Allow resource mod review of paid resources without purchase

[Justis]

Hey guys,

As you should know, every resource which gets uploaded to MCMarket goes through a review process by which a resource mod will download the resource you've uploaded (whether you're charging for it or not), verify that it's not malicious, that it is the product described on the resource page, that you own it, etc.

We do have quality standards, such as, you can't upload a dirt house, or a hello world plugin, or a five line messages.properties file, common sense...
But, there are some resources that technically get by on all the requirements, and I don't want to sensor anyone just because they're not some elite dev or something. We all start somewhere.
However, when they're getting by on the skin of their teeth in terms of quality.
When the resource is so poorly made that it looks like it might break at any time.
When I actually have to feel guilty for approving of something to be sold for actual money to members of the community...
I feel I should have the right, though I did not pay for the resource, to leave a review, notifying interested buyers of exactly what they can expect from the resource, and the author that published it.
I feel the community deserves to know.

This could potentially save a lot of bad blood between members who purchased something, and then later realized it was a waste of money, because they would never use something so trashy, and wanted a refund. Situation snowballs.

This could also encourage premium resource authors to ensure that they really do take the time to upload something that's worth putting a price tag on, because they're not safe from being exposed as being low quality until after they've already gotten their money.

It just feel so wrong to know something is bad, and not being able to say so.

Like-wise, there are some resources that are absolutely amazing, and I live for them, and they deserve recognition as having quality work put into it by an author who obviously cares; and I'd like to be able to slap a star on them and say, yes this is something I would recomend.

However, the whole point of doing this would be to inform the community, and hopefully raise the quality of the resources that are being published by authors, and getting attention on the front page.
If the community doesn't want the resource mods doing this, then there would be no point.
That's why I'm here with this suggestion, asking your feedback. What do you think?

Should review of paid resources by the resource mod who approved it be allowed?
Or should they be forced to pay for it before they can make a review?

 

[Devon]

I think this is more of a Ajdin question lmfao unless he asked you to make this thread

 

[Justis]

I think this is more of a Ajdin question lmfao unless he asked you to make this thread

Yes, I asked him. He asked me to make this thread.

 

[Devon]

Yes, I asked him. He asked me to make this thread.

Alright, so if it's a premium resource do you not even get to download it before you approve it?

 

[Justis]

Alright, so if it's a premium resource do you not even get to download it before you approve it?

I thought I made it clear in the opening, we download every resource which is uploaded.
We would not be able to safely approve it otherwise.

 

[RektLess]

Staff are promoted, and trusted for a reason. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be added.

 

[Devon]

I thought I made it clear in the opening, we download every resource which is uploaded.
We would not be able to approve it otherwise.

Ah yeah, I didn't read it well. If it's a poor quality resource, why should it even get approved in the first place?

 

[Justis]

Ah yeah, I didn't read it well. If it's a poor quality resource, why should it even get approved in the first place?

If we were to require that proper programming conventions be used in all plugins which are uploaded, the plugins section would be nearly empty.
90% of developers here and on spigot never took a class, and don't know what they're doing.

However, their content works as it's described, it had a lot of effort put into it, and members easily find it useful.
There are hundreds if not thousands of plugins like this on spigot, which run on a great portion of public servers, yet you decompile them, and they're garbage.

This is not so much a problem with builds and graphics, because if it was made poorly, that's clearly visible.
The problem with software though, is the whole "as long as it works" ideology used by developers.

I'm not prepared to nearly eliminate the plugins section due to expectations that will never be met.
And I don't intend on leaving a bad review on a resource that doesn't meet these expectations.
However, when it's clear that the author, although they have produced something which works as described, did so in a manner which would have anyone questioning that author's capabilities to maintain their product or resolve issues as they come up, I feel that should be made clear to the community.

 

[Zeiyon]

I don't believe it should be a Review, maybe just a *Warning* message or something at the bottom or top of a resource.

Because, for example, I wouldn't think this 'communitychest' plugin is worth $2. So I would review it like 3 stars, but on the other hand, people who are willing to pay the $2 for this plugin will be satisfied.

 

[Jayson]

This would be nice, unless Justis writes a review that says "Stop making messages files already!"

 

[Niall]

I believe this would be beneficial for the community. Not only would it be beneficial to inform the buyer regarding the product, it would also aid sellers improve the standard and quality of their products and possibly increase sales upon a good review.

 

[TechBanana]

I completely trust Justis R's opinions and knows he wouldn't intentionally leave a biased review. I would also certainly want to know if the quality of the product was bad before I purchase it instead of finding out later on.

Titanic I hate it when people do this to me, but since you're the only disagree I was wondering if you could share your reasoning?

 

[Justis]

There's a reason why both Apple and Google require you to download/purchase an app before you can leave a review or rating...

This is basically the same principle, so this gets no from me.

And we have downloaded the "app" as you compared it to.
We're required to.

Apple prevents you from reviewing something before you've downloaded it so that your review is informed.
How is ours not? That's the whole purpose of this.

 

[Jayson]

My opinion is going to be based completely off of the plugin part simply because I'm not a builder/configurator.
I came from a (non-MC) community whereby to sell premium resources, you had to pass an aptitude test. The aptitude test consisted of two things:

1. Make a resource that meets a criteria (in this case, "make a plugin that allows me to fire explosive arrows" would be something you could ask)
2. Complete a quiz based on Java and the API used (in this case, questions like "name some syntactic sugar that Java 8 introduced" or "is it possible to modify a world asynchronously?" would be asked) - the quiz was 10 questions, selected from a pool randomly. There was no "revision" because no one knew what the questions were going to be.

From there, you had "ranks" of sellers. A Seller II would be one permitted to sell premium resources, and a Seller III would be one who was hand-picked by the development team through a rigorous, almost job application like process. The rank of Seller you are dictates your knowledge (and thus, your trustworthiness).

I believe a similar method should be followed. Sure, a lot of people who make plugins are indeed self taught, but IMO language specific questions are the most valuable as knowing those can lead to writing efficient plugins (is Java a managed language? What does Java compile to? Why does it compile to this? Why is it more efficient to do x instead of y?). Plus, the API specific questions would be known either through trial and error (in the example I gave earlier, trying to do World#getBlock(x,y,z)#setType(Material) in an asynchronous task), by prior knowledge (worlds are created by the main server thread, therefore modification must be done in the same thread), or by learning through other code/tutorials. I was personally shocked when I realised that all I needed to do to post a premium plugin on here was to donate 10 euros to this site.

Now, of course, someone can tick all the boxes of an aptitude test and then make really shitty plugins. In this case, they wouldn't pass your own test. This keeps the work you need to do to a minimum, as you don't have to go through tons of plugins from people, and it sets the bar for this forum higher than before. After all, a marketplace is only as good as its worst product, right?

EDIT: I do, however, believe you should warn people of plugins that are hanging on by a thread. Personally, I wouldn't accept them at all due to the potential risk (would you let hospital software that works 90% of the time be introduced in to a wide spread of hospitals?). The same (albeit much, much less seriously) applies to plugins here.

Didn't bother to read all that, sorry.

But about your test thing, my test would be:
1) When you want to change change true in a configuration to disabled what would you type?
2) What does | generally mean in a configuration?

(Not really effective)