Stupid rules for links
category: general [glöplog]
And also: Don't impose any restrictions on the additional link targets except for stuff like "don't link to an obscure, scammy file sharing site that deletes stuff after a year". Let's say Source code links can also go it Bitbucket, a self hosted Gitlab server, and there's also nothing wrong with some static HTML site that shows a license or a readme and has the actual DL link on it. Really. People aren't THAT stupid. They'll find that thing to click on.
it seems to me that people really, really don't want to know that i'm not advocating against adding those links proposed as "youtube (party version)", just with a regular label on a regular prod page. what's so bad about that idea? it is consistent and futureproof, is it not?
One of the bad sides of that idea is that arguably an important part of this site is the discussion on the prod pages, and in most cases it's pointless or rather counterproductive to split that discussion between let's say party and final versions.
fair enough, surely there must be more arguments against it though?
Of course, if you tell me which number of arguments is the correct one...
Preacher: I disagree with that analysis. Looking at some named productions in this very thread for example, Gaia Machina had a "final version" released very long after it competed in the compo (two years?), and the.popular.demo had a gap of nearly two months between being first released and getting a "final version" with a completely overhauled soundtrack. The only thing that differs between that and the demos I linked to is at least in my head the omission of percentages in the title.
Another thing to consider is, where do you draw the line? I take it a "final version" that is a completely different demo with completely new assets, code, narrative etc. would not fly even on Pouet, so how much is a "final version" allowed to deviate from the original version before it becomes a new production?
This is not really an argument for or against anything by the way, I just wanted to pose the question, because I think if you allow final versions to replace existing downloads, then you also need to know where the line should be drawn.
This is not really an argument for or against anything by the way, I just wanted to pose the question, because I think if you allow final versions to replace existing downloads, then you also need to know where the line should be drawn.
"A completely overhauled soundtrack", sure, but it was still the same song, just with different mix + singer. Just like a film's Director's Cut or an album's reissue doesn't get it's own Wikipedia article (even for Blade Runner, and that was one hell of a Director's Cut!) or IMDb page, I think versions of a prod consist as one prod.
Where the line is between a "version" and a "remix" is, well, I don't think we've seen an edge case so far, since most party/final combinations are what, 90% the same, with maybe an added scene somewhere.
Where the line is between a "version" and a "remix" is, well, I don't think we've seen an edge case so far, since most party/final combinations are what, 90% the same, with maybe an added scene somewhere.
So the policy is basically "no policy until the need arises"?
i'm curious too now
I would distinguish between a policy (which is a guideline in arbitration and can be deviated from in certain cases) and a rule (which is a harder line), so I'd suggest the policy to be have versions/iterations of a prod to be a singular database entry and adding additional links when they have merit.
Thoughts/opinions?
Thoughts/opinions?
who's going to determine when stuff has "merit"?
Quote:
so I'd suggest the policy to be have versions/iterations of a prod to be a singular database entry and adding additional links when they have merit.
Definately agree with this + the extra links to be allowed to have a short self description like youtube (live), youtube (party version), etc.
"Merit", again, is policy, not rule, noone's gonna run different versions of captures through any sort of mathematical analysis that decides what's "different enough", so it's gonna be left up to the moderators, but at the same time moderators to an extent should be the representation of the community, and if the community disagrees with their decision, they should concede and honour it.
Sounds reasonable. Also yeah, a bit of flexibility won't break the format. I think it's a lot easier to determine when something's way out of line and deal with it if you're not worrying about whether a hundred other prods are a millimeter over it.
Also this:
OMG YES. Having web 1.0 filehosting as a strict requirement makes no sense anymore in 2018.
Also this:
Quote:
And also: Don't impose any restrictions on the additional link targets except for stuff like "don't link to an obscure, scammy file sharing site that deletes stuff after a year". Let's say Source code links can also go it Bitbucket, a self hosted Gitlab server, and there's also nothing wrong with some static HTML site that shows a license or a readme and has the actual DL link on it. Really. People aren't THAT stupid. They'll find that thing to click on.
OMG YES. Having web 1.0 filehosting as a strict requirement makes no sense anymore in 2018.
Quote:
Also this:
Quote:And also: Don't impose any restrictions on the additional link targets except for stuff like "don't link to an obscure, scammy file sharing site that deletes stuff after a year". Let's say Source code links can also go it Bitbucket, a self hosted Gitlab server, and there's also nothing wrong with some static HTML site that shows a license or a readme and has the actual DL link on it. Really. People aren't THAT stupid. They'll find that thing to click on.
OMG YES. Having web 1.0 filehosting as a strict requirement makes no sense anymore in 2018.
I disagree on this (almost all Dropbox/GDrive links are dead within a month), but that's a different topic.
fingers crossed you can find some volunteers to do the moderating under those new conditions!
Gargaj: Ok, yeah, Dropbox/GDrive are an edge case, I admit. Let's have a "links should be considered stable" policy then or sth.
@Gargaj - fair enough, won't derail this topic. Trying to deal with this on one of my own works right now though FWIW. My web 1.0 hosting got discontinued on ~3 weeks notice...
@Havoc - I'd really think this would make the job easier rather than harder; way less trying to ram a square peg into a round hole & fighting against the backlash. A lot of prods just can't fit into such a strict formatting policy.
@Havoc - I'd really think this would make the job easier rather than harder; way less trying to ram a square peg into a round hole & fighting against the backlash. A lot of prods just can't fit into such a strict formatting policy.
jmph: lol
somehow this whole thread makes me sad.
@kb: While I do agree with you that people are not stupid, my crawler _is_ stupid. :-) So if you link to a file, pouet-mirror.sesse.net will preserve it. If you link to a page, it won't.
(This is just informational—do not take it as a request for forbidding anything.)
(This is just informational—do not take it as a request for forbidding anything.)
After this topic has been discussed, does pouet have database backups where the deleted links can be restored?
