- This topic has 11 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Call this a "feature request" if you like (and it may well have been suggested in some form before), but I want to share some observations about the way requests are handled, and put forth some ideas about ways to address these issues.
The process is currently very much ad hoc--requests are simply posted to the Requests forum with certain conventions observed, e.g. an offer of X points for item Y. Others chime in with replies offering to add their own point offers, until hopefully someone fills the request and posts a reply to that effect, after which the OP is expected to close the thread and mark it filled. The filler is then expected to PM everyone who offered points in that thread to supply them with a link to the item, and to request the promised points.
By contrast, someone who wants to upload content is met with a handy form that ensures that all the necessary elements are included, there are opportunities for input validation, and a submission queue for human eyes to review. In short, when it comes to content the site has a management system to facilitate the process, and I think it could do something similar with the way requests are handled.
One problem with requests (in their current form) is that every state change relies on a human being to follow an established convention, and with consistency. For the old hands who've been doing this for years it's routine, but with a constant influx of new users there will always be folks missing a step somewhere, or misunderstanding a convention.
The fact that forum names and user names are not necessarily identical can be baffling, and used to trip me up, for one. The site clearly knows that user ABC has forum name XYZ, but when it comes to sending a PM to XYZ it suddenly has no clue who that is, because it is only looking in the user name table. When the request system is so heavily dependent on "PM for points", this one small problem can lead to much confusion and frustration. (Aside: Why can't the messaging system consult the forum name table if it doesn't find any matches in the user name table?)
It's also a tedious process for the filler, having to make a list of all the individual requestors, their user names (not just their forum names), their pledge amounts, and then do the obligatory round of PMing them all once the item is ready. This is on top of having to package the item, upload it, and in many cases pay real money for it. I confess there have been times when I've seen a request I could fill, but I think of the time and effort involved in managing the request and I just decide to pass.
Another issue is with the promising of points a user doesn't have, since there's no mechanism preventing them from pledging 500 points for 5 different items, when their point balance might only be 1000 at the time. If all 5 of their requests get filled that day, they'd owe 2500 points, and have to wait 15 days of daily visit points to make up the shortfall to meet their commitment.
There are also, unfortunately, some deadbeats out there who don't pay up when their requests are filled. Properly PMed (to the correct user name) by the filler, most requestors are good about sending the promised points, but some simply never reply, or cheekily respond with something like, "Thanks for sharing!" without sending any points. Essentially, nothing holds requestors to account for their pledges, and so the filler is left to either shrug if off as an "acceptable level of loss", or pursue the outstanding accounts like a collections agent.
Arguably, when you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of points, you stop caring so much about the deadbeats; you don't need the promised 500 or 1000 points that desperately anymore. But it certainly matters to the Rank 1 and 2 folks, and more generally it sets a terrible precedent on a sharing site when people discover that they can promise points and not actually have to send them, while still receiving the item.
Personally, I've resorted to creating a list of the requestors who haven't sent the points they promised for requests I've filled, and I will deliberately ignore their requests/pledges in the future. But I shouldn't have to maintain such a list in the first place, and of course if I'm the only one doing so it will not make much of a dent in the practice of reneging on pledges.
What I'm proposing is a Request Management System that would take the requests process out of the forums entirely, and manage it from start to finish. Anyone could then post a request by filling out a simple form with the standard information: the name of the item, source link, promo image link, and pledge amount. The system could then take that pledge amount from the requestor's account and hold it in escrow, which would prevent people from pledging with points they don't have. The system should allow requestors to modify or cancel their pledge at any time (before the request is filled) to get their points refunded, or perhaps set a time limit (e.g. 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, etc.) before it expires. A system like this would then allow other requestors to join in on the request with their own point commitments, handled the same way.
When someone fills the request, they fill out a simpler form that just contains the link to the download. At that point the system knows the request has been filled (and by whom), and automatically transfers all the escrowed points to the filler after a 24-hour hold, while sending the link to all of the requestors. None of this "PM for points" required, no chasing people down for points.
If there are any issues with the fill (e.g. the filler supplies a bogus link, etc.), the system knows exactly where all the points came from, so rolling back a fraudulent fill should be easy enough for an admin to do, and penalizing the fraudster can be part of the resolution (at an admin's discretion). The 24-hour hold on the payout gives the requestors time to verify the download and complain to an admin if there is a problem, to prevent the fraudster from immediately transferring the points elsewhere. If no one has complained (to an admin's satisfaction, at least), then after 24 hours the points are fully transferred to the filler.
There could even be a checkbox for requestors to confirm that the download was good, so an admin who receives a complaint about a fill could see at a glance that, say, 15 requestors said it was OK, 1 said it was NOT OK, and 6 had not confirmed it yet.
Yes, it would involve writing a bit of database code to implement such a system, but it would build nicely on top of the points management system that already exists, and on the interface end would just require a few simple forms for submitting/listing/filling/editing requests. A new top-level menu ("Requests") could slide in there between "Submit Post" and "Community".
Ultimately I think this would make the request system much easier to use, and I (for one) would be encouraged to fill more requests if all of the bookkeeping was handled for me by the site.
Cheers,
QueensKnightOh Hell Yes !!!
So much to read that some will think it a rant and abandone it, but it needs to be read from sstart to finish.Many of us have fallen foul of the points mentioned.
Especially in paras 5,6, 7, 8, 9 & 10.
A lot of it happening over many years with no change.It would be nice to see someone take action on this as it would solve many of the areas that regularly need complainting about.
It would also put a stop to the abuse of the sysyem from those that do not care about honouring their bounty offers [or needing constant 'reminders'].
We may all be Pirates - but there is still the notion of Honour among Thieves.
Technically the filler is the only 'sort-of-honest', since they may have paid for the content to benefit the rest.Despite such a good idea it is probably wishfull thinking to expect to see it actioned.
As they say, Wish in One hand.......-I think it would be easier if when filling a request that you would only have to give one link and everyone that requested it got that link and at the same time the pts were automatically given to you from their account .
-I also think there should be no more multi-requests , this can be very difficult to figure out what all has been filled and what has not , the main requester or one of the admins can put (FILLED) on the main banner thingy , then the request can be removed instead of it hanging around for years waiting for other products from it to be filled.
-should there be a time limit on how long a request is good for ? some requests go back years , me personally unless I remove my request or it was filled I still want it but I get the feeling that some expect the request to be filled within a certain amount of time and if not they don't want it anymore or don't want to have to pay for it anymore.One more thing that can be done is... once a request is fulfilled, it can be scheduled to be posted automatically on the blog after, say, a week (which seems to be the ideal limit for posting publicly) with the points going to the fulfiller whenever anyone pays to access that blog post. This can be achieved by the proposed form system that the fulfiller fills.
This way, the shared assets have a longer shelf life and won't get lost due to inactive users.
Lest it appear that I'm unappreciative of what the ZoneGFX developers have built, I'll point out that I've offered these suggestions only because I care enough to want to see this site achieve more of its potential. If I cared less, or thought it pointless, impossible, or impractical, I simply wouldn't be here.
Let's be clear about something else, too--a site that fails to innovate, or at a minimum keep pace with the needs of its user base, is vulnerable to being eclipsed by a competitor who is willing to do more. A site operator who provides a user-friendly, convenient system for sharing content in the various different ways we do, here, would quickly become a favourite among those who supply that content, and new content would start appearing there before it made it over here. The community would follow before long, since many of us would be going there for the content anyway.
On the matter of difficulty or practicality, I can say as an experienced developer of database-driven applications that what I'm proposing is relatively trivial, and that most of the infrastructure is already in place with the points management system. I've built much more complex systems over the years--you use some of them every day.
If the "favorites" feature brought site performance to a crawl, that speaks more to how the database was designed, how its tables were indexed, and how well its queries were optimized. There's no reason a MySQL or PostgreSQL database couldn't handle that, or for that matter a WP module written in PHP. There are many massive, data-driven sites running on WP (back-ended with MySQL or PostgreSQL) without issue--the key is in the optimization of the database tables, indexes, and queries.
If the issue is underpowered hardware, a slow disk array, etc., then I would suggest we undertake a fundraiser (perhaps as a holiday-themed event?) to improve the site's capability.
I would be glad to speak with the site's developer(s) about the technical details as they exist right now, and how I might be able to contribute to its evolution. I'm prepared to roll up my sleeves to write the code, if the devs are willing; I just figured this sort of thing must already be on their to-do list somewhere. If they'd like a hand with anything, they know how to PM me.
any news on this? The system sounds very smart, should have been implemented asap. Re-indexing a MySQL is no big deal, regardless of how data was initially collected. Nowadays it's easier to migrate to MariaDB though, and from there to create collections in smaller mongoDBs which would be more of an investment, but would pay off longterm.
I'd be willing to contribute, but we need to know what is missing from the hardware picture.
i'm all for something like this. it's time consuming when filling something with a lot of users, and making a list of users requires opening up each user's profile page (because username differences). a one-click solution would be so much more convenient.
@queensknight, I hear ya. Considering that Hunter hasn't done shit to fix this in 7 months, I'm ready to move elsewhere, greener and more caring pastures as it where.
There's been a few rumblings in our discord server about something germinating. I'll be watching closely.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
