Quantcast
WoWInterface and Curse working together to help protect authors and other site-users - Page 28 - WoWInterface
Thread Tools Display Modes
04-16-09, 06:57 PM   #541
guice
A Cobalt Mageweaver
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
There are several reasons authors don't like WoWMatrix (this is understanding and recognizing it is an easier way to update).
1.) Simplicity, it is much easier to keep track of things when I know what and from where people are getting my work. Keeping it down to WoWI lets me easily control that.
2.) WoWMatrix often modified addon files before installing them. I have seen several bugs out there associated only with WoWMatrix users, because WM was fooling with the files. From time to time it also distributed old versions, which could wreak equal havoc.
3.) (related to 2) While a moot point now, WoWMatrix was removing addons in-game donation requests. Go figure, some authors didn't appreciate that.
4.) (Possibly most important) It was not an opt-in service. Or even an opt-out. When I create a work, it is my right to determine how (or if) that work is distributed. WoWMatrix took that right away. They provided addons without permission, and ignored authors protests. From my perspective (not WoWIs) this is the worst.

All my works are under the GPL or BSD, meaning WoWMatrix can redistribute at will, but that was my choice, and to me it's precious. Other authors make different choices, and I suspect to them having that choice is equally precious.

Edit: I'm off to dinner now, but I will happily discuss this further later. Hopefully you can see my point of view.
Teeechnically GPL gave them right to modify as well, but I won't go there.

Point 4, the most important one, is due to the nature of how things were setup. I don't why people wanted to opt-out of WM's list. It's how I found and installed add-ons. If WM didn't have it, I request "support" for it, and generally didn't install it. Heck, I've actually intentionally removed add-ons WM didn't "support" in favor of ones they did.
For opting out, this is two sided. One side on WM, naturally. They should have had a way, through their contact form, to opt-out of support. Did you try that route? Did it go on deaf ears with WoWI's attempt to contact them?

Issue 2 and 3 are related. I'll grasp them together; modifying add-ons to change content is bad, with the exception of *user initiated* requests. The only TOC update I knew WM did was "update all my add-ons." This is user initiated request. This isn't WM's fault. Maybe their fault for buggy code, but in those cases you can easily just blame WM for improperly editing your files.
The best part of this here; You can completely drop support yourself! The moment you find a bug that is definite WM related, you could immediately pass the buck, "Sorry, WM edited those files. I can't fix it or support it." Pass the buck. I do it all the time at work. ^_^
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:00 PM   #542
Tekkub
Featured Artist
 
Tekkub's Avatar
Featured
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by guice View Post
Well, maybe if authors or interface sites were able to work with the "automated" WM a little cleaner, it wouldn't have been a problem. ^_^
I think the author's dissatisfaction was slightly misplaced.
Frankly, I think WM is a nice little program, aside from one thing (it edits TOC numbers, which it should not do. It should just simply set the "load outdated addons" automatically for the user). Back in the day when they were up-and-coming, had they come to me and asked to host my addons, and provided an easy way to submit that I could add to my release script, I probably would have pushed my stuff out through their program. They didn't though, instead of going for legitimate content to host, they just took a "free for all" approach. That alone doesn't endear me to them... and then when they leech other site's bandwidth to the point it becomes harmful? Well if they were to approach me today I wouldn't put my addons up on their program.

Simply put, if they had shown they were interested in providing a wonderful tool to the community as a whole, the community would have embraced it. Instead they proved that they would pursue any means possible to get content for their program, regardless of what the people providing that content had to say about it.
__________________
I have reached enlightment.
Thank you bacon!
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:01 PM   #543
guice
A Cobalt Mageweaver
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
You are completely missing the point. Print newspapers need no defending, they were a perfectly valid business, that is becoming less practical, much like the stagecoach. You focus on an irrelevancies, while completely ignoring the core of my argument.
Sorry, then. I misspoke and meant newspapers attempts at online. They claim Google should be paying them. They claim people should pay for the news. One news CEO even said all newspapers should go offline for 1 week just to prove to everybody how much they are needed. A bit overboard isn't it? It's what WoWI just did. ^_^

I've seen these arguments over and over again. The end result has always been the technology side winning. You can't block people. You can't force them to pay. The only thing you have control over are your own files/sites.
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:04 PM   #544
guice
A Cobalt Mageweaver
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Tekkub View Post
(it edits TOC numbers, which it should not do. It should just simply set the "load outdated addons" automatically for the user).
Actually, that is no different. But, I did mention this in the post above; this is a user initiated action. The user's have to click "update out of date addons."
Now, lets take your example. It sounds good. At first, I completely agreed with it, but then realized now you're sending even MORE issues out, in the way of Blizzard! Now the box gets auto-checked, and the user's will start complaining to blizzard for broken game UI (which they do already -- they'll be doing even more so now when the box gets checked without them physically doing it with their own mouse).

Problems both ways. I know. Only real solution is not having the option at all in WM. But, again, this is a convenience thing. Doesn't the Curse Client have this option, too?
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:05 PM   #545
Tekkub
Featured Artist
 
Tekkub's Avatar
Featured
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by guice View Post
The only TOC update I knew WM did was "update all my add-ons." This is user initiated request. This isn't WM's fault. Maybe their fault for buggy code, but in those cases you can easily just blame WM for improperly editing your files.
When I did a test run of WM here's what happened:
* I renamed my addon folder because I didn't want WM to **** with my code.
* I copied a few select addons over to the addons folder to see how it would handle them
* Launch WM, see that it cannot download the updates
* Every single addon in the OTHER folder had it's TOC number updated

BAD BAD BAD! Big flashing red lights! You *don't* do that **** automatically. As I said above, you shouldn't be do it at all. Those numbers have a meaning, wiping them out makes them completely pointless. If you want to load the addons, turn on the option in the game... which can be done by WM with a siple edit of a text file for the user.
__________________
I have reached enlightment.
Thank you bacon!
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:07 PM   #546
Tekkub
Featured Artist
 
Tekkub's Avatar
Featured
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by guice View Post
Now the box gets auto-checked, and the user's will start complaining to blizzard for broken game UI (which they do already -- they'll be doing even more so now when the box gets checked without them physically doing it with their own mouse).
The first thing the GM will tell you to do is disable your addons. Problem goes away? We can't help you. Goodbye.

The problem might seem the same so long as the user is using WM, but what heppens when they remove it? If WM was checking the box, nothing really. You uncheck the box and things are how they would have been without WM. WM edits TOCs? Well it just blew away all that information and made the value entirely pointless. The game may as well just stop checking the number, because changing it without ensuring the addon works with that version makes the value meaningless. It's something only the author should do.
__________________
I have reached enlightment.
Thank you bacon!

Last edited by Tekkub : 04-16-09 at 07:10 PM.
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:13 PM   #547
guice
A Cobalt Mageweaver
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Tekkub View Post
The first thing the GM will tell you to do is disable your addons. Problem goes away? We can't help you. Goodbye.

The problem might seem the same so long as the user is using WM, but what heppens when they remove it? If WM was checking the box, nothing really. You uncheck the box and things are how they would have been without WM. WM edits TOCs? Well it just blew away all that information and made the value entirely pointless. The game may as well just stop checking the number, because changing it without ensuring the addon works with that version makes the value meaningless. It's something only the author should do.
Interesting. yea, guess you're right. Doh! Yeah, this is bad. Not good to automatically do it. I checked my add-ons and they were auto-updated. Sorry for taking this out as far as I did then. I am incorrect on this part. Sorry about that again.
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:23 PM   #548
Yhor
A Pyroguard Emberseer
 
Yhor's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by guice View Post
Sorry, then. I misspoke and meant newspapers attempts at online. They claim Google should be paying them. They claim people should pay for the news.
So reporters and news should be funded by the government? Yeah, they should be happy to do it for free? What exactly is it you're suggesting?

One news CEO even said all newspapers should go offline for 1 week just to prove to everybody how much they are needed. A bit overboard isn't it?
Maybe they should. Maybe it really would show how much news people and sources are under-appreciated. Sometimes the most effective way to get a point across is to show them the end result. Don't want to pay for my ball if you take a nail gun to it, damaging it to the point it needs to be replaced... I'm taking my ball home. Get your own ball.

Edit #3: After reading the article you linked, your point is taken a little better. The article points more to the fact the newspapers won't be missed/needed, though, which is not the point -I- took from your wording. Also, in my "maybe they should" above, to be more specific, I mean -all- newspapers, internet driven as well as paper.
It's what WoWI just did. ^_^
When? where?

Edit#2: They didn't take the site down, if they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation, here.

I've seen these arguments over and over again. The end result has always been the technology side winning. You can't block people. You can't force them to pay. The only thing you have control over are your own files/sites.
emphasis mine

That is exactly what they did, protect their site/files that people entrusted them to protect. You are looking at this website as just that... a run of the mill website. I can assure you from my personal experience it is much more than that. If you hang around long enough, you'll see this. As will any of the other WM proponents, if they choose to participate and not just bring unfounded opinions or attacks.

BTW, I've had two posts deleted in this very thread, so they are stopping both sides from the attacks, not just those that oppose them. I'm sorry I made them have to delete my posts, by myself bringing in personal attacks, even if they were general in direction.

I like you, you make me think, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with you .


Edit: I said "If you hang around long enough", to someone with a 2005 join date. This isn't meant to be insulting, but I'm really surprised that you think of this site in such a generic manner.

Last edited by Yhor : 04-16-09 at 09:20 PM. Reason: Clarification x3
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:26 PM   #549
Tekkub
Featured Artist
 
Tekkub's Avatar
Featured
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by guice View Post
Interesting. yea, guess you're right. Doh! Yeah, this is bad. Not good to automatically do it. I checked my add-ons and they were auto-updated. Sorry for taking this out as far as I did then. I am incorrect on this part. Sorry about that again.
I've fought against TOC-updaters for a long time. They'll never go away, but at least I can try to get people to see that not only are the unneeded due to the "load outdated" checkbox, but they are actually destructive because they blow away important information.

Good example: TBC. Blizzard changed the behavior of the load outdated here a tiny bit, due to the major changes. Addons with TOCs that were too old were marked as "incompatible" instead of "out of date". They did that for a very good reason. Mass TOC updating breaks that, and loads old untested addons that were very likely to break in spectacular ways.

Don't apologize though, you actually got me thinking about things here. I have found a simple way to stop it from happening with my addons for the most part. Going to update my packaging script before my next release batch. Sure, it can be worked around just as easily as I can set it, but I just tested and it at least stops WM from screwing with my addon's TOC files
__________________
I have reached enlightment.
Thank you bacon!

Last edited by Tekkub : 04-16-09 at 07:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:34 PM   #550
Hic
A Deviate Faerie Dragon
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by guice View Post
Sorry, then. I misspoke and meant newspapers attempts at online. They claim Google should be paying them. They claim people should pay for the news. One news CEO even said all newspapers should go offline for 1 week just to prove to everybody how much they are needed. A bit overboard isn't it? It's what WoWI just did. ^_^
Google shows the news and then links back to the newspaper, where I'm usually flooded with adds if I don't have an ad-blocker.

WM just "did it". No questions asked, no revenue to the host, no credit to the author. Nothing.

It's not the same thing, not even remotely. And if newspapers want to keep google out, they can. It's easy, it's something they can put on the page HTML to keep the spiders off. Did you ever wonder why didn't they use that option? Because google brings them visitors. It's that simple. And with hits, they can profit... profit is good.
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:35 PM   #551
Hic
A Deviate Faerie Dragon
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Tekkub View Post
I've fought against TOC-updaters for a long time. They'll never go away, but at least I can try to get people to see that not only are the unneeded due to the "load outdated" checkbox, but they are actually destructive because they blow away important information.

Good example: TBC. Blizzard changed the behavior of the load outdated here a tiny bit, due to the major changes. Addons with TOCs that were too old were marked as "incompatible" instead of "out of date". They did that for a very good reason. Mass TOC updating breaks that, and loads old untested addons that were very likely to break in spectacular ways.

Don't apologize though, you actually got me thinking about things here. I have found a simple way to stop it from happening with my addons for the most part. Going to update my packaging script before my next release batch. Sure, it can be worked around just as easily as I can set it, but I just tested and it at least stops WM from screwing with my addon's TOC files
My problem is more like... "I want not to load all the out of date addons except that ubberawsome-can'tlivewithout addon. Editing the TOC can fix that.

But I see your point there.
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 07:42 PM   #552
Tekkub
Featured Artist
 
Tekkub's Avatar
Featured
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by Hic View Post
My problem is more like... "I want not to load all the out of date addons except that ubberawsome-can'tlivewithout addon. Editing the TOC can fix that.

But I see your point there.
Ah but see, first off you're manually doing that. Second, you're not blowing away every addon. And, most importantly, you're testing the addon that you're doing it with (even if you don't realize it). You make the choice to update that number, log in, and see that the addon works without error. That's really not that bad.

And considering you put forth that effort, you're much more likely to track down the author and report any errors that you do get.
__________________
I have reached enlightment.
Thank you bacon!
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 09:00 PM   #553
Vyper
A Rage Talon Dragon Guard
 
Vyper's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by guice View Post
Teeechnically GPL gave them right to modify as well, but I won't go there.

Point 4, the most important one, is due to the nature of how things were setup. I don't why people wanted to opt-out of WM's list. It's how I found and installed add-ons. If WM didn't have it, I request "support" for it, and generally didn't install it. Heck, I've actually intentionally removed add-ons WM didn't "support" in favor of ones they did.
For opting out, this is two sided. One side on WM, naturally. They should have had a way, through their contact form, to opt-out of support. Did you try that route? Did it go on deaf ears with WoWI's attempt to contact them?

Issue 2 and 3 are related. I'll grasp them together; modifying add-ons to change content is bad, with the exception of *user initiated* requests. The only TOC update I knew WM did was "update all my add-ons." This is user initiated request. This isn't WM's fault. Maybe their fault for buggy code, but in those cases you can easily just blame WM for improperly editing your files.
The best part of this here; You can completely drop support yourself! The moment you find a bug that is definite WM related, you could immediately pass the buck, "Sorry, WM edited those files. I can't fix it or support it." Pass the buck. I do it all the time at work. ^_^
I actually have little problem with anything you said here (wow, agreement on something), So I'll just point out a couple things. One is that I'm well aware that the GPL allowed them to modify and redistribute my work in any way they saw fit. Once they started attributing authors (they didn't initially), I have no problem whatsoever with how any of my work was handled. All my problems with them come from the fact that I chose to gave them those rights, others did not get that choice.
I'll also point out that if you browse around the forums here, there are (now defunct) posts about authors contacting WoWM asking that their work be removed, and WoWM ignoring them or refusing. It seems however, we are in agreement that there should at least have been an opt-out option.
I do feel, at least for the non-OSI compatible addons they should have asked first, or at the very least sent a notification the author's way saying it had been added, with instructions on how to opt-out, but an opt-out by itself would have been acceptable (to me).

Originally Posted by guice View Post
Sorry, then. I misspoke and meant newspapers attempts at online. They claim Google should be paying them. They claim people should pay for the news. One news CEO even said all newspapers should go offline for 1 week just to prove to everybody how much they are needed. A bit overboard isn't it? It's what WoWI just did. ^_^

I've seen these arguments over and over again. The end result has always been the technology side winning. You can't block people. You can't force them to pay. The only thing you have control over are your own files/sites.
At this point, knowing only what's included in your description, I'm inclined to side with NYT on this one. If Google is taking content that NYT produced, and did not release under the CC or something similar, reproducing it elsewhere is a clear violation of copyright, and the problem lies solely with Google. (If I've screwed up a basic detail here, feel free to correct me)
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 11:07 PM   #554
Jalandar
A Cliff Giant
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by Cairenn View Post
2. As for the fact you use ad-blocker, that's not the way ads work. Whether you see them or not, they still get 'served' as far as the advertisers are concerned, so we still get paid.
You are wrong here. You only get paid if the ads are loaded, ad blockers prevent that. The ad servers never even get a request for the ad, as far as they were concerned, there was no ad code on the page being loaded. I can promise you for a FACT that is how it works.

Check it out yourself, ask your ad network manager to look into it for you.
  Reply With Quote
04-16-09, 11:17 PM   #555
Shirik
Blasphemer!
Premium Member
WoWInterface Super Mod
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 818
Originally Posted by Jalandar View Post
You are wrong here. You only get paid if the ads are loaded, ad blockers prevent that. The ad servers never even get a request for the ad, as far as they were concerned, there was no ad code on the page being loaded. I can promise you for a FACT that is how it works.
You promise facts when you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. I would love to know where you get your insider information. I find it amusing how you would claim to know more about the site than the administrators of the site.

What you describe makes sense for any generic ad provider. It can be shown that WoWI has special consideration given the obvious non-generic ads floating around the site, such as the occasional screen-wide ad on the front page (I don't know the real term for it). Those aren't provided by generic services.
__________________
たしかにひとつのじだいがおわるのお
ぼくはこのめでみたよ
だけどつぎがじぶんおばんだってことわ
しりたくなかったんだ
It's my turn next.

Shakespeare liked regexes too!
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
  Reply With Quote
04-17-09, 02:41 AM   #556
Zyonin
Coffee powered Kaldorei
 
Zyonin's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,440
Originally Posted by Tekkub View Post
Ah but see, first off you're manually doing that. Second, you're not blowing away every addon. And, most importantly, you're testing the addon that you're doing it with (even if you don't realize it). You make the choice to update that number, log in, and see that the addon works without error. That's really not that bad.

And considering you put forth that effort, you're much more likely to track down the author and report any errors that you do get.
I do this (manually update TOCs). Then again, I am just as likely to do a private branch of the AddOn in question and then tinker with the code (usually breaking it in some "interesting" fashion). I guess I am just your garden variety masochist.
__________________
LiveJournal | Twitter

  Reply With Quote
04-17-09, 06:06 AM   #557
Bouvi
A Chromatic Dragonspawn
 
Bouvi's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 195
I wish people would put themselves into WoWi and Curse's shoes.

They have spent years setting up sites for addons FREE for the community. The ad revenue they do get goes toward paying for their bandwidth. Not everyone uses ad blockers and they have a few premium members who help pay the cost. They have put many hours into their sites for the community.

Say it was your sites and WM was using your bandwidth with no way for you to get compensated for the use so you have the extra cost with no compensation. Wouldn't you do something to stop their access? I know I would.

I have been using WoWi for many years and have gotten to know a few of them over here. I have seen them bend over backwards for people and yet when they blocked WM they got slammed. They provide a FREE service to the community. Just because WM had something nice does not mean they were supposed to have something. I cannot imagine the cost of the bill for the bandwidth. Their bandwidth usage went down 50% after they blocked WM.

They were up more than down vs last patch when you could never connect to the site for 3 days, yet this time there were only small outages.

They provide the service to people yet get slammed when they try to protect their sites from going bankrupt. Sorry but that is just wrong.
__________________
Bouvi
WoWi Member since June 2005 and darn proud of it!
  Reply With Quote
04-17-09, 07:13 AM   #558
OldHarry
Premium Member
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 174
Prior to reading much of this I had no knowledge of the issues with wowmatrix. That said, I used them because I run a mac and the other ways of downloading adds did not work for me. I do believe in supporting addons that work well for me and have done so for my favorite. I just wish there was a better way to update and install adds that would actually work under Leopard.
  Reply With Quote
04-17-09, 11:10 AM   #559
Harshmage
Different
 
Harshmage's Avatar
Premium Member
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9
Thumbs up

I'm slightly amazed at both the hate for and against WM.

Personally, I'm in agreement with Tek. The alteration of files is a big no-no for a mass distribution center such as WM was trying to be.

I, however, am guilty of downloading mods and uploading them to my UniAdmin page, so I can get my addons from any machine I'm at. But I am not guilty for the stated deep-linking that WM is charged with. I, like many others, manually download addons, and when the servers are hit hard, I feel it just as bad.

While I dislike the Curse website (general statement of design and navigation, not a dislike of Curse as a whole), I agree that everyone should be on the same page when it comes to stopping malicious behavior. Bandwidth should be given to the individual who comes to the website, not some script that gets initiated by the push of a button.
__________________
-Bryan-
http://www.harshmage.com/
  Reply With Quote
04-17-09, 06:08 PM   #560
guice
A Cobalt Mageweaver
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
At this point, knowing only what's included in your description, I'm inclined to side with NYT on this one. If Google is taking content that NYT produced, and did not release under the CC or something similar, reproducing it elsewhere is a clear violation of copyright, and the problem lies solely with Google. (If I've screwed up a basic detail here, feel free to correct me)
My description actually contained a link to a post containing the actual information of the release as well as plenty of backstory on the issue.
In the end, I'm siding with Google here. But it is indeed a detailed backstory. I've read and followed TechDirt for several years. So, naturally, my mindset is a slanted in favor of what TechDirt thinks. What can I say? Since day one, I've agreed with them. I couldn't help but follow and agree with a good 95% of what they said (I, personally, have had very few disagreements, but there have been a few).

Everything I've mentioned here, the thought process and mind set, has been in result of what I've learned from TechDirt. "Morality" arguments have been all expunged. I now look at things in the mind set of "logical business decision" than "legally (or morally) right."

As we've seen to be beating a dead horse, I, like many others have seen, will be laying this to rest. I hope to see new ideas and new process in the coming months from WoWI. In the mean time, I may need to install Proxomitron to get around the WM block. *grin*
*Or not. I can't believe it.; You've implemented CAPTCHA. Now that is quite the extreme route. I kinda hinted that above. A reason for implementing captcha - insure you're human. But captcha is also a massive turn-off for anonymous downloads (it falls in line of requiring registration). I didn't think you'd take that route. Interesting measures.

I have to say, the more I dissect WM, the more I dislike it. It seems a connection to their server, speednoc.com, is absolutely necessary. WM says "Offline" even though its clearly getting data from the server from my requests. It's like it's ignoring the returns it gets back from *my* requests and relying on their wdb.gz files for its information, even though it's clearly making an HTTP request call for each of my add-ons.
/sigh, and I thought I was going to be able to out-smart the blocks. The potential is definitely there, but the design of WM makes it improvable.

Last edited by guice : 04-17-09 at 07:20 PM.
  Reply With Quote

WoWInterface » Site Forums » News » WoWInterface and Curse working together to help protect authors and other site-users

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off