Resource review guidelines.

[wang]

The bad news is, you have to accept the good with the bad. You can't expect (and it's you have an unrealistic expectation if you do) that all reviews will be sunshine and roses.

I am saying this very respectfully sir, I do not think that you understand what I was trying to say with my topic here.

I have absolutely no problem with bad reviews, as long as they are correct and deserved. If a bug, or a security problem is found in one of my add ons, and I do not provide a fix in a timely matter, then the customer has all the right in the world to leave a bad review. What I am taking about here, is about users leaving bad reviews that are completely unjust and undeserved. Not just for me, but for other developers too. I remember you saying that you are using Ipb too. Please show me an example there when the review system is abused. I do not think that you would fine any, because the Ipb staff is on top of things in their Marketplace. And I know this from personal experience.

You do not appear to be a developer or a designer. If you developed an add on, or designed a style, and have users leave bad reviews about your work for things that are not your fault, or fall outside the scope of support, maybe you would be talking differently.

 

[Carla Birch]

Maybe, the resources system needs some type of support ticket system added to it, so it gives a look into how good and timely a dev gives support, maybe a bug tracker would be handy also to better track bugs that sometimes get lost in threads about the addon.

 

[TPerry]

If a bug, or a security problem is found in one of my add ons, and I do not provide a fix in a timely matter, then the customer has all the right in the world to leave a bad review.

Actually, I'll disagree here... if they find a bug/security problem and you refuse to fix it, then yes - they have grounds for a bad review. The fact that it's human coded software means it's going to have "bugs" and occasional security issues possibly. Any buyer of software that doesn't realize that is living in a dream world. The issue (especially with software) is the refusal to fix existing issues.
Just the fact that they say something like "Purchased this and found a few bugs in it" gives you an option to reply to the review (if I remember correctly) in that "Yes, those bugs were found and the newer version has them fixed".
Now, if the review states "Found bugs in the add-on and advised the author and he told me to go pound sand" - then that would be a valid critique.
Frequently reviews are left by the vocal critics. Rarely do you see "positive" reviews of most items when compared to the number of them sold.

You do not appear to be a developer or a designer. If you developed an add on, or designed a style, and have users leave bad reviews about your work for things that are not your fault, or fall outside the scope of support, maybe you would be talking differently.

Whether I'm a developer or designer or not has no bearing on the fact that I can render a valid opinion on it. If you can't deal with bad reviews and respond to them professionally in the venue that is available to you, then maybe you need to develop a thicker skin or get out of the business. You DO have the ability to respond to a bad review in the RM.
It's very easy to provide a reply in their review that states "This add-on was not designed to work with XXX style or YYY add-on specifically. This add-on uses standard good coding practices -blah blah blah - and cannot be expected to work by default with any style/add-on that changes the standard XenForo templates/whatever. Usually issues with styles can be resolved with template changes, but we provide no support for custom styles that change the default template syntax".

 

[Bionic Rooster]

Some people come and go but never write a review, so you may have 1 five-star and 2 one-stars, when really a hundred people used your add-on and only 4 or 5 didn't like it out of that hundred.

A lot of people will not post a review because IF a report is made against it, it tends to get removed. Too many whiny devs who can't take a little criticism.

You can't expect (and it's you have an unrealistic expectation if you do) that all reviews will be sunshine and roses. And removal of existing features WOULD be a grounds for a complaining review - if they were not replaced with enhancements.

Exactly, and yet the dev or people like @wang seem to take exception to differences of opinions

 

[Chris D]

A lot of people will not post a review because IF a report is made against it, it tends to get removed.

This is not true.

This thread has stemmed from our policy which is mostly that we do not get involved and therefore do not remove reviews.

So people should feel free to leave reviews, as long as they are within the rules, they won't get deleted.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

This is not true.

This thread has stemmed from our policy which is mostly that we do not get involved and therefore do not remove reviews.

So people should feel free to leave reviews, as long as they are within the rules, they won't get deleted.

Yes it is true, it has happened to me several times over the years.

 

[Mike]

If you're wanting to be pedantic, you're correct in that you've had reviews removed, but you didn't meet the "within the rules" part of what Chris said. You had 2 removed because:

1. One had padding to reach the minimum character limit, which is clearly against the point of a character limit (and specifically called out as not being allowed).
2. The other was a resource you admitted to not using or actually even accessing information about because you said you couldn't access it. The review guidance requires you to demonstrate that you have used/purchased the resource.

 

[wang]

Exactly, and yet the dev or people like @wang seem to take exception to differences of opinions

That is not correct. I have no problem at all about deifferences of opinions. Please find a post here to back up your claim about me.

But to quote Mike, it looks like you are one of those users that abuse the review system, and then say that developers, like me that you mentioned, take exception to differences of opinions.

If you're wanting to be pedantic, you're correct in that you've had reviews removed, but you didn't meet the "within the rules" part of what Chris said. You had 2 removed because:

1. One had padding to reach the minimum character limit, which is clearly against the point of a character limit (and specifically called out as not being allowed).
2. The other was a resource you admitted to not using or actually even accessing information about because you said you couldn't access it. The review guidance requires you to demonstrate that you have used/purchased the resource.

 

[wang]

This is not true.

This thread has stemmed from our policy which is mostly that we do not get involved and therefore do not remove reviews.

So people should feel free to leave reviews, as long as they are within the rules, they won't get deleted.

Can you please send me the link to the rules about leaving a review? I have done some searching, but I could not find it.

 

[Chris D]

They're effectively unwritten, mostly because they're obvious or self explanatory.

1. For a review to be valid you must have had the resource installed, e.g. a review left to criticise the price, for example, would be invalid because clearly you haven't purchased it.
2. A review must not attempt to circumvent the resource character minimum limit.
3. Must adhere to the normal forum rules.

There are perhaps a few other situations which we handle on a case by case basis. But the main point is, we won't be drawn into being the mediator between what is effectively a two sided argument which we have zero possibility of really knowing the specifics of what happened.

 

[wang]

They're effectively unwritten, mostly because they're obvious or self explanatory.

1. For a review to be valid you must have had the resource installed, e.g. a review left to criticise the price, for example, would be invalid because clearly you haven't purchased it.
2. A review must not attempt to circumvent the resource character minimum limit.
3. Must adhere to the normal forum rules.

There are perhaps a few other situations which we handle on a case by case basis. But the main point is, we won't be drawn into being the mediator between what is effectively a two sided argument which we have zero possibility of really knowing the specifics of what happened.

Thank you sir. Will it be possible to write them down and put them up so that they can not be missed?

Would you also consider to add a new rule in the lines of that reviews must be left only for the functionality of the add on with the default xenforo, and not for being compatible with third party add ons or styles?

I think that it is a valid rule. Take your software for example, I have read posts here where you say that if an user has an issue with a third party add on or style, is not supported, which is the way it should be. The same must go for the add ons and styles too I think.

 

[Chris D]

Thank you sir. Will it be possible to write them down and put them up so that they can not be missed?

I don't think there's a particular need to do that. Again, they're fairly obvious. They are also not necessarily exhaustive.

Would you also consider to add a new rule in the lines of that reviews must be left only for the functionality of the add on with the default xenforo, and not for being compatible with third party add ons or styles?

I think we addressed this already. There are no plans to change or add any rules at this time.

Take your software for example, I have read posts here where you say that if an user has an issue with a third party add on or style, is not supported, which is the way it should be.

This is really a different situation. Not least for the fact that our overall customer base is somewhat exponentially larger than that of a typical add-on, and it really just isn't practical for us to be able to support that.

It's perfectly fine and reasonable for you to take a similar stance, but as was already explained by Mike, there are situations where an issue between an add-on and a style can actually be caused by the add-on author, rather than the style designer. There are also times where there's no one particular to blame, but you can work together to cooperate and produce a suitable solution or workaround for the benefit of customers on both sides.

It's worth noting that the review which I think triggered this thread to be created, would not have been deleted even if there was the rule you proposed. Why? Because the fact the add-on didn't work was only a small part of the review. The rest of the review went on to detail a support experience that the review author was not happy with. Again, this is a two sided argument that we will not get involved in, therefore the onus is on the resource author to respond to that accordingly.

By the way, I previously made an offer to help identify improvements to any template modification or code that has compatibility issues. This offer still stands (via the relevant forum). No one is expecting anyone to explicitly test or support issues with third party add-ons or styles, but sometimes we might need to find better ways of working to reduce the possibility of problems in the future. In my experience, an unresolvable conflict between two resources is extremely rare.

 

[Ozzy47]

Simple. You don't want a bad review, open your own site and offer the addons there. Then you can control whatever is said about them.

You are not going to please everyone here. Some people are going to leave a bad review, either you need to learn to deal with it, or move on to live in a bubble where only positive sugary people live.

I have released over 140 mods on vB, all free and no branding, and ya know what, the users looking for free stuff are more brutal than users paying for something.

TBH, with this thread, you re just taking your reputation that you have built and flushing it down the toilet. Let it go.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

If you're wanting to be pedantic, you're correct in that you've had reviews removed, but you didn't meet the "within the rules" part of what Chris said. You had 2 removed because:

1. One had padding to reach the minimum character limit, which is clearly against the point of a character limit (and specifically called out as not being allowed).
2. The other was a resource you admitted to not using or actually even accessing information about because you said you couldn't access it. The review guidance requires you to demonstrate that you have used/purchased the resource.

1. It's left up to whomever makes the decision as to where padding or relevant opinion is posted. Doesn't help when the person posting thinks what they have to say is relevant only to have it removed.
2. And after having that fact pointed out I re posted in the discussion thread where if and when I have something to say gets posted now.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

That is not correct. I have no problem at all about deifferences of opinions. Please find a post here to back up your claim about me.

I have absolutely no problem with bad reviews, as long as they are correct and deserved.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

They're effectively unwritten, mostly because they're obvious or self explanatory.

Which is why I ran afoul of Mikes point that I had not downloaded or install an add on I posted a review on and had it deleted. This unwritten rule was not obvious or self explanatory to me at the time.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

But to quote Mike, it looks like you are one of those users that abuse the review system, and then say that developers, like me that you mentioned, take exception to differences of opinions.

How do you interpret what Mike said as me being "one of those users that abuse the review system" when they admit there are no posted guidelines that even your diligent searching could not fine?
I think this is a stretch of wrong deductive reasoning on your point to disprove my point.

 

[Mike]

Which is why I ran afoul of Mikes point that I had not downloaded or install an add on I posted a review on and had it deleted. This unwritten rule was not obvious or self explanatory to me at the time.

This is an area where I will disagree with @Chris D because they're not really unwritten -- they're listed when you go to write a review:

Explain why you're giving this rating. Your review must discuss the contents of the resource (quality, features, etc) and indicate that you have legitimately used/purchased the resource. Reviews which are not constructive may be removed without notice.

Your review must be at least 100 characters. Do not pad your review to reach this length.

But frankly, not every unacceptable thing can be called out. Rules can't be 100% exhaustive and there will always be some element of interpretation.

 

[wang]

Simple. You don't want a bad review, open your own site and offer the addons there. Then you can control whatever is said about them.

I give up lol. Nowhere did I say anything about not wanting bad reviews. I was talking about unjust or unfair negative reviews, as mentioned in the exampes that I linked above. So please in the future, read carefully before you comment on something.

 

[wang]

By the way, I previously made an offer to help identify improvements to any template modification or code that has compatibility issues. This offer still stands (via the relevant forum). No one is expecting anyone to explicitly test or support issues with third party add-ons or styles, but sometimes we might need to find better ways of working to reduce the possibility of problems in the future. In my experience, an unresolvable conflict between two resources is extremely rare.

Thank you sir. I will take you up on that offer.