[CSDb] - User Forums - maintaining periodically updated entries

Welcome to our latest new user maak ! (Registered 2024-04-18)

You are not logged in - nap

CSDb User Forums

Forums > CSDb Discussions > maintaining periodically updated entries

2007-10-14 17:57

chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11095

maintaining periodically updated entries

*sigh* ok well, to put an end to this nonsence:

- each new release of whatever is added to the database must get its new entry. period.

this is a general rule for everything in the database, and it wont be discussed either. no exceptions. we will enforce this, no matter what. (and no, only because there are other releases which do not follow this rule that doesn't mean that newly added releases may not follow it either - they will all be fixed over time)

that said, i can see how "latest releases" beeing flooded with stuff that gets updated on a daily basis is annoying and unnecessary. no doubt about this, and no need to discuss it either. we will find a solution for this, but it will take some time.

as for now, when you are updating such a release, please do the following:

1. create a new entry for the new release, with the proper releasedate and info and all that.
2. in the old, now outdated, previous version set the release year to "year" (ie, undefined).
3. if the links to the file in the entries aren't permanent, upload the actual file.

this will prevent the old release staying in the "latest releases". the actual year will still be visible in the edit history (for moderators/admins) so it can be fixed/restored later when we found a proper solution.

thank you for your attention :)

... 16 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....

2007-10-18 18:25

Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017

I dont want anyone to take me serious. but here's a constructive idea: how about having a forum for discussions about the workings of csdb with rigid moderation rules. and let ppl fool around in the rest.

2007-10-18 18:33

chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11095

"fooling around" like randomly accusing moderators for things that didnt happen? no sir.

2007-10-18 18:34

Trazan

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 620

Quote: I dont want anyone to take me serious. but here's a constructive idea: how about having a forum for discussions about the workings of csdb with rigid moderation rules. and let ppl fool around in the rest.

Wont help - really. Rules and Sideborders are meant to be broken it seems.

2007-10-18 18:39

Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017

sorry lads, somehow I missed that jacky's post is still there. my apologizes.

2007-10-19 09:54

enthusi

Registered: May 2004
Posts: 674

Yago mentioned somewhere the idea to handle c64 and PC differently in general. I agree 100%.
I think the rule to add EACH version as entry is good and important for c64-stuff.
However I'd prefer to have ONE version of each PC-Tool. The latest one usually :)
So people looking for i.e. HOXS find THE version to use. Same with P1, etc. The one releasing it is "responsible" for hosting old version on his/her/their individual HP in my opinion (i.e. it might make sense to get an old vice-release for testing reasons or whatever).
Im currently working on a small C64-tool and will not release some quick-n-dirty version before Im satisfied to avoid having 2 versions around. That's the way it is and was. Dont release a game when it's not finished or you will end up with 2 games.
To sumarise:
C64: each version its own entry
PC/AMIGA/ETC: only latest version gets an entry

2007-10-19 10:21

wreg
Account closed

Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 679

we should stick to each thing/release/file/whatever gets an own entry!

however, we can improve the handling, i.e. if a new version gets released, one could mark the old one(s) unnecessary and perhaps they will be hidden from search/shown or just put at the end of the search result
the chain (as JA proposed) is pretty good as well, though should perhaps get a tree structure or even (?) to be more flexible in the future

for completeness of this database we should though keep them all in some way, even if the way at this moment is not satisfying for some of you

emulators are in some way connected to this scene, and might it be just that many of you dislike them :-)

if you dont want older version here => i dont want, lets say, the older crack versions here as well
let's just keep the ntsc fixes, or latest trained versions and remove all the original releases, which do have an own entry here as well...
i guess i can find some ppl who think this is a good idea as well
though: do we seriously consider it?! ;-)

2007-10-19 12:10

chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11095

Quote:

if you dont want older version here => i dont want, lets say, the older crack versions here as well
let's just keep the ntsc fixes, or latest trained versions and remove all the original releases, which do have an own entry here as well...
i guess i can find some ppl who think this is a good idea as well
though: do we seriously consider it?! ;-)

said that, i had to explain exactly that to someone who removed a (c64) release the other day, because it was already in the database, cracked by another group. =P

and i dont get WTF is the problem some people have with the old versions beeing in the database at all. thats called archiving :)

2007-10-19 13:32

assiduous
Account closed

Registered: Jun 2007
Posts: 343

Quote:

and i dont get WTF is the problem some people have with the old versions beeing in the database at all. thats called archiving :)

Personally I don't see a problem in adding old versions. If sb is dying to fulfil himself by contributing with tens and hundreds of Hoxs64 v1.x.x.x.x.x.x.x entries with no download links, screenshots, release notes and ratings, that nobody in the world will ever check (except spambots maybe) or benefit from - I'd have to be empty hearted (or be the one to pay for the webspace here) to have an objection to it :(

What I have a problem with though is the fact that there's no one, always up-2-date entry for the latest release, serving as a general, main entry. As a result:

- a frequently updated application has no chance of getting a proper user rating (by the time it gets enough votes a new version is released ,a new entry is created and the entry with the votes becomes obsolete)
- it's impossible to link to the latest version of the application without changing links each and every time a new version is released (I used to link to the entry with the latest version of Hoxs64, the links now point to an outdated build as a result of Groepaz "enforcing" rules)
- to read comments and opinions about the application one has to browse through tens/hundreds of entries in a hope of finding an odd one here or there.

2007-10-19 16:56

wreg
Account closed

Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 679

lol

Quote:

(I used to link to the entry with the latest version of Hoxs64, the links now point to an outdated build as a result of Groepaz "enforcing" rules)

you have been told, NOT to add such unstatic links!
you answered that you 'will not use a tiniest fraction of my 2Mbps upstream...' for that
it's not this site's fault, that you cannot cope the rules, you know...

Quote:

- a frequently updated application has no chance of getting a proper user rating (by the time it gets enough votes a new version is released ,a new entry is created and the entry with the votes becomes obsolete)

let's assume we do it like you propose:
ppl will vote a 1 cause its in development and then later forget about their vote and this emulator will, though probably the best thats currently available always stay low on rating because of your 'nice idea'...

Quote:

- it's impossible to link to the latest version of the application without changing links each and every time a new version is released

you cannot link to the csdb entry from another site, thats correct... csdb just dont support this kind of linking, and its not what its for (this might change in the future though :-) )
just link to the authors site if you like to

Quote:

- to read comments and opinions about the application one has to browse through tens/hundreds of entries in a hope of finding an odd one here or there.

same applies here as for voting, just read my comment on the quote from above again...

2007-10-19 19:17

assiduous
Account closed

Registered: Jun 2007
Posts: 343

Quote:

you have been told, NOT to add such unstatic links!
you answered that you 'will not use a tiniest fraction of my 2Mbps upstream...' for that
it's not this site's fault, that you cannot cope the rules, you know...

Dear mastermind, look at what you've quoted. "(I used to link to the entry". To the entry! I was referring to links like <release id="XX">. The fact you didn't get it doesn't come as a surprise to me, though. More on that below.

Quote:

you cannot link to the csdb entry from another site, thats correct... csdb just dont support this kind of linking, and its not what its for (this might change in the future though :-) )
just link to the authors site if you like to

You're quoting lines pulled out of context that you don't understand at all and you're talking bollocks. If you didn't notice, there's a bracket after the line you've quoted which amazingly relates to the text written before it. Instead of associating the content in the bracket with the text in front of it, you've quoted these parts separately and answered as though they concerned 2 different things! Oh boy, it's really tiresome to explain obvious things to you, but once again: I was referring to internal links in CSDb: <release id="XX">! It's the inner workings of CSDb that we're discussing here, hello!

Quote:

let's assume we do it like you propose:
ppl will vote a 1 cause its in development and then later forget about their vote and this emulator will, though probably the best thats currently available always stay low on rating because of your 'nice idea'...

People here have the option to change their votes whenever they want to, and by updating the entry it will stay on the "surface", thus reminding people about continuous development of the software. Given the fact that the vote - if cast - is instantly visible on the right panel in the entry, it's pretty unlikely to assume that people will just forget about it. Your 'nice idea' on the other hand entails that we would have no chance for a serious rating whatsoever.

Quote:

same applies here as for voting, just read my comment on the quote from above again...

As though you could add only 1 comment to the release... I'm wholeheartedly sorry to inform you it actually happens that people's views on certain productions change over time and it also applies to demos, music and other productions that don't have a version number in the title. And once again, this argument utterly fails to justify why we should have the general comments that apply for v1.0.4.5 as much as for v1.0.3.5 scattered over N entries, making CSDb a place where information is actually hard to acquire.

Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next

Refresh

Subscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search for in
All times are CET.

Search CSDb

Advanced

Users Online

Freeze/Blazon
Jetboy/Elysium
K-reator/CMS/F4CG
CA$H/TRiAD
kbs/Pht/Lxt
TheRyk/MYD!
Dymo/G★P
Honesty/Covenant/Ons..
Guests online: 139

Top Demos

1 Next Level  (9.8)
2 Mojo  (9.7)
3 Coma Light 13  (9.7)
4 Edge of Disgrace  (9.6)
5 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
6 No Bounds  (9.6)
7 Uncensored  (9.6)
8 Wonderland XIV  (9.6)
9 The Ghost  (9.6)
10 Bromance  (9.6)

Top onefile Demos

1 It's More Fun to Com..  (9.9)
2 Party Elk 2  (9.7)
3 Cubic Dream  (9.6)
4 Copper Booze  (9.5)
5 Rainbow Connection  (9.5)
6 TRSAC, Gabber & Pebe..  (9.5)
7 Onscreen 5k  (9.5)
8 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
9 Quadrants  (9.5)
10 Daah, Those Acid Pil..  (9.5)

Top Groups

1 Oxyron  (9.3)
2 Nostalgia  (9.3)
3 Booze Design  (9.3)
4 Censor Design  (9.3)
5 Crest  (9.3)

Top Crackers

1 Mr. Z  (9.9)
2 S!R  (9.9)
3 Mr Zero Page  (9.8)
4 Antitrack  (9.8)
5 OTD  (9.8)

Page generated in: 0.059 sec.