Why have paid unmaintained add-ons in Resources?
- Thread starter Mouth
- Start date
There's a balance to strike with regards to members who may return at some point.
However, if the member is no longer licensed, asks for their account to be deleted, or are banned, and it's a paid resource, then it should be deleted.
The other case is for members who disappear - at what point do we considered them never to return and delete their paid resources?
Six months, nine? A year?
We're currently looking at removing a bunch of them though.
However, if the member is no longer licensed, asks for their account to be deleted, or are banned, and it's a paid resource, then it should be deleted.
The other case is for members who disappear - at what point do we considered them never to return and delete their paid resources?
Six months, nine? A year?
We're currently looking at removing a bunch of them though.
Mouth
Well-known member
Paid resources, not marked as unmaintained, I think 2 months. Its reasonable to expect developers charging for resources and providing support to logon no less than at least every 2 months (I'd argue less, but trying to allow for circumstances). If XF owners are purchasing add-ons and posting in RM discussion threads with queries, issues, and suggestions but the developer is not engaging or unresponsive, then it doesn't look good for the XF brand or the experience of XF owners.
Last edited:
I would say that two months is probably on the short side, especially if they do support on their own site.
Although in an ideal world, they should also visit here regularly to check on their resource threads, conversations, etc.
In some cases the resource may not need much input or support, so those purchasing it may not even require the assistance of the author.
In other cases we have resources which have been listed by the person who paid for the development, but support is provided by the developer - that's a difficult case to deal with as it's not obvious if that's the set up.
Although in an ideal world, they should also visit here regularly to check on their resource threads, conversations, etc.
In some cases the resource may not need much input or support, so those purchasing it may not even require the assistance of the author.
In other cases we have resources which have been listed by the person who paid for the development, but support is provided by the developer - that's a difficult case to deal with as it's not obvious if that's the set up.
Mouth
Well-known member
OK, you drive a hard bargain - 3 it is then
Yes. If they're going to utilise XF to sell resources and provide (where to find) support, then IMHO that's a given.
No, but the time period requirement is not on them posting in the thread or providing updates etc. Only that they've logged into xf.com/community at least within the last 2 months (ok, 3) and presumably checked on activity/engagement (or lack thereof) of their resources. People can still manually report a paid and suported resource if the developer is logging on to xf.com but still not being responsive to engagement on their resources.
We have agreed internally on a set of criteria and actions for dealing with paid and free resources.
I am currently working through the existing resources and applying said criteria and actions.
If you feel I've missed any (give me a few hours to get through them all first
) please report them.
I am currently working through the existing resources and applying said criteria and actions.
If you feel I've missed any (give me a few hours to get through them all first
) please report them.
Mouth
Well-known member
It may simply work now. But what about in 6 months time when its impacted by an XF major/minor release and is no longer partially/fully working or installing. The developer hasn't even visited in 3+ months and is not responding to posts on their resource discussion thread. People whom purchased the add-on only 2 weeks ago before it broke are left high and dry - if only they were diligent and checked that the developer hasn't been around for 6 months. In the meantime, the anguish and venting is at xenforo for allowing this to happen. If the resource had been marked as deleted (or at least the paid option/button removed until the developer returned) 3 months prior, then it will have likely lowered the impact of this scenario.
Unfortunately, it's not a far fetching scenario either. Starting to see it a little recently.
The problem in managing such a system is there is no automatic method of dealing with that scenario, so it's a case of manually checking each and every resource on an ongoing basis.
Even if it's done monthly, there are going to be resources which fall outside the criteria due to them being, for example, 2 months and 29 days on the previous check, which would make them 3 months and 29 days on the next check.
Doing it any more frequently than a month just isn't feasible, due to the number of resources and the amount of effort and time it takes.
Even if it's done monthly, there are going to be resources which fall outside the criteria due to them being, for example, 2 months and 29 days on the previous check, which would make them 3 months and 29 days on the next check.
Doing it any more frequently than a month just isn't feasible, due to the number of resources and the amount of effort and time it takes.
Mouth
Well-known member
Wouldn't it be nice if there was an add-on that provided ACP functionality where you could enter an SQL query, define it's run frequency, and it would email you the results.
Those results contained the ID and URL for a resource matching the criteria, and the admin could just click on the link in the email and take review and/or appropriate action on the item(s) flagged.
Such an add-on would have many, many other opportunities and use cases too.
Mouth
Well-known member
Agreed. Such an ACP add-on would only allow SELECT queries, so that any actions an admin determines may be required from the results received would be done through standard UI.
Robust
Well-known member
We use our own site and redirect all support there. Also, that's encouraging wasting time to do updates for no reason to "prove you're still active" - waste of time for developers and users.
Marking as unmaintained is enough. A lot of old resources still work. XenForo doesn't cause many breaks per update.
Robust
Well-known member
What's the criteria? We should know so our resources aren't deleted because of some "inactivity" rule...We have agreed internally on a set of criteria and actions for dealing with paid and free resources.
I am currently working through the existing resources and applying said criteria and actions.
If you feel I've missed any (give me a few hours to get through them all first
Robust
Well-known member
Right, and in the case they do return after a long time, are they able to restore their resource(s)?
CTXMedia
Well-known member
Presumably this is why @tenants StopHumanSpam add-on has been marked as deleted (along with others of his).
Would it be worth a post in the announcements forum to explain what's happening?
Also would it be worth moving the deleted resources to a 'Deleted Resources' category so they're not mixed in with current / active ones (just a thought)?
Cheers,
Shaun
Would it be worth a post in the announcements forum to explain what's happening?
Also would it be worth moving the deleted resources to a 'Deleted Resources' category so they're not mixed in with current / active ones (just a thought)?
Cheers,
Shaun
