| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
Suggestion: New release type "C64 Import"
Rough started a discussion a couple of years ago (see Adding the cracker group to import/trainer version), pin pointing a problem where a crack may be credited repeatedly for a group - due to the many imports that may exist.
Some attempts have been made to differentiate cracks from import by suffixing the entry with "[import]" - an approach that might not be appealing to all.
Discussions suggest that original crack group (pun intended) be credited only on *their* release, while imports only be credited to importing group, leaving a link to the original release.
My biggest concern is to be able to (quickly) identify and differentiate cracks from import, when checking for existence of a certain release for example. Although this can be partly solved by suffixing the name, I'm not sure it's the right approach. Cleaning up the credits list would partly solve the problem, but I still wouldn't be able to clearly see a difference between crack and import.
So I'm suggesting that we add a new release type. Let's call it "C64 Crack Import" or just "C64 Import" for short. It would be a fairly easy task to just "re-categorize" any imports stumbled upon, and to some extent it could probably be batch-made with an SQL query (Perff?).
It is often talked about that the DB is not designed to handle certain new features (tags for instance), while adding a new release type would make no harm to performance. Also, from a DB design perspective, it would make more sense since you can then do filtered searches where imports and cracks are differentiated. Also in release lists, it would be possible to see the difference.
...
Having import as a release type, it would furthermore be possible to have an option in listings to "Hide imports"... the result of which of course would depend on the quality of the entries, but it *would* be possible. Think future. =) |
|
... 34 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Mason
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 462 |
Also it would be nice if the imports was splitted in legal imports and not |
| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
@The Shadow: Yes, Imported Crack would prolly be a better name.
@Groepaz: I've reviewed your suggestion again and if I understand it correctly, it would still have the release type of crack, with a "flag" property saying whether it is an import etc.
I'm a bit curious to know how this is intended to be presented in search results and release lists? At the end of the day I want to be able to distinguish cracks from imports in an easy way. It's all fine with this new meta data when looking at a specific entry, but when you have a list of entries, how would you present it (to be able to distinguish it)? |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2594 |
I would prefer only "import", which would also cover the (few) imported/fixed demos. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11390 |
bepp: how it is presented is secondary for the time being - and i am sure perff can easily add whatever filtering is required once its implemented. |
| |
Moloch
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2929 |
Quoting bugjamI would prefer only "import", which would also cover the (few) imported/fixed demos.
Yeah and the imported tools |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11390 |
thats exactly why we want to make it a general flag and not add a releasetype for it :) |
| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
There's a special case that I wonder if you might have overlooked with this new system? :)
This is when one group make the crack and another group did the trainer. How to flag this in an appropriate way?
Examples:
A.R.G. +
Dead Zone +1H |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 488 |
This is simply crack in my eyes because it's just another unauthorized modification. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11390 |
re-crack to be exact :) |
| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
Re-crack flag is fine. But how to set proper credits? It wasn't released by the cracking group but rather the training group. Yet there should be some reference to the original crack. Will there be some kind of reference field maybe? Other options as I see it is to have both groups as releasers, but I don't think it's really right. I recall a very famous crack where Laxity did a trainer and released it as, what looked like a coop, when in fact it wasn't. Oh well we might not solve all cases with the new system but there should at least be clear guidelines on how to credit similar cases. This also applies to imports I believe (the group crediting issue). |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
