Yeah,I felt about the same way. Quite annoyed that it is being sold as supported and still in development. False advertising.Yeah, I mean I paid for this, but as far as I can tell there isn't any support or updates coming. Kind of renders my purchase of no use.
I'm sorry if the response you received seemed rude. I don't feel that it was:You will get a very rude response from the xenforo team.
Incidentally, that is pretty much the same response we give to all requests for resources to be marked unmaintained, regardless of who the author is.Resources are marked as unmaintained according to various criteria, and if this resource meets that criteria it will be marked as Unmaintained in due course.
This one has been marked as unmaintained, in line with our internal housekeeping rules.
https://xenforo.com/community/threads/resource-housekeeping.112680/ states that this add-on should be deleted (as it's a paid add-on), not marked un-maintained. Was there a specific reason why it wasn't deleted in line with the housekeeping rules, or just an oversight and will be corrected?Resources are marked as unmaintained according to various criteria, and if this resource meets that criteria it will be marked as Unmaintained in due course.
https://xenforo.com/community/threads/resource-housekeeping.112680/ states that this add-on should be deleted (as it's a paid add-on), not marked un-maintained. Was there a specific reason why it wasn't deleted in line with the housekeeping rules, or just an oversight and will be corrected?
Read the next post, immediately after the one you are quoting.Pretty cut and dry to me:
Read the next post, immediately after the one you are quoting.
Thread post #2 - https://xenforo.com/community/threads/resource-housekeeping.112680/#post-1101867Which would apply to this set of criteria:
"author is no longer licensed, has had their forum account deleted, has been permanently banned."
None of which are met.
How is re-instating a deleted add-on, have the developer provide no release - bug fixes or functional improvements, only to be marked un-maintained again providing protection to customers and the XF brand?
To ensure common understanding of the housekeeping function (as I'm unable to ask in that thread), for a deleted resource to be re-instated the developer only has to ask and/or make a post in their add-on thread. Then disappear again and not participate in over 2 months (5+ months on their own 'official' support forum) and not provide a release or support, and the housekeeping cycle for paid add-ons begins with unmaintained again?This resource is due for deletion when the next round of housekeeping happens (it happens roughly on a schedule, rather than being a live thing that's checked every day).
Let's be clear - we aren't totally blind to the possibility that what you say can happen. Certainly in the first instance if an author returns and appears to be providing support for their add-on to their existing or potential customers there's no reason, at least initially, to block a request for a resource to be reinstated.To ensure common understanding of the housekeeping function (as I'm unable to ask in that thread), for a deleted resource to be re-instated the developer only has to ask and/or make a post in their add-on thread. Then disappear again and not participate in over 2 months (5+ months on their own 'official' support forum), and the housekeeping cycle for paid add-ons begins with unmaintained again?
Sorry, to me, that's just running rings around the intention and purpose of the housekeeping function to protect customers (potential new ones anyway, existing aren't protected - buyer beware) and the XF brand.
There can't be any favouritism. All resources are treated the same, regardless of who the author is.It's not, and it should have been removed long ago IMO, If not by the staff to show there is no favoritism, at least by the developer to show he cares about people, rather than selling an addon.
I suggest that if an assurance is provided for it to be re-instated a first time, that if an add-on author meets the criteria a 2nd time shortly thereafter they aren't given the same allowance for a full cycle of unmaintained and deleted, it should just go to deleted immediately.we will likely need some level of assurance before this resource is reinstated again.
I suggest that if an assurance is provided for it to be re-instated a first time, that if an add-on author meets the criteria a 2nd time they aren't given the same allowance for a full cycle of unmaintained and deleted, it should just go to deleted immediately.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.