Should XF take a more active role in add-on 'retirement'?

[Mouth]

It's not an issue that reflects on XF at all.

It's not the job of any software company to police the quality of third-party products, and would actually be the thing to reflect badly on them if they did.

My opinion, I don't see the need for this.

Somebody please go and tell Apple, Google, and Amazon this. Clearly they disagree and do get it that it reflects badly on their product(s) because of having incompatible, unsupported, or poorly coded/defective, 3rd party products directly impacting the performance and respect of their products and the respect or notoriety of their products or solutions as a whole.

 

[Sheldon]

Except its within XF official repository, with prospective purchasers briefly browsing add-on entries to see what's available and how much support there is by the developer community, only to purchase XF and then go to implement and extend and find when looking harder at the add-ons that the RM is polluted with incompatible, buggy and/or unsupported add-ons. Yup, that will go down well in the larger forum discussion community about the value or worth of XF as a forum solution.

So, since it is in the xF Official Repository, they endorse it too, right?
So, since it is in the xF Official Repository, they have the ability to deem when development has stopped?

The threat about how it will go down well in the "larger forum discussion community" is absolutely pointless as well.

 

[Biker]

Yup, that will go down well in the larger forum discussion community about the value or worth of XF as a forum solution.

Only for those that are totally unfamiliar with how addons are developed. If something doesn't work, do you go complain to XF, or do you complain to the author of the addon?

If anything, there should be a notice on the main resource page stating that addons are developed by third party developers and you use them at your own risk. XF will not be liable for broken sites because a user didn't do their homework and loaded a broken addon.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Except its within XF official repository, with prospective purchasers briefly browsing add-on entries to see what's available and how much support there is by the developer community, only to purchase XF and then go to implement and extend and find when looking harder at the add-ons that the RM is polluted with incompatible, buggy and/or unsupported add-ons. Yup, that will go down well in the larger forum discussion community about the value or worth of XF as a forum solution.

Official repository is not the same thing as being officially supported. (Is it even called the "Official Repository"?) Either way, buying xF based on the entry of a third-party product that you didn't research fully is not xF's responsibility in any way, shape or form. You're responsible for what you put on your forum, and how much research you do before buying anything.

 

[Mouth]

So, since it is in the xF Official Repository, they endorse it too, right?
So, since it is in the xF Official Repository, they have the ability to deem when development has stopped?

Apple, Google, and Amazon certainly think so, and do so, for their 3rd party add-on's.

 

[Sheldon]

Apple, Google, and Amazon certainly think so, and do so, for their 3rd party add-on's.

Apple, Google, Amazon

Yep, same size and same workforce as xF.

 

[Biker]

Somebody please go and tell Apple, Google, and Amazon this. Clearly they disagree and do get it that it reflects badly on their product(s) because of having incompatible, unsupported, or poorly coded/defective, 3rd party products directly impacting the performance and respect of their products and the respect or notoriety of their products or solutions as a whole.

Apple, Google and Amazon do not quality control check items in their stores. All they do is determine if it follows the guidelines for inclusion. That's it. You can still purchase a worthless item from them, and as long as it meets the criteria for uploading to the "App Store" it's all on you and the developer. NOT the company running the store.

 

[Sheldon]

What was that one app... the $25,000 one.. did nothing, just an icon. Yeah, awesome to endorse that one Apple.

 

[Shelley]

*smacks this suggestion on the nose with a newspaper*

 

[Lisa]

*smacks this suggestion on the nose with a newspaper*

I'm disappointed that you haven't given us a smiley doing that yet. *prods Shelley with the productivity fork*

 

[Biker]

*smacks this suggestion on the nose with a newspaper*

In this case, something heavier than a newspaper is warranted.

 

[Lisa]

In this case, something heavier than a newspaper is warranted.

A cattle prod?

 

[Digital Jedi]

Somebody please go and tell Apple, Google, and Amazon this. Clearly they disagree and do get it that it reflects badly on their product(s) because of having incompatible, unsupported, or poorly coded/defective, 3rd party products directly impacting the performance and respect of their products and the respect or notoriety of their products or solutions as a whole.

As I recall, Apple's policing of what apps can and can't have is reflecting poorly on them. And the Google Play store has all kind of apps that are incompatible with different devices. But what they do is categorize which app works on what device. (There are even some apps in the Play Store that haven't worked for years now, and support services that went offline months ago. A cursory scan of the reviews lets you know that.) Let's also not ignore the amount of resources that probably go into such close monitoring. If my add-on works and requires no updates nor even my attention, what automated system is going to distinguish that? Am I suddenly going to be required to login and post something every few months just to keep my add-on from being shut down or branded as out of date? What's to stop me from logging in and doing something small and inconsequential to keep my add on from being marked as unsupported, when I don't really support it in actuality? And why is is worth my time to have to do that constantly, if my add on is working fine?

vBulletin has been doing this right for years. Whatever you may think of them now, when everyone still loved vB, the method they have in place now, which is categorized add-ons based on version, has always worked perfectly. It's your job to do your research before adding onto your board. The people who make the software kinda have bigger fish to fry, not to mention, it's not their responsibility. It's a courtesy they even allow third-party plugins and give you a place to download them in the first place.

 

[Deebs]

A cattle prod?

Nowt wrong with a few volts, how many times did you stick a 9v battery on your tongue when you were young.....

 

[Mouth]

OK, I'm out. Clearly I'm in the seeming minority (or on my own) with this viewpoint and now some of you are just getting silly and derogatory.

I still strongly believe you'll see it reasonably prevalent soon enough, whereby new XF purchasers are complaining about the unsupported/incompatible or badly/destructing performance nature of some add-ons. And when you all point at the user/admin and say "bad luck, your a ******** you should have done your homework better and learnt what we already know" and think this won't reflect poorly on XF and this community .... well, denial is a river in Egypt.

Thanks for the discussion and feedback.

 

[Lisa]

Nowt wrong with a few volts, how many times did you stick a 9v battery on your tongue when you were young.....

Never ... I got my younger cousin to do it instead

 

[Deebs]

Never ... I got my younger cousin to do it instead

Cheater

 

[Shelley]

OK, I'm out. Clearly I'm in the seeming minority (or on my own) with this viewpoint and now some of you are just getting silly and derogatory.

I still strongly believe you'll see it reasonably prevalent soon enough, whereby new XF purchasers are complaining about the unsupported/incompatible or badly/destructing performance nature of some add-ons. And when you all point at the user/admin and say "bad luck, your a ******** you should have done your homework better and learnt what we already know" and think this won't reflect poorly on XF and this community .... well, denial is a river in Egypt.

Thanks for the discussion and feedback.

I think people know the risks involved with any add-on/resource. Anyone that doesn't expect a a worst case scenario or even prepares for it are accountable for those risks if a developer leaves anything unsupported.

I disagree though that it would reflect on xf poorly, they cannot ensure every add-on abandoned or any for that matter is developed further if abandoned. That being said though, if an add-on poses a security risk then that would be a good time for XF to step in and pull it off the shelf.

 

[Digital Jedi]

OK, I'm out. Clearly I'm in the seeming minority (or on my own) with this viewpoint and now some of you are just getting silly and derogatory.

I still strongly believe you'll see it reasonably prevalent soon enough, whereby new XF purchasers are complaining about the unsupported/incompatible or badly/destructing performance nature of some add-ons. And when you all point at the user/admin and say "bad luck, your a ******** you should have done your homework better and learnt what we already know" and think this won't reflect poorly on XF and this community .... well, denial is a river in Egypt.

Thanks for the discussion and feedback.

Well, as I said before, this worked fine for vBulletin for years. And was clearly never a problem for vBulletin.org. And what's likely going to happen is we'll tell that person what they did wrong and help them figure out a solution. That won't stop it from being their fault for not, you know, reading a thread part of the way through.

 

[Morgain]

There is a difference between legal and moral responsibility - which clearly does not rest with XF, and the impression of responsibility, which does attach to XF.
Many times I answer newcomer questions to reassure them about buying XF. A major area they want to know about is whether addons are good quality and well supported. This is something that directly increases XF sales. Marketing and sales is about how things seem, not necessarily how they are.

So if addons slowly become a minefield where users have to pick their way through by checking this that and the other it WILL reflect back on XF. Of course experienced admin s will do those checks. But there are plenty who are less experienced who will not. Then they will complain both here and elsewhere. XF reputation will suffer.

This is the down side of hosting addons here on the main XF site. There are many advantages which outweigh this. But it makes addons look as if they are part of the XF service more than they are.

It wouldn't be a big deal to run a labelling system to mark addons which don't get developer attention for a set period. That's a crude warning system alerting admins to look further.