have a 'show all comments' link. This should make it easier for users, maintainers and admins alike. Is 25 a good limit? Please post your suggestions.
Alexander
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes wrote:
It's important to note that the script would also have warned maintainers that there are queued items for the apps they maintain.
Yup, but queued data is also listed down the left of the page, and an email is sent to the maintainer for every test result, bug link, screenshot and comment added to the app (as well as monitor and other stuff, but that's another issue...)
We can make it so only the first 25 threads are shown by default, then have a 'show all comments' link. This should make it easier for users, maintainers and admins alike. Is 25 a good limit? Please post your suggestions.
It doesn't really matter how many comments are shown, most of them are useless, and if clicking on "Show all" shows hundreds or thousands of comments, the user is still none-the-wiser.
It would certainly look a lot nicer though.
There are a few pages that create long lists that need tidying up, but I don't think they affect users or maintainers.
Alexander
2009/6/26 Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes wrote:
It's important to note that the script would also have warned maintainers
that there are queued items for the apps they maintain.
Yup, but queued data is also listed down the left of the page, and an email is sent to the maintainer for every test result, bug link, screenshot and comment added to the app (as well as monitor and other stuff, but that's another issue...)
We can make it so only the first 25 threads are shown by default, then
have a 'show all comments' link. This should make it easier for users, maintainers and admins alike. Is 25 a good limit? Please post your suggestions.
It doesn't really matter how many comments are shown, most of them are useless, and if clicking on "Show all" shows hundreds or thousands of comments, the user is still none-the-wiser.
...
I have found that many of the "useless" comments show up as good Google searches when I'm looking up errors. This kind of behavior has been incredibly useful in the past for figuring out what to do with a bug I've encountered. Unfortunately, lately it's been much harder for me to use this approach because after I use the link in Google the comments are gone. This behavior wouldn't be a "big" deal except that AppDB only shows the top comments in the Google cache (and Google will eventually remove these pages), so there's no way to look at the responses for deleted comments (note: if we changed AppDB to feed Google all of the comments that would be really nice).
Anyway, I would definitely appreciate a 25 threads/page system - the current "infinite comments" system is rather unweildly to navigate. Personally, I would prefer that rather than delete these comments that comments get marked as "outdated". If outdated comments weere pushed to the end of the list, and clearly marked that they are outdated, then they could still be useful for historical purposes without interfering with the usability of the site.
Erich Hoover ehoover@mines.edu
2009/6/26 Erich Hoover ehoover@mines.edu:
2009/6/26 Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes wrote:
It's important to note that the script would also have warned maintainers that there are queued items for the apps they maintain.
Yup, but queued data is also listed down the left of the page, and an email is sent to the maintainer for every test result, bug link, screenshot and comment added to the app (as well as monitor and other stuff, but that's another issue...)
We can make it so only the first 25 threads are shown by default, then have a 'show all comments' link. This should make it easier for users, maintainers and admins alike. Is 25 a good limit? Please post your suggestions.
It doesn't really matter how many comments are shown, most of them are useless, and if clicking on "Show all" shows hundreds or thousands of comments, the user is still none-the-wiser.
...
I have found that many of the "useless" comments show up as good Google searches when I'm looking up errors. This kind of behavior has been incredibly useful in the past for figuring out what to do with a bug I've encountered. Unfortunately, lately it's been much harder for me to use this approach because after I use the link in Google the comments are gone. This behavior wouldn't be a "big" deal except that AppDB only shows the top comments in the Google cache (and Google will eventually remove these pages), so there's no way to look at the responses for deleted comments (note: if we changed AppDB to feed Google all of the comments that would be really nice).
Anyway, I would definitely appreciate a 25 threads/page system - the current "infinite comments" system is rather unweildly to navigate. Personally, I would prefer that rather than delete these comments that comments get marked as "outdated". If outdated comments weere pushed to the end of the list, and clearly marked that they are outdated, then they could still be useful for historical purposes without interfering with the usability of the site.
Erich Hoover ehoover@mines.edu
I personally think a Slashdot style system (like mentioned earlier) is perfect for this. If users rated posts up and down, and there is a customizable threshold above which the comments are visible. Then the most relevant and useful posts would always be the ones people could see, outdated/irrelevant posts would drop below the threshold and only the subject would be visible. You could even use simple AJAX to grab the comments that were below the threshold when they are requested, which would save on bandwidth/page load for pages with a large number of comments.
Luke.
I have found that many of the "useless" comments show up as good Google searches when I'm looking up errors. This kind of behavior has been incredibly useful in the past for figuring out what to do with a bug I've encountered. Unfortunately, lately it's been much harder for me to use this approach because after I use the link in Google the comments are gone. This behavior wouldn't be a "big" deal except that AppDB only shows the top comments in the Google cache (and Google will eventually remove these pages), so there's no way to look at the responses for deleted comments (note: if we changed AppDB to feed Google all of the comments that would be really nice).
Anyway, I would definitely appreciate a 25 threads/page system - the current "infinite comments" system is rather unweildly to navigate. Personally, I would prefer that rather than delete these comments that comments get marked as "outdated". If outdated comments weere pushed to the end of the list, and clearly marked that they are outdated, then they could still be useful for historical purposes without interfering with the usability of the site.
Erich Hoover ehoover@mines.edu
I personally think a Slashdot style system (like mentioned earlier) is perfect for this. If users rated posts up and down, and there is a customizable threshold above which the comments are visible. Then the most relevant and useful posts would always be the ones people could see, outdated/irrelevant posts would drop below the threshold and only the subject would be visible. You could even use simple AJAX to grab the comments that were below the threshold when they are requested, which would save on bandwidth/page load for pages with a large number of comments.
Luke.
Replacing the comments system in the appdb has been a long standing goal. The plan was to take an existing system and interface it into the appdb so we could leverage a project that was designed to manage threads/comments etc. I would be willing to provide consulting help to anyone interested in working on that task.
Chris
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Luke Bensteadkazade@gmail.com wrote:
I personally think a Slashdot style system (like mentioned earlier) is perfect for this. If users rated posts up and down, and there is a customizable threshold above which the comments are visible. Then the most relevant and useful posts would always be the ones people could see, outdated/irrelevant posts would drop below the threshold and only the subject would be visible. You could even use simple AJAX to grab the comments that were below the threshold when they are requested, which would save on bandwidth/page load for pages with a large number of comments.
Luke.
I don't think there would be enough interest in rating posts to make that work. I think it's better to find a way to extract useful information into the article from the people who are now making comments. The best way to do that, is to have people add their useful information to the article directly, instead of into a comment.
If the idea for a wiki-style AppDB page would be implemented, comments would get a new meaning. Any useful app-related information would get added to the article, while the comments would essentially be a Talk page: a place to discuss editorial matters. (And the Test Results section would remain a place to add test results. That doesn't need to change.)
What exactly is the added value of the comments section at this moment? Shouldn't everything that is useful get added as notes/howtos? If a user needs more help in getting the app working, he should be referred to the forums. Just a big link "<App> Troubleshooting" to the wine-users forum. Having two places to ask for help is confusing and spreads attention.
Remco
2009/6/26 Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com:
Ken Sharp wrote:
Because the AppDB isn't supposed to be a forum.
Who said that? It was _the_ only "official forum" long before forum.winehq.org came to be.
But now there *is* forum.winehq.org. AppDB isn't a forum (at least, not any more).
I can see no useful reason for keeping old comments
I can name several reasons:
- Apps that don't change much and old problems still exit (years later)
- Historical records of what got eventually fixed or worked around. Useful
if anyone wants to test old Wine version. Or do the same bad things. 3. Problems that still apply to lots of other applications. Or all games run under Steam. 4. Lots of new problems are well forgotten old problems. 5. Knowledge never gets old.
Points 1, 3 and 5 can be addressed by creating suitable notes, warnings and HOWTOs on the app pages. Points 2 and 4 can be addressed by correct use of bugzilla.
What are the reasons to remove old comments, other then being too slow to refresh page?
Bandwidth consumption is a real issue with running any website.
2009/6/26 John Klehm xixsimplicityxix@gmail.com:
No doubt it's a good thing to keep the appdb information up to date and clean out inactive accounts.
However it seems that if someone wants to do the work why should we have a policy to prevent them from participating according to the time their life allots? Last I checked we werent over staffed quite yet.
Especially when there isn't a maintainer at all now for this app?
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=1554
AppDB maintenance is a responsibility for volunteers. When the automated system is working, volunteers are given a week to respond to test data for the apps they maintain. From what Ken has said, Vitaliy (and everyone else on the Steam app) would have been removed automatically, and he was just filling in the role of the automated script.
As for deleting 300 comments on one app, sifting through 300 comments for useful/relevant information to what you're currently having trouble with is very time consuming. It is better for the average user to have a handful of useful comments to read instead. I argue that those comments could be quite old but still relevant, but in that case Ken has a point that they should be moved to notes.
2009/6/26 Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com:
I'm still asking to remove Ken Sharp from AppDB admins. This behavior is totally unacceptable. Removing user comments just because Ken doesn't like them is not a valid reason.
To be completely fair, keeping 300 old and potentially obsolete comments just because you like them is not a valid reason either.
2009/6/26 Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com:
For the last time I'm asking to provide reasons for removing comments. If you can't come up with that list and you can not be bothered to write them down, then you do not have any rights to enforce something that's known to everyone involved.
I believe he's ignoring this because he's already explained why. 300+ comments on one app can't possibly be useful to the average user who wants a quick solution to their problem.
And who are you to rate all comments as being useful/useless? AppDB is not in China or Iran. It doesn't need censoring. Being admin or maintainer doesn't mean you can censor people.
This is not about "all comments being useful/useless", nor is it about censoring. From Ken's perspective, it's about making relevant information quick and easy to get to. Without the app maintainers doing something about it, the job falls to the admins.
2009/6/26 Tom Wickline twickline@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk wrote:
Of course this guy agrees, he's been removed for being idle!
And when I did have the free time to submit, I had removed...
Thanks to your rm -rf if they dont agree with me script :)
Thanks for your "I know what I'm doing, who cares about the rules and guidelines for maintainers" attitude.
2009/6/26 Remco remco47@gmail.com:
I maintain two apps. I haven't updated their status in months. Yet, I'm not removed. Apparently, this is because no other people added something to these pages either.
I've got a few apps that need updated test data (some of which I've been the only reporter on), but I've also been auto-removed from apps where I just plain missed the email about other users sending test data. In some cases, I even reapplied for supermaintainership. It's not THAT hard, is it?
Maybe that [AppDB] could be governed more like a wiki
There has been talk about AppDB being more wiki-like, but it's not really suitable when the primary information is test data which is so specific it does not change (e.g. "Gold in 1.1.22 but Garbage in 1.1.23").
Hi everyone!
I wanted to give my option about how to solve the problems. I think the problem is in code instead of in people. :)
Making comments rating system to AppDB would be useful. Simple idea to make this happen would be add a rate up button for all users (even guests). select X highest rated comments and sort them by thread and date. Then also add automatic system that removes points from comments based on how old they are. I don't have any good number for this now but feeling is that for high traffic applications something like a point per week might work while low traffic apps should have a point every 3 months. Also give maintainer/logged in users option to reduce rating for some comments. But still it should be possible to browse all old comments if some user really wants to do it. (So something like /. style comment system with few tweaks)
Have fun fighting ;)
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:51, Pauli Nieminensuokkos@gmail.com wrote:
Then also add automatic system that removes points from comments based on how old they are. I don't have any good number for this now but feeling is that for high traffic applications something like a point per week might work while low traffic apps should have a point every 3 months.
For something that works irrespective of the app's popularity, removing a point after every n (or multiple of n) votes, with n the amount of comments on the app which is visible by default?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Ben Kleinshacklein@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe that [AppDB] could be governed more like a wiki
There has been talk about AppDB being more wiki-like, but it's not really suitable when the primary information is test data which is so specific it does not change (e.g. "Gold in 1.1.22 but Garbage in 1.1.23").
Yes, I should have been more clear that the test data would be different from the wiki-like sections of the page, and still be accepted by admins/maintainers. The only thing I would like to see as a wiki, is the rest of the page: descriptions, screenshots, notes.
But the test data can also get some wiki-like qualities: accepted by default, but then added to a list of new test data, so that people who care can remove long terminal output, correct the rating, or delete the test data altogether.
2009/6/26 Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com:
We can make it so only the first 25 threads are shown by default, then have a 'show all comments' link. This should make it easier for users, maintainers and admins alike. Is 25 a good limit? Please post your suggestions.
That sounds like a good idea.
Remco wrote:
Yes, I should have been more clear that the test data would be different from the wiki-like sections of the page, and still be accepted by admins/maintainers. The only thing I would like to see as a wiki, is the rest of the page: descriptions, screenshots, notes.
But the test data can also get some wiki-like qualities: accepted by default, but then added to a list of new test data, so that people who care can remove long terminal output, correct the rating, or delete the test data altogether.
That is a really good idea, but would it be too difficult to implement?
Still a very good idea though.
Ken Sharp wrote:
Agreed, but in this case it is a moot point. The particular application, Steam, often has test results waiting for > 8 days, so all FIFTEEN idle maintainers would have been removed long before I had to do it manually, had the automatic deletion mechanism been working.
That's why I told you to remove all of them, except me. Since I was the only one doing anything there. And yes I do have my own life too and can not immediately approve all test results.
Vitaliy.
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Ken Sharp wrote:
Agreed, but in this case it is a moot point. The particular application, Steam, often has test results waiting for > 8 days, so all FIFTEEN idle maintainers would have been removed long before I had to do it manually, had the automatic deletion mechanism been working.
That's why I told you to remove all of them, except me. Since I was the only one doing anything there. And yes I do have my own life too and can not immediately approve all test results.
Vitaliy.
Hardly, you spend most days arguing on Bugzilla, where comments can not be removed, so stop trying to play the victim.
Notice, you're the only one complaining, out of all the maintainers that have been removed over the past few weeks.
Ken Sharp wrote:
Hardly, you spend most days arguing on Bugzilla, where comments can not be removed, so stop trying to play the victim.
I'm asking again, what are the basis to your removal of comments? Spec them or you can not blame someone for not doing something that's not even written down as a requirement.
Notice, you're the only one complaining, out of all the maintainers that have been removed over the past few weeks.
Most likely because all other "maintainers" are dead. Or have much less free time them you or me.
Vitaliy.
No doubt it's a good thing to keep the appdb information up to date and clean out inactive accounts.
However it seems that if someone wants to do the work why should we have a policy to prevent them from participating according to the time their life allots? Last I checked we werent over staffed quite yet.
Especially when there isn't a maintainer at all now for this app?
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=1554
--John Klehm
John Klehm wrote:
No doubt it's a good thing to keep the appdb information up to date and clean out inactive accounts.
However it seems that if someone wants to do the work why should we have a policy to prevent them from participating according to the time their life allots? Last I checked we werent over staffed quite yet.
Especially when there isn't a maintainer at all now for this app?
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=1554
--John Klehm
Like I've already said, the whiner, Vitaliy, will have been removed LONG BEFORE I removed him by automatic deletion, so all his points are moot.
Ken Sharp wrote:
There were 300 comments, all removed.
Say what? I got only 9 messages of removed comments. Where are your 300? And why did you remove all those comments??? Did you asked me or anyone is it ok to remove them? Did you bother to discuss this with anyone?
I'm still asking to remove Ken Sharp from AppDB admins. This behavior is totally unacceptable. Removing user comments just because Ken doesn't like them is not a valid reason.
At the minimum set valid rules to what comments can be removed and why. Until them no comments should be removed.
Vitaliy.
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Ken Sharp wrote:
There were 300 comments, all removed.
Say what? I got only 9 messages of removed comments.
That's because you still don't understand how the emails are sent. We went through this last time you had a rant and nobody took any notice because you're known for it.
Between all the apps you maintain, and there aren't enough to justify it, there are over 500 useless comments. As a user, how is that helpful?
Your rants bore me now. Keep it though, it just validates my point.
Ken Sharp wrote:
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Ken Sharp wrote:
There were 300 comments, all removed.
Say what? I got only 9 messages of removed comments.
That's because you still don't understand how the emails are sent. We went through this last time you had a rant and nobody took any notice because you're known for it.
For the last time I'm asking to provide reasons for removing comments. If you can't come up with that list and you can not be bothered to write them down, then you do not have any rights to enforce something that's known to everyone involved.
Between all the apps you maintain, and there aren't enough to justify it, there are over 500 useless comments. As a user, how is that helpful?
And who are you to rate all comments as being useful/useless? AppDB is not in China or Iran. It doesn't need censoring. Being admin or maintainer doesn't mean you can censor people.
Vitaliy.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.comwrote:
I'm still asking to remove Ken Sharp from AppDB admins. This behavior is totally unacceptable. Removing user comments just because Ken doesn't like them is not a valid reason.
+1
Tom Wickline wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Vitaliy Margolen <wine-devel@kievinfo.com mailto:wine-devel@kievinfo.com> wrote:
I'm still asking to remove Ken Sharp from AppDB admins. This behavior is totally unacceptable. Removing user comments just because Ken doesn't like them is not a valid reason.+1
I'm asking to remove Vitaliy from all maintainership. He spends most of his time arguing on Bugzilla and can't be bothered to maintain the few apps he's supposed to be maintaining.
1. Maintainers are removed every day for being idle. 2. This is automatic when the script works and Vitaliy WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED AUTOMATICALLY LONG BEFORE NOW, and therefore would be complaining about someone else. 3. Between the few admins on the AppDB, comments are removed whenever there is chance too. 4. This is what a well-maintained app looks like: http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=3754 Notice the lack of nonsense and useful information being moved into notes.
Tom Wickline twickline@gmail.com Of course this guy agrees, he's been removed for being idle!
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk wrote:
Of course this guy agrees, he's been removed for being idle!
And when I did have the free time to submit, I had removed...
Who's loss is it?
Wine users!
Thanks to your rm -rf if they dont agree with me script :)
Cheers,
Tom
-
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes -
Austin English -
Ben Klein -
Chris Morgan -
Erich Hoover -
Gert van den Berg -
Henri Verbeet -
John Klehm -
Ken Sharp -
Luke Benstead -
Niklas Hambüchen -
Pauli Nieminen -
Remco -
Ricardo Filipe -
Rosanne DiMesio -
Sjors Gielen -
Tom Wickline -
Vitaliy Margolen