RM 1.0 Resource Manager Feedback and Thoughts

[Mike]

There has been a considerable amount of discussion and comments on the Resource Manager since it has been implemented... not all of which has been positive. However, I do want to mention that it is still early days and what you're seeing borders on the "minimum viable product" (MVP) concept and will be improved. You can't develop a product solely in a vacuum -- you need to see how it works when people use it and that's when you discover things that need to be changed.

We have taken a lot of feedback on board, and there are various features that we're looking at. Some of these include:

• Purchase support for resources (both for a "single owner" like a shop and "app store" style)
• Custom resource fields (by category, ideally)
• Category hierarchy
• Review support for ratings
• Better limits on who can rate
• And some others

Conversely, there are some suggestions that we don't necessarily agree with and some considerations that need to be taken into account that might not be immediately obvious. I want to cover some of these suggestions to let you know what we think and to try to foster some in-depth discussion. I feel that a lot of the initial thoughts that have been posted have not necessarily thought about other perspectives or what the purpose of X is.

The Resource Manager is a "general use" add-on

This means that despite it only being used on XenForo.com, it's designed to be used by other people with different requirements and desires. As such, when we implement something, we can't just hack in something specific for XF.com. It needs to be approached in a more generic way. Sometimes this way is obvious and most ideas can be spun into something more generic, but it always means more work -- the amount more is what varies, sometimes orders of magnitude more.

The category sidebar should be on the right to be consistent

I find this a slightly weird suggestion and one I don't really understand completely.

First, you'll note that the right sidebar you see on most pages contains less important information. In most cases, if it weren't there, you'd still be able to get around. The category sidebar is the primary navigation system within the resource manager, so it deserves a more prominent display. Most sites either use top- and/or left-based navigation system; I can't think of one with primary navigation in a right column.

Second, it's not actually inconsistent. There are various other places in XenForo that use left-column navigation: Help, the account pages, and automatic page node navigation.

The Resource Manager is a shop front for digital downloads / discussions in resources

(I'm aware of the irony of me calling it that when you can't sell individual items directly, but as we've repeatedly said, it's something we want, but wasn't part of the MVP.)

The talk about whether discussions should be in resources gets to the heart of what the purpose of the Resource Manager is. Foremost, the RM is designed to be a shop front for digital downloads - like Amazon (they do digital downloads ) and your pick of app stores. The primary purpose is to make it easier to discover resources and to keep up to date with them.

Going back to just using threads means that updates to resources are intermixed with general questions, so if you're running add-on X, you have to watch the thread if you want to be informed of updates, but then you're forced to wade through the other stuff to find updates. The RM solves that by allowing you to watch a resource and be notified whenever it's updated, not when there's a comment. Always keep in mind that there are a large number of people that don't post in the add-on threads at all; they just use them. (The same way we have plenty of customers that never post here and probably haven't even registered and have never had "human" contact with us.)

So, this leads me into a few philosophical sounding questions...

In the context of resources, what are discussions? Is it saying that you love it or it worked well (or you hate it)? The reviews system (which would display within a resource) seems to handle that. Is it saying thanks (or other form of appreciation)? The like system and possibly reviews can solve that, but regardless that doesn't make for compelling reading for most others.

So, then we have functionality questions, support, and suggestions. (Anything else I can't think of?) So if the thread is made up of that, what is the distinct value of including that in the resource? Keep in mind that you can always watch the thread if you're interested in more than just the resource (which a lot of people aren't). As a matter of fact, doesn't using the thread system make it easier to work with the comments on resources if you feel they're very important? They keep the visibility via new/recent threads, whereas they wouldn't be there if they were in the resource. There's also the question of whether it's actually worth it to implement all the additional functionality when we have a thread system, though that may vary on a case by case basis.

I do take that allowing the resource author to moderate their own thread would be cool.

Then, the next philosophical question, what is in a resource? Is it just keeping the layout? Is it showing when you view the resource from the list? I'm genuinely curious about this. In theory, we could make the resource threads not show up in what's new and only be discoverable via the resource system. You'd only get updates to them if you watched them. While that would appear to be "in" the resource (the technical implementation notwithstanding), but what's the benefit?

I am after some serious discussion on this, as I'm trying to understand the mindset -- the discussion just seems to pale in comparison to the importance of the resource (for people looking for resources), and the fact that I don't need to ever visit the resource itself to keep up with the discussion means that I don't see a disadvantage to the thread system.

Resources as a "forum" (multiple discussions)

I understand this idea, and it's not unreasonable as a general concept, though it isn't a priority based on what I mentioned earlier: the focus of the resource is on the resource and keeping up to date with it. It's also a big undertaking.

In terms of XF.com, there are some add-ons (in particular) that it'd be useful for, but there's nothing preventing authors from setting up their own areas that consist of more than one thread. People will have different approaches and desires with this, so I don't think they should necessarily be shoehorned into a particular approach. You might say that the thread is a particular approach, but the thread isn't required--we have locked one as the author requested support via his site--and there may be some changes to emphasize that down the line. I'm not sure yet.





I'm sure there are more things I'll come up with, but I think that's enough for now...

 

[MilesDB]

Then on your site, do as you please. Simple. But obviously, here, now, they prefer not to allow multiple files.

That's a feedback thread for yet unreleased product. We are sharing with devs our thoughts so that we can use this add-on on our sites. Admins can always close this thread if they don't wanna listen to honest feedback. Do you really think your "phuck yourself" replies help a bit?

 

[Shelley]

I've uploaded graphics. Didn't have an issue. Discriminates? That is laughable.

Also, if it is valid feedback on the RM, why have a paragraph about why someone cannot debate the topic because of the type of website they run?

Your the reason why progress will never be achieved.

If every suggestion that doesn't fall inline with the devs method of thinking is made to sound stupid by the person whomcreated it in this thread you'll get a lot of frustrated people with this continuing bending of words and not actually reading what is being posted and concerns being made.

 

[jadmperry]

I would like multiple files to be allowed per "resource." That's my feedback.

That said, I don't think anything posted warrants the "raised temperatures" and vitriol in some of the responses. Seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to ask for something to be included. If the devs don't want to/can't/won't implement the requests, well, that is pretty much the end of the story. It might be possible to find someone to code the solution you want. Maybe an enterprising coder could write an "add-on" to facilitate the functionality people want. Or, if the omission of a feature is an absolute deal-breaker for you, maybe you can't use either XF or the RM as your software.

Either way, seems like its unnecessary to turn anything into something warranting bickering or personal attacks. Why don't we just offer up our opinions, give reasons for our opinions, and leave it at that?

 

[Morgain]

Oh please drop the issue of argument based on someone else's website. It's perfectly clear what Shelley meant. She wasw saying that Brogan, for all his awesome skills and knowledge, doesn't run a resource site so he seems not to understand what someone needs who does run one.
Shelley spoke sharply as well, but very understandably so. She provides fantastic resources for XF and clearly feels shafted because her work is not being properly supported ( yet?) by the RM.

Brogan please let go of the defensiveness dear heart. You're a loyal and strong guardian of the KAM team, but they aren't under serious attack. The RM has improved a great deal. But it still has some problems that only open discussion can clear. It ain't nice getting moans and whinges when you know the hard work that's gone on But that's development work.

It would help if you or someone could explain why the RM has problems accommodating multiple attachments.
This is a real difficult as a Resource can so easily be multiple. It could be its graphic design in 5, 10 even 20 colours. It could be for different styles. It could be for different levels of the same add-on which do slightly different things but aren't worth separate listings. There could be supplementary files trhat some users will want but others don't need or don't want.

If the RM really can't cope with multiple attachments clearly it will need to come up with a workaround.
But let's start with what the multiple attachment difficulty is about.

 

[Morgain]

Seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to ask for something to be included. If the devs don't want to/can't/won't implement the requests, well, that is pretty much the end of the story. It might be possible to find someone to code the solution you want.

That doesn't provide the solution that coders who contribute to XF HERE on THIS SITE want and need.

Yes they can do it the way they need it on their sites.
But if only certain types of coders can put their work up on XF itself that is running a big gulf through the community.

So far we have problems with four groups of coders/ developers/ contributors on the RM here on XF.

Paid addons are not supported. For how long? I think a roadmap on this is vital.
Addons which have built up a strong support base in existing discussions are being trashed. That is demotivating both the coder and the users.
Addons that need multiple files - I've seen anything up to 20 variations in some cses, or there can be supplementary files, are not supported.
Tutorials, videos, graphics based guides, tweaks and hacks, are not supported.

So the RM as planned for XF offers a service to a tightly focused particular group.
If you're patiently writing tutorials, or making helpful videos,or offering tweals or hacks that help admins do what they want, I'm afraid the RM can't help you.
If you're a coder, who has designed your work as an addon with coding to upload to a site via the admincp,
BUT you don't offer variations of theme or type,
AND you're doing it all for nothing including support, and customisation,
AND you don't feel pissed off that your built up work in the past has been shunted into a cupboard
AND you can put it all in a single file,
- YAY! the RM on this site will support your work.

Otherwise, it does not. You have to offer what you do in some sort of other secondary area, of which there are several.
Of course this also doesn't help the user to find what they need because all the various resources are going to be scattered in different places. I thought the RM was supposed to draw it all together.

The point of need is "I want X." To some admins paid or not is crucial, to others fairly irrelevant.
But generally apart from that the point is "I want X." Which means I want to go to a central processing unit to search for it. Not hunt all round various areas - how do I know as an admin whether what I want is offered as paid/ unpaid, and as a full addon or a hack? Or whether it's somewhere else again because it happens to have 15 variations?

Perhaps we need an explanation of what the RM is supposed to do as it isn't intended to be a central resource manager, but only a section of the resources area that stores certain sorts of resources.

 

[Robbo]

For the record. About people asking for devs to be able to specify a thread_id from the resource. I would let it create a new thread, old discussions are generally... old. I want my threads nice and clean as I provide support on them so, like suggested before, I would like to be able to moderate my thread. There are also better options for this as well like mini forums etc. Either way I'm not bothered as I will have a help desk in the future.

The teaser screens look much better to me and I don't see any glaring issues with it. Still I need the commercial resource option and think the RM should have been designed from the start as more of a market place like other software.

 

[Paul B]

Brogan please let go of the defensiveness dear heart.

I wasn't being defensive at all, I was posting an opinion.

Seems like only some of us are permitted that without being attacked.

If you want to create tutorials then fine, use it for that purpose; there are no hard and fast rules.
You will still need to upload a file of some sort as that is a requirement for adding a resource.

 

[Floris]

There's a difference between some good site admins having a constructive discussion to help improve a product that's in development on both this site and as a product for the customers, versus watching a thread like this with this unneeded and uncalled for drama by some, which really isn't convincing to the developers who work their butt off.

 

[Shelley]

Seems like only some of us are permitted that without being attacked.

Nowhere in my post have I attacked you paul.

I think you've just lost track what a resource manager actually is. The Rm doesn't cater for standardized resources (graphic packs)which it is an opinion I won't back down from.

I've posted facts, concerns which the thread has asked for but it appears some of us can't deal with this. #fact

 

[dtmcl]

All of the download counters reset

 

[Paul B]

All of the download counters reset

For good reason.

There was no tracking before so anyone could just click the download button multiple times and it would be counted.

Ratings are also now only possible after downloading a resource.

 

[Saeed]

For good reason.

There was no tracking before so anyone could just click the download button multiple times and it would be counted.

Ratings are also now only possible after downloading a resource.

Me likes!

 

[Mike]

So the "new" RM is running now.

Ratings have been reset as I mentioned elsewhere. You must provide a review to rate now. You must also download the resource before you can rate. (This may not make 100% sense here given that you could have the resource, but for new resources it makes sense. It will be an option anyway.)

Download counts have also been reset as we do individual tracking on them now. Downloads only count once per version (or once in the global count) per user -- really, basically identically to how ratings are working now.

This thread is now covering all sorts of topics, plenty which weren't really in my initial post. I didn't expect this thread to turn like this, so I'm going to close it -- individual threads for suggestions is better (good examples being discussion surrounding importers and multiple files per resource). Also, it has devolved into some name calling which isn't helpful.

So if there's anything you still want to cover, please post a new thread about it. I've read all of the feedback here. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, and I believe my comments in the first post still stand as they cover the designed purpose of the RM. We will continue improving the RM and as I noted in my first post as well, some suggestions that seem simple are not and some things are simply lower priority.

I will reiterate the desire for payment support. The lack of it really doesn't indicate anything about the underlying design of the RM, more just the focus for this "alpha" version.