Snitz™ Forums 2000
https://forum.snitz.com/forumTopic/Posts/58911?pagenum=1
04 November 2025, 21:12
Topic
HuwR
Rant about MODS
21 July 2005, 12:06
I would just like to say that I am appalled at the state of most mods currently available for Snitz, I have just setup a new Snitz forum and added half a dozen MOds (my first in some time), 70-80% of them do not work due to poor installation instructions and bad or db specific code.
rant over<
Replies ...
rpainter
21 July 2005, 12:11
HuwR,
I would have to agree with you. Most of the MODs that I've installed, have not worked by just following the instructions. I do thank the people that make the MODs, because Lord knows I do not have that ability. But, we do need better instructions on installing them.<
sr_erick
21 July 2005, 12:13
Here's my rant..
Maybe it's time to consider adding mods to the base code to avoid these situations? People can only do so much when there is no standard way of doing things. I have yet to see a write up on the proper procedures for creating, submitting, and supporting a mod. There has to be some standardization for things to work.
Rant over...<
Shaggy
21 July 2005, 12:32
Have to say, personally, apart from a minor few mods, the only problems I've ever had installing mods has been due to more than one mod requiring changes to the same section of code and, now that I'm familiar with the base code, it isn't really an issue any more. And the small number of mods that I have had problems following the instructions for have largely been due to the fact that the mod author's first language wasn't English.
One of the biggest gripes I have when it comes to mod authoring is when a mod adds a new function that does exactly the same thing as, or could easily be substituted with, an existing function in the base code or when the authors don't adhere to the overall design of Snitz and hardcode in their own styles, etc..
Having released a few, small mods myself and customised 2 Snitz forums to hell, I do appreciate the work that goes into these things and do not wish to appear ungrateful but, as Erick points out, some sort of standardisation would go a long way towards helping new mod authors and installers get started with Snitz. How about (and I think this may have been suggested before, a long time ago) a mod review panel, a team of members to review every mod posted in the Mod W/Code and write back to the author with recommendations/suggestions for changes to the mod to make it more compatible with Snitz or changes to the readme to make it easier to follow, etc.?
<
rpainter
21 July 2005, 12:41
I think that a review panel would be an excellent idea. I seem to remember another forum package that I reviewed a long time ago before deciding on Snitz. On their board, all MODs were first reviewed by a team, before they were available to the general public. I think that this makes a lot of sense, and would free up the people that can make MODs to make even better ones and not having to spend all of their time answering questions.<
MarkJH
21 July 2005, 12:45
I think another problem is a majority of MOD writers have moved on from Snitz and they're not around to update or help out here with any problems.
Maybe it's time to consider adding mods to the base code to avoid these situations?
v5? <
Shaggy
21 July 2005, 12:47
What I was thinking was keeping the mod w/code forum as it is whereby anybody can post and download a mod but, once a mod has been reviewed by the panel and all recommended changes made, it is given "official" Snitz approval with an indication of the forum version(s) that approval applies to. Preventing people from downloading mods that are pending review might deter new mod authors from getting involved and slow the development of the forums.
<
HuwR
21 July 2005, 13:15
Originally posted by sr_erick Here's my rant..
Maybe it's time to consider adding mods to the base code to avoid these situations? People can only do so much when there is no standard way of doing things. I have yet to see a write up on the proper procedures for creating, submitting, and supporting a mod. There has to be some standardization for things to work.
Rant over...
There is a perfectly standard way of doing stuff, what I am talking about is sloppy code,missing instructions, database incompatability etc,not the fact that I may have to put the code on a different line, I wouldn't have wanted any of these mods in my own forums so wouldn't even consider them for addition to a base snitz<
D3mon
21 July 2005, 13:33
Name and shame! - (even if they are mine!)<
dabugster
21 July 2005, 14:01
I have to agree with the jist of this post.
I tried to make a forum from scratch and i end up fixxing and tinkering more than setting up the form.
I have not done this as much asping as some of you, in fact i have only ever made one mod and that was just at the request of a friend of mine and he and i are the only ones using it so i didn't really have to think about the read-me file that much.
The more i learn about asp code, the more i understand it , so there are a few mods that i can look and see the problem and go in a tinker it out. But most of the time i end up emailing Huw, or someone with similar expeirience, for some help.
I may be speaking out of turn here, but maybe it is time for someone with good asp knowledge to decifer some of these more popularly installed mods and go over it with the authors and re-release them with all the bugs fixed.
Thats just my two cents anyway.
<
ruirib
21 July 2005, 14:36
I never worked much with mods until recently and I can see HuwR's point. There are mods that are professionally documented, and their installation, even if giving a bit of work sometimes, is rather uneventful. There are others, however, where I found clear mistakes in the instructions and only my adequate knowledge of the code allowed me to avoid problems.<
laser
21 July 2005, 17:35
Welcome to our world Huw I think it's past the time where the Snitz dev team should "certify" MODs - especially those that "will never" be added to the base code.
Honestly, for me the line is pretty blurred between basecode & a proper forum. When I'm creating a new site there is a list of MODs that I install by default even before the site gets online.
The MOD quality has been questionable for as long as I've been here. I'm pretty handy with code & db design but some MODs I have backed away from. Others I've been dying to install, but they just don't work.
The only two solutions I can see are :
- certify the better MODs as "approved by Snitz" when they have been reviewed by a developer (and you might have "Access only" MODs, etc...)
- completely change the Snitz model so that MODs can be added without any code modifications.<
-gary
21 July 2005, 18:29
The problem I see for myself and a few others is that there is no beta forum to post mods in. Anything I do, I try to test on my own forum, but getting feedback from users is sometimes impossible and catching every possible nuance is impossible. Yet, everything is thrown into the mod forum and it's open season to anyone to implement it.
I would suggest a tested and approved forum with posting restricted to moderators. Mods can be posted for testing and approval in the current forum. Once a mod has been verified to be up to some sort of standard by a selected group/individual, then only will it be posted to the approved forum. I wouldn't move the post either since there's a lot of revision conversation that won't be relevant after this discussion. Not that this would make anything better than what's available currently, but at least everything in the approved forum would be up to spec and users could install with confidence. The key to this is posting what is acceptable and standard along with examples of things like documentation. A mod kit if you will.
Like they say, the difference between a $30 programmer and a $100 programmer is the quality of the documentation, not the code.
No point in beating the "Snitz needs more standard mods" drum since the "I don't see a need for it so it won't be included despite the overwhelming calls from the user base for it" argument will always end the conversation.
That's my 2 cents, expecting change.<
HuwR
21 July 2005, 18:59
Like they say, the difference between a $30 programmer and a $100 programmer is the quality of the documentation, not the code.
Not true at all, good code does not require documenting.<
-gary
21 July 2005, 22:22
BS<
rpainter
21 July 2005, 22:42
Originally posted by HuwR
Not true at all, good code does not require documenting.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. I'm sure that every person that has posted a MOD has had "good code" in their own eyes. None of them posted what they thought was crappy code. Therefore "good" is in the eyes of the beholder, and everything should be documented.
I think that I am an excellent system administrator, but how far would I get if the last guy who was "good" never documented anything about the network that I inherited?<
Gremlin
22 July 2005, 00:38
Good code is self documenting, bad programmers write more comments than code to hide their poor coding decisions.
<
HuwR
22 July 2005, 04:12
Originally posted by Gremlin Good code is self documenting, bad programmers write more comments than code to hide their poor coding decisions.
Exactly.
Good code is NOT in the eyes of the beholder, just because you think you wrote good code doesn't make it so.<
MarcelG
22 July 2005, 06:25
But commenting your code makes it a lot easier for 'n00bs' like me to understand what you're actually doing.
And indeed ; a lot of sloppy coding has been done by me and ended up on SnitzBitz and here.<
Shaggy
22 July 2005, 06:48
Originally posted by -gary
The problem I see for myself and a few others is that there is no beta forum to post mods in.
That's what the Mod W/O Code forum is for but people don't really seem to use it for beta testing, I've seen far too many betas just thrown straight into the W/Code forum over the years.
<
Podge
22 July 2005, 08:21
I think this thread is a good thing. I apologise in advance if I go off topic a bit.
I've watched the discussion here and refrained from posting mainly because I don't release mods but I have to agree with Gary about the documentation. Its good programming practice to document what you're doing and why. If the code is not documented properly then a programmer reviewing it or making changes to it is more likely to make incorrect assumptions or mistakes. I would be willing to help out documenting mods if required.
It is my opinion also that there are some mods which have stood the test of time and I believe should be incorporated into the base Snitz code for the following reasons;
1. It would ensure that they are added properly as the code would be reviewed by the mods here at Snitz 2. It would reduce the amount of posts (mostly about the same problems) in the Help: MOD Implementation forum 3. They are already present in the base code for other forums
I don't think its fair to expect non-programmers who want to install Snitz to be able to make the required changes to add a mod without problems. Any installation should be made as easy as possible and assume that the person adding it has limited programming abilities.
I realise that the people who started Snitz had these (and more) objectives
1. To improve the asp-dev forums 2. To learn asp while doing it 3. That Snitz should be able to be run on as many systems & be compatable with as many database servers as possible
All worthy objectives but IMHO things have changed slightly since then and I'm not entirely sure what direction Snitz should take for the future.
Finally, the admins here have already dedicated a lot of their personal time to help others and make Snitz better and I don't think its fair to expect them to dedicate more (unless they are willing).
Maybe a solution would be for the admins to create some teams or workgroups which have responsibilty for different things e.g. documentation, internationalization (I know it exists already), moving to css, adding verified mods to the base code, etc. and oversee their progress?<
D3mon
22 July 2005, 08:51
Originally posted by Gremlin Good code is self documenting, bad programmers write more comments than code to hide their poor coding decisions.
I completely agree. Well structured code, using proper variable, function names etc. should leave any reasonably accomplished developer with no doubt as to what is happening within the code. Where it is not immediately obvious what is happening in a short section of code, concise comments provide additional support.
Perhaps the overall question is: Should someone with no development knowledge whatsoever be attempting to install mods? In an attempt to make this possible, are we simply chasing the end of the rainbow?<
rpainter
22 July 2005, 09:37
Perhaps the overall question is: Should someone with no development knowledge whatsoever be attempting to install mods? In an attempt to make this possible, are we simply chasing the end of the rainbow?
Well, every time someone asks a question about people doing MODs for them, the answer always seems to be to try it your self first. I think that is one of the great things about Snitz (at least for me). I was a complete newbie to all things ASP before Snitz. I had no development knowledge, but fumbled my way through it. At one time you had no development knowledge. We all have to learn. Should I be penalized because I have no web development background? The great thing, and why I chose to use Snitz over others, is that the community here is very active and does not mind helping us poor souls who are not programmers by trade.
If you don't want to teach, don't teach. But, I don't think that we "chase rainbows" simply because we ask for better instructions and documentation so that we can learn to "see" what is happening in the code.<
Panhandler
22 July 2005, 10:11
Also, you need to think about your audience - Who will be trying to implement your mod.
You get "help me set up my forum" requests all the time.
Those users (me) next attempt to implement a mod.
"Cut & paste" doesn't quite work if the coder dosen't tell the user that they must remove the _ from the &_ on the prior code line.
. . . add a response.write to the next line.
I would argue that Snitz Mods should be written with basic beginner in mind.
<
-gary
22 July 2005, 10:44
Originally posted by -gary
The problem I see for myself and a few others is that there is no beta forum to post mods in.
That's what the Mod W/O Code forum is for but people don't really seem to use it for beta testing, I've seen far too many betas just thrown straight into the W/Code forum over the years.
I don't get that at all. Maybe you're either reading something into what's not there or you know something that us casual readers don't? I'm just assuming that W/Code means With Code and W/O Code means Without Code. Do they mean something else?
MOD Add-On Forum (W/Code) If you have developed a Modification to Snitz Forums 2000, Then this is the place to post your code, and help others who have posted their code to refine theirs for possible future inclusion in the base line code.
MOD Add-On Forum (W/O Code) If you have and Idea for a Modification to Snitz Forums 2000, Then this is the place to post it! You can help others who have posted their ideas to actually make the MODs and also for possible future inclusion in the base line code!
One is the catch-all for every mod and the other is for someone to post ideas. If I write one line of code, then I feel compelled to post it in W/Code. Might be a crappy piece of code that should never be implemented by anyone and only works with one specific database. That would be the idea behind a tested and approved forum.
As for documentation, if you can't already see the need for clear and abundant documentation, then you'll never see the need. And I don't mean comments. Well documented code is very different from heavily commented code. I've worked on dozens of projects taken over from others for the last 10-12 years and each time it pains me to realize that I'm not a very good mind reader.<
MarcelG
22 July 2005, 11:25
Well, for the mods I created I allways tried to make a as well-documented step-by-step walkthrough.
The biggest problem I'm facing is that - I think - most of my code gets the job done, but is no where near optimized. Too many queries, inefficient use of arrays and stuff like that.
I never understood arrays, and I also never understood - still don't - RegExp's.
I know I should dive into it, but still... There are some people here who actually do know how to code, and there are people like me who want to try.
And, and this is the category of users who use the mods, there's the group of people who want to add functionality to their forum, without knowing anything of ASP.
I know it's a challenge, but I too think that thát last group is the intended audience of the mods. They should be able to add the mod to at least the basecode.
Like said before, a major drawback of the lean and mean basecode is that yhe majority of the users will want to add some mods right away. And, those popular mods (like polls, events, avatars, active users and private messages) 'interfere' with one another, in terms of linenumbers/pieces of code.
That's why I agree with sr_erick on adding some of the mods to the basecode.
Certainly not all of them - we don't want to create a CrashCode/GML/SHN forum as basecode, but some should be in the basecode, in my opinion.
It will not only make life a lot easier for the new users, but it will also broaden the 'market' for Snitz.
I know Snitz has no commercial interest in that, but the community is what's keeping this forum alive. And with bigger installed base, the community grows, resulting in more support, resulting in better code etc.<
Davio
22 July 2005, 16:07
Huwr, not really sure why you are appalled. Mods are created for the snitz forums by non-programmers. People who try to get what they want done for their forum but couldn't. We can't expect the mods here to be at some level of programming professionalism (say that 3 times fast).
I have been installing mods for persons, that after looking at the code, I have to rewrite everything because the coding was terrible. It's a lot work for me yes, but someone started it and worked hard to produce the mod that worked. They were just helping by giving back something to the community.
The mods are there for people to improve on. If a mod is coded terribly, then a more experienced coder can code it correctly and release it.
We don't have a standard of who can create mods. Any Joe or Jane can create a mod if they take some time to learn vbscript.
I would be a bit distressed about it, yes, but appalled Huwr?
Alright, you're appalled. So how about we do something about it then?
Or are we just encouraging mod authors to code better or learn more VBScript?<
HuwR
22 July 2005, 16:20
I was appaled at the percentage that required extensive twiddling to get working, I don't expect everything I download to be perfect, far from it, just that there seemed to be a lot more than I would normally expect.
I still don't think we should install them as part of a base snitz, but maybe we should have some kind of seal of approval that a MOD works with all db's and that the install instructions do at least reflect the steps required to succesfully instal the mod.<
Soar
22 July 2005, 16:29
From a different perspective…I’m not a professional programmer. One of the benefits that drew me to Snitz was that it offered the opportunity for me to learn ASP.
From that point of view, I would greatly welcome some kind of review of any mods I submit. Not only does the entire community benefit, but so would each author – so long as the review was more than a “thumbs-up, thumbs-down” review.
What I would like to see are reviews that not only point out the problems with a mod or determine that it’s “Snitz Approved”, but provide some degree of information as to how it should be done when it is deemed “not good enough”. For those of us that are no where near the proficiency level of those who would be doing the reviews, it would be a wonderful teaching tool if the review gave some snippets of alternative code for parts of the mod that were inefficiently coded, provided a brief statement of how it can be improved, or something similar. Likewise, if the documentation is the issue, an explanation of why it is deficient would be a big help.
I don’t think the majority of the “bad” mods are done out of poor habits or laziness – at least for those of us, like me, who are trying to learn. It’s more a case of not knowing how. I think reviews could be a big help in that regard.<
Davio
22 July 2005, 16:35
I was of the mind that if we planned to have a particular feature or mod to be part of the forum, that quite a bit of the mod would be rewritten or modified to be put in the base code. We wouldn't have to start from scratch. We would use some or most of the coding done from the mod.
I'm pessimistic about having a group review mods and giving it an approval. The attendance and participation here is not what it used to be. But I'm always willing to give something a try. <
AnonJr
22 July 2005, 16:57
I'm a little leery of group review due to the great potential for "death by committee."
But I do agree with the fact that some mods are harder to implement than they should be. As a reasonably experienced programmer (no Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/whoever you consider a "great"), I can more often than not figure out how to fix the problem. However, I think what is at the heart of all this is that Snitz isn't as MOD-friendly as we would like it to be.
BEFORE I GET FLAMED/SPAMED/ETC
I love this software. I've tried moving away twice, but nothing was quite good enough to justify it. I love the fact that it is open, modifiable, and there are MODs for the asking...
I just think that it may be time to re-factor the code and make it more modular - and thus more MOD-friendly. You could then say "Include this function here, here, and here; then call it between these functions here, here, and here." or "Add this to function x, and don't forget to pass this value."
Not all MODs will work with all databases - but it will be easier to give and follow instructions.
I won't lie. This won't be an easy or short task. Many will offer to help, and few will. I was considering doing this and then telling everyone about it since it was something I was going to have to do for the site at work anyway. If anyone helps great. If not, just don't expect it any time soon. If it is something that people would want, I'll re-factor the forum then add the rest of the LMS code I'm developing.
Anyway, I figure I've been on the sidelines for too long. There's my two cents.<
dabugster
22 July 2005, 17:17
Originally posted by HuwR I was appaled at the percentage that required extensive twiddling to get working, I don't expect everything I download to be perfect, far from it, just that there seemed to be a lot more than I would normally expect.
I still don't think we should install them as part of a base snitz, but maybe we should have some kind of seal of approval that a MOD works with all db's and that the install instructions do at least reflect the steps required to succesfully instal the mod.
I whole heartedly agree!
No one is saying put these mods in as base code, just cause i want something in there does not mean everyone does, but to go back to my first post in this thread, have someone okay them and work the bugs out.
but maybe we should have some kind of seal of approval that a MOD works with all db's and that the install instructions do at least reflect the steps required to succesfully instal the mod That is the bottom line in my eyes. Someone should go though and make sure the MOD does what it is supossed to and that most likely a novice would be able to understand it. There doesn't even need to be some special team that has more work put on there plate than is already there. In your spare time, if you see that, let's say for instance, the recently seen mod has an instruction, or whatever, in it that can be misleading. Now of course that is a broad statement, but try to remember when you first started out and keep thet in mind. Then maybe go in and explain it a little more specific and at the same time basic.
And as for the DB stuff .... i have said it a hundred times, i have made so many fatal mistakes messing with my DB that i am almost reluctent to mess with it no matter what. I know i know .... i can hear everyone now .... back it up first. I do .... NOW! LOL but still .... if a MOD is going to drop a table ... maybe it should be put in the read me what all is going to do and what all it can possible affect.
Like i said before, i am not really that advanced in ASPing (How many emails have i sent you Huw? LOL) but maybe thats what some of the more advanced, regular members here should remember ... at one time you didn't know what response.write " <table border=""0"" cellspacing=""0"" cellpadding=""0"" align=""center"" width=""100%"">" & VBNewLine & _ was supossed to do.
The more bugs that get worked out before someone installs a MOD, the less questions, double posts and confusion there will be here.
Now i have four cents in this i guess!
LOL <
HuwR
22 July 2005, 17:54
I'm pessimistic about having a group review mods and giving it an approval. The attendance and participation here is not what it used to be. But I'm always willing to give something a try.
I wasn't thinking of a particular group, something more along dabugsters thinking, say a new, possibly moderated forum where mods can be posted for review, anyone interested could then download it and try an install and report back on whether it worked by following the instructions (with the exception of line number which may change) and what DB they tested it against.<
ruirib
22 July 2005, 19:53
There are things worse than having to twiddle the code to get it working. I have seen code where basic stuff like closing and releasing recordsets and DB connections were not done. And stuff like that can bring serious problems to a server.<
dabugster
22 July 2005, 22:11
Originally posted by ruirib There are things worse than having to twiddle the code to get it working. I have seen code where basic stuff like closing and releasing recordsets and DB connections were not done. And stuff like that can bring serious problems to a server.
I think that was what was trying to be avoided here ... if twiddling was all the draw back was then that would be cool ... actual damage or the idea that this is supossed to do something and yet it doesn't, seems to be the major problem that we are talking about.
<
Classicmotorcycling
23 July 2005, 02:27
I have seen quite a few mods put up by people who have made the function for their particular forum and someone has asked for it, so they released it to the best of their ability and it would stop MODs from being released if they need to go through what you say Huwr.
People would sooner not want the hassle and tell whoever wants a copy that they can not, and that would stop MODs from being shared. I know I have been re-coding some MODs to get them going for my needs, but it was easy to adjust the MODs to my needs and I have only given a few MODs out like to certian sites, like www.sportsfish.com.au and will not release them to others as I do not want to re-write documentation as most users do not follow it anyway. I also write documentation for a living and don't have time or feel like it, when I am not getting paid for it.
There are hardly any MODs being released now anyway, and the suggestion you are making would reduce the ammount further. If people can not install the MODs in their current state, then they have the Help: MOD Implementation area to ask about ways to install it. The main issue is when users have problems installing the MODs, they only say what part (not even half) of the problem is and not what it actually is, plus they did not read what intall doco that was with it anyway.
Then you get the users that demand you install it for them (and I am sure that you have seen it here) all because they did not read it properly or they do not know what they are doing. There is also the issue when a MOD id made, it is made to suit the current set-up of the forum of the user who wrote the MOD. I know I do not go and install a fresh copy of the forum when I create a MOD or know what others have MODs have been installed in the forums of others, thu the line numbers do not work.
The best MOD I have seen for doco is the Active Users by Nathan. It gave rough line numbers, but also gave code from around that area. I may of included Red1 in that, but he took all his MODs down.
My Aussie 2 cents worth.
<
Etymon
23 July 2005, 02:45
RichardKinser, Huwr, and others, in the early days, wrote some straightforward MODs with little to no commentary in the help files, which worked perfectly fine and were easy to follow. So, I agree with Huwr that MODs don't have to have commentary to be effective. History has proven Huwr's point.
However, I also agree with others, concerning their desires to learn how the MOD works.
Something to complement a non-teaching MOD as an ADD-ON could be a commentary or an article written by another to be released as a MOD in conjunction with that MOD. Think of it as an extended help file. Some like to code, some like to teach.
Honestly, I can write a MOD but have little to no idea how it REALLY works in the background. I can't fault anyone for not desiring to document a MOD.
For the popular MODs to be added to the base code, perhaps a bundled MOD can be created as stand-alone MOD, which would be popular MODs bundled together as a MOD of its own. This MOD could also be created with an admin panel to enable and disable certain MODs within that MOD.
Huwr's idea of an additional forum added to preview MODs would be the proper step before appointing an official panel. If the forum panned out with delightful participation, then from there a panel could be developed.
As a preventative measure from confusion on SnitzBitz, it would be helpful if a MOD had expanded ratings. Categories such as documentation, installation, usefulness, bugs, errors, completeness, newbie-friendly, etc. that other members could vote on would help downloaders determine if the MOD is what they are able to deal with at the moment. The quality of each vote is subjective according to experience and expertese, of course, but it's better than nothing at all.
I do wish Snitz had a "layman's" subgroup, something to the effect of a "MOD Builder's Club" apart from an official review panel. I think that would be fun as well as educational.
Cheers,
Etymon
<
ruirib
23 July 2005, 05:58
I think mod releasing is a serious stuff. Although I'm one of the most active guys around here I never released a mod (only two or three small things), because of the responsability that entails, IMO. Releasing a mod implies thorough testing before the release, implies assurances on the code being "safe" from creating problems to a forum, implies willingness and availability for supporting people who decide to install the mods.
There are users who have built a capital of trust regarding the mods they develop. We're still profiting from the earlier work by Richard and Huw, Nathan built a thoroughly documented mod available for 3.3.x and 3.4.x, Davio is particularly careful with his instructions, and Nikkol raised the standard to a very high level with her UserGroups mod, documentation and other wise. Mods from users with this background should be seen as reliable and trustworthy, though when we're talking about code testing is mandatory and with such a diversity of environments as the thousands of Snitz forums installed, problems msy appear when no one expects them.
This doesn't mean that mods from other users are to be disregarded or labeled as unsafe. We could probably try to setup a evaluation panel, though I'm not even sure that could be very effective due to the high number of code changes in use for the most varied purposes. Users should be careful when installing mods from people who don't come here and give support any longer, unless the mods are well established as safe and realiable (as the Active Users, PM, Avatar, UserGroups, Poll mods are - an exclusion from this group doesn't mean the mods aren't safe or unreliable, just that I do not have the experience with them to classify them as such, exception made to IPGate which I have installed and had no problems with, either).
All in all, mod installing is always a risk. It is up to the users to decide which mods they should trust.<
MarcelG
23 July 2005, 08:35
I'm certainly willing to help out on the documenting/reviewing part.
So, if you want to have your mod tested on Access ; I'm game! I could even provide extended documentation if necessary.
For MySQL and SQL, I cannot help you at the moment ... not yet.<
Panhandler
23 July 2005, 09:48
Originally posted by ruirib There are things worse than having to twiddle the code to get it working. I have seen code where basic stuff like closing and releasing recordsets and DB connections were not done. And stuff like that can bring serious problems to a server.
Review and rate the mods.
Similar to SnitzBitz ratings but not by users.
Only Snitz team members can review mod.
Mod review not "required".
Rate like:
Approved
Approved - needs works
Needs Work
Danger-Warning
Keep it simple.<
MarcelG
23 July 2005, 18:29
lol @ "danger-warning" hehe<
Da_Stimulator
24 July 2005, 13:16
Perhaps instead of sitting in an idle development state, Snitz should concentrate not on bashing mod authors, but streamlining and improving the existing code using their skills to implement the things that the MODS do.
As davio said, the majority of MODS released are written by amateurs, you can't get professional work from an amateur, can you? sometimes... but more often than not you have to fix, or tweak something. You cant make everything 100% compatible with all servers, all databases, all platforms, all browsers, and all people. You have to compromise what you need and what you don't.<
Davio
24 July 2005, 14:57
Perhaps instead of sitting in an idle development state, Snitz should concentrate not on bashing mod authors, but streamlining and improving the existing code using their skills to implement the things that the MODS do.
Here here!! Developers getting restless. <
cladon
24 July 2005, 15:15
Mostly it are the same mods always installed. Why don't we start a poll to get a list of base mods to install into the base code.<
MarcelG
24 July 2005, 15:20
I agree with Cladon!
(And, as the question is about a poll, I think we can assume that Polls should be in there most certainly)<
MarkJH
24 July 2005, 18:10
Polls, avatars, private messages...
We've been here before though, haven't we?<
muzishun
25 July 2005, 00:10
Why don't we try to get the Dev Mod Guide Project finished first? Rather than set a major task of cleaning some heavy duty MODs and incorporating them into base code, let's get to the point where all future MODs can be released with better code, since they'll all be using the same manual to understand what the base code already does. I know there are a lot of people interested in helping with this, and just from this thread, I'm sure people will be willing to lend a few hours help to get it up and flying.<
Shadow69
25 July 2005, 04:50
what do you think about implementing a WikiWiki web application to continue on, and boost 'To Do' projects? wouldn't that be a good idea?
A good application to use would be Wikimedia meta-wiki, also see MediaWiki Uses but there is many others around.
Wikipedia has proven de facto to be an interesting collaborative enviroment where also unexperienced and incompetente users can give a little contribution, projects would earn a lot by this, expecially regarding documentation, MOD-ASP-code could be included also for development contribution and each older/original version of the code would still be available to everyone in the revision history.
Development in general, both ASP and documentation (including internationalization of Mods and translation), are time consuming tasks for a single person or a small group of people and this could both ease and speed up the tasks.
Everyone could just drop by and write a few lines now and then if they like, could be fun too!
Well these were just my humble thoughts, I just felt to contribute to this thread also, and i hope you like the idea edited for minor corrections<
AnonJr
25 July 2005, 09:55
I like the idea. It's something I've been looking into for implementation at the Hospital... though I need a good ASP-Based Wiki...
Anyway, I know I'm not the only person here who works overtime - but would contribute were it easier. I still think some cleaning up could be done in the code, but that may be because I'm doing that with a lot of my own projects. (Its amazing how quickly a fix here, and a fix there can jack with your code structure... )
Count me in. It looks like a good way to solve a great deal of the problems mentioned earlier in the post - and provide for a means of mentoring.
<
Shadow69
28 July 2005, 05:36
March 20, 2002: OpenWiki v0.78 SP1 is available. Features include: SQL Server, MSDE, Oracle and My SQL support Attachments Embedded mode for use in other applications Two way RSS support. See RDFSite Summary and e.g. All The News, BSD and Wiki Sites. Support for aggregation of RSS feeds. See e.g. All The News/Aggregation and BSD/Aggregation. Support for Scripting News, opening up a wealth of sources to be syndicated through Open Wiki. See examples Scripting News, Joel On Programming, etc.
Yes, it has now been 3 years since the last version came out. Some people think because it's "old" it can't be good anymore. Well, it has been good then, and it still is good for thousands of people and businesses around the world, every day. I think stability also has its charm.
http://www.openwiki.com/ow.asp?OpenWikiNG although it is in in Alpha phase it's seems to be stable enough
it would be interesting to see how it compares to MediaWiki, although i'm quite more confident with MediaWiki because of it's implementation, i too wish it was asp but would php be a problem really? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Running_MediaWiki_on_Windows
best regards,<
-gary
28 July 2005, 11:11
I like DokuWiki myself. It's PHP, but runs just fine under IIS. It's made for documentation and stores pages in flat txt files so setup and backup is simple.<
AnonJr
28 July 2005, 13:09
I've been trying to test OpenWiki at the hospital, but I don't have the right version of VBScript on the webserver. This isn't supposed to be much of a problem, but I have to go through the IS department to get anything installed - and they don't like the idea of a programmer working outside of IS ... If I get a chance, I may put it up on my own server tonight. I'll post a link if I do.
<
cladon
28 July 2005, 18:15
Please stay on the Topic - the topic is about Mods for Snitz not about Wiki.<
bobby131313
28 July 2005, 22:51
There are things worse than having to twiddle the code to get it working. I have seen code where basic stuff like closing and releasing recordsets and DB connections were not done. And stuff like that can bring serious problems to a server.
You know, I just came here looking for this type of statement and it was in the first thread I looked at. I believe I am in this exact situation.
My forum has been going down every 7-10 days. My hosting company tells me its because the application pool is filling up due to db connections not closing. They tell me the server closes them automatically after twenty minutes but they're opening to fast. I had to upgrade my account to get my own app pool until I get it fixed but I have no idea where to start looking for this in the code.
I am about 90% sure this is due to a mod we installed. Not one of them worked right the first time with the instructions supplied. I gave up on the poll mod.<
laser
29 July 2005, 01:26
bobby131313, I understand what you are going through. I had an Access-based Snitz (db over 200Mb) and it was crashing every few hours. Lots of mod's, and custom code - both of which worked fine.
WEEKS of effort checking that every open had a close, and upgrading to SQL Server ... the problem is now fixed.
This is all part of the "certification" that all MODs should go through, IMHO. Basically to check that everything that should be done has really been done. Best practice has been followed, and that the MOD will basically WORK, not "sorta work sometimes, maybe".<
ruirib
29 July 2005, 04:40
Frankly speaking, I don't think the poll mod is done carelessly, quite the contrary. Davio is a member of the Dev team and the poll mod is one of the mod's with the most carefull installation instructions.<
laser
29 July 2005, 05:34
I think you're lost ruirib <
ruirib
29 July 2005, 09:10
Originally posted by laser I think you're lost ruirib
Don't think so, but maybe you'll care to explain why?<
taropatch
29 July 2005, 09:42
Been reading this thread with interest. I only have a hand full of mods installed because that's all I can bear when there is a version upgrade. Plus, I want to keep things easy for my users.
How would an "approved mods" list work? I guess there would need to be a mods team to evaluate, test and give a stamp of approval?
Probably hairy and not what the developers want to do, but I would support a paid version of snitz that came with basic mods preinstalled. Sorry to get side tracked.
Yes, officially approved mods... I'm all for it.
Ps. Davio has always gone way out of his way to help me with the poll mod and to help solve any problems I had. Thanks Davio!<
laser
29 July 2005, 09:58
ruirib, the way I read it the question was posed :
Q. Why don't we start a poll to get a list of base mods to install into the base code.
The answer was ...
Polls, avatars, private messages...
We've been here before though, haven't we?
Davio is one of the best MOD writers around. I can't see anyone complaining about the quality of the Poll Mod (& others).<
ruirib
29 July 2005, 10:56
Sorry man, but you were the one who got a bit lost. Here is the post just before yours:
There are things worse than having to twiddle the code to get it working. I have seen code where basic stuff like closing and releasing recordsets and DB connections were not done. And stuff like that can bring serious problems to a server.
You know, I just came here looking for this type of statement and it was in the first thread I looked at. I believe I am in this exact situation.
My forum has been going down every 7-10 days. My hosting company tells me its because the application pool is filling up due to db connections not closing. They tell me the server closes them automatically after twenty minutes but they're opening to fast. I had to upgrade my account to get my own app pool until I get it fixed but I have no idea where to start looking for this in the code.
I am about 90% sure this is due to a mod we installed. Not one of them worked right the first time with the instructions supplied. I gave up on the poll mod.
I just replied to bobby's post, specially regarding the part in red. Just that.<
AnonJr
29 July 2005, 12:31
Originally posted by cladon Please stay on the Topic - the topic is about Mods for Snitz not about Wiki.
While I will admit to wandering a bit on my IS rant... the idea behind the Wiki discussion was to set up a means of vetting MODs / helping interested parties develop MODs / and/or documenting base code and MODs for help with implementation.
I do realize that there is a section of the forum for this. And it is a wonderful and helpful place. I've found many answers to problems that I have had there. Having said that, its good for those types of things - questions and answers. For documentation puroposes, detailed explanations of long chunks of code, and vetting out beta versions of MODs, its not the most ideal environment.
BTW, I didn't get it up on the server last night as we had some nasty thunderstorms where I live. Power was out, and all that fun. I'll try to work on it this weekend.
<
Davio
29 July 2005, 14:09
All this talk about Davio and the poll mod makes me want to jump in. lol Yeah, the poll mod needs updating. Especially when it comes to the installation part. SO I don't blame new users for having a troublesome time installing it.
Version 3 should solve that problem. But we're not talking about the poll mod right now. <
laser
29 July 2005, 19:31
Sorry ruirib, missed that bit <
Shadow69
01 August 2005, 11:08
Originally posted by Shadow69
We should bear in mind to check if it's functions would be fit for documentation and mod code implementation
that was the means of my posts, it is obvious, a personal humble suggestion on how to find a means to come out of a rant about mods. I may have gone ot, or probably let my discussion be deviating on 'what wiki to implement', sorry for that.
But there must be a way out of this rant? some way to cooperate with the supervision of authors and developers?
This is a very interesting conversation, but without anyone (me included) trying to shake it with some 'suggestions' would it remain a self contained rant? Is there a scope to it?
By giving the possibility on this forum for persons to publish their mods is alredy a wonderfull thing indeed!
Anyhow whoever does publish a mod here knows he will have gratefull people on their side but not without any constructive critics made to his work, so then, why would a mod author have to fear his/her mod be perfected in the first place, as I can read that is the philosophy here.
Although I do respect the fact that publishing mods is a delicate task I myself prefer to rather see sloppy code rather than no mods at all beeing published. There is always someone to help and or take over the code/support for others seeking help as i can see IMHO. This is what I really like here!!!
So truley I believe that 'certifing' mods will bring to a lower number of seeking help topics, that way efforts could be moved at more important tasks.
Referring at non ASP developers, I can see that from daily posts, people come here expecting a simple forum solution (which they find) but than walk away from Snitz when they need to add functionality to it (although again they find very good support here). You could find good examples of this by looking at the hall of fame sites. I'm not saying mods should be included in Snitz, that is up to authors to decide, but rather what is a Snitz target user and what does he want from snitz.
I'm sure some or all of my previous rants were discussed before, so I'll end my rant mode here in the hope this thread be continued by people directly involved in decision making
Can we all help some how? <
bobby131313
01 August 2005, 23:07
I just wanted to add a positive comment. Just installed the site integration mod today in 25 minutes and it works like a charm! <
dayve
02 August 2005, 14:48
Huw,
Maybe you should post some of your findings here: http://www.thedailywtf.com <
Fazzer
13 August 2005, 11:45
The Mods that are worthwhile stand out without too much research. I think we should all accept that the MODS are submitted through the goodwill of others and in many cases are building blocks and ripe for further enhancement. Although it is frustrating when Mods do not work it does open up the challenge to tweak and play around with them.
Keep them coming I say as there is some brilliant stuff coming through!
If you think some of the Snitz Mods contributions are poor try Webwiz they are worth ranting about.....they really are dreadful and I was never so grateful to find Snitz !!!!
Fazzer<
golfmann
14 September 2005, 20:46
I think this thread is a great thing!
Working with mods has made me a snitzhead! Lol They are priceless to the snitz world in my opinion
Perhaps a redo or adding of a MOD W/Code BETA Forum is all that's needed. That sets the buyer beware part and hopefully lends to a better discussion and "burn in" of a given mod which then transfers to the prime time mod section upon acclimation or whatever .
The value of this place is the always evolving aspect of it...mods included. I can see the wiki thoughts but we already have that ability as far as comments and checking goes. If it's something where people add bits of CODE like a progressive novel then that would be just too wierd!
Ok I'm in for 2 cents...<
mangran
26 September 2005, 18:35
It's an old thread, so forgive me for resurrecting....
Call me Mr. Necromancer.
Anyway, I had a problem with my forums. According to my webhost, it sent the MySQL server into an infinite loop. Of course, they gave me no information so for all I know it was a direct attack, an exploit, or even some other code on my site. Finding it is a needle in the haystack sort of endeavour. I've had other problems too. Problems with that "webgarden" thing that caused problems with session cookies and recently, apparently MySQL is now returning "select count" results as something other than an integer which caused type mismatches all over the forum (I'm assuming my webhost did an upgrade or something).
So here is my point... going through the code, it's a mess. You can tell where different people programmed different things. Some people forced the variables into types, some use different variable naming conventions, etc. etc. etc.
I've been doing this for a long time (and working with Snitz for years as well)... I can handle dealing with messed up code. However, many others just can't.
I read the other stuff on the "should we or shouldn't we" concerning reviews and such, so why not do it like this. Vote with the feet, so to speak.
Set up a site (or do it here) of mods where the mods are reviewed for workability, documentation, and uniformity. Those mods get the seal of approval, guaranteed or your money back... except you didn't pay any money so..........
You still have places like the forums here or snitzbitz where everyone can post anything, however, for the people who really need reliability or really need idiot proof instructions, it's there. That's the point of the whole open nature of the internet. If you want it, just do it. Let's face it. Even in places like Snitzbitz, it's not always easy to tell what the newest version of a mod is, or if another mod by someone else has superceded it, etc. etc. etc. We really need to have more organization than there is.
Now naturally, any kind of review/standardization process is going to take time and resources, so as such, mods will go through a lot slower than a more "open" environment like Snitzbitz or the open forums. This keeps the whole "death by committee" stuff from being a major fear by having the "official stamp" mods killing the "independent" ones. Some people will always want the latest and greatest, so they'll still go there (and get whatever they get) while those who really want or need to "play it safe" ALSO have their needs met. Polls could be used to help the "review group" decide which mods need to be approved faster (which also helps determine which ones are more popular for consideration to be added to the next baseline).
Everyone gets what they need.
<
maduko
02 January 2006, 23:04
Let me toss in my 2¢ in favor of adding more features to the base code.
I came here this evening because we just downloaded 3.4.05 and our current forum has a ton of Mods installed.
Since I began using the Snitz scripts on my sites in 2001 we are constantly downloading the same Mods over and over. Some of these Mods seem to outdate the Snitz forum itself!
Why would the inclusion of features like polls be such a problem? Users not wishing to use them can simply not turn them on.<
ca204valry
13 September 2006, 13:48
Hi i am using the avatar MOD with the real name MOD. i am facing some problem with the installation in file topic.asp.<
HuwR
13 September 2006, 13:51
Originally posted by ca204valry Hi i am using the avatar MOD with the real name MOD. i am facing some problem with the installation in file topic.asp.
please try posting in the correct Forum, ie "MOD Implementation forum"<
mdelcour2000
22 October 2007, 13:44
I AM MAJORLY PISSED OFF......I just installed the 5-in-1 MOD. The Config.asp file was BAD. It dosen't work, and now I have lost EVERYTHING anybody ever posted on my forum.<
AnonJr
22 October 2007, 14:28
First, if you have an issue with the 5-in-1 pack, you should start a new topic on it in the "Help: MOD Implementation" forum. It really doesn't fit in this topic.
Second, are you sure it overwrote everything? If you didn't change the config.asp file to point to your existing database it won't know to pull the topics from there. But that is something we can continue in a new topic. <
ruirib
22 October 2007, 14:31
No bad config.asp would ever cause posts to be lost.
Also, as posted in the forum here, there are things people need to do before installing mods and blaming others for their own mistakes. One of the things recommended there is a backup of your pre-mod files. Did you do that? If you did, just get the files back and you're data will be there. If not... well you have no one to blame but yourself.
If you're after something other than blaming those who just make their work freely available to others, I would suggest a change of attitude and a post, in the right forum, explaining your situation in detail, and asking for help.<
Panhandler
22 October 2007, 20:03
The 5-in-1 Snitz Common Expansion Pack has been downloaded 554 times now.
There's been one or two questions regarding it and no complaints.
<
NetMan96SS
31 October 2007, 15:47
Originally posted by Panhandler The 5-in-1 Snitz Common Expansion Pack has been downloaded 554 times now.
There's been one or two questions regarding it and no complaints.
It's an interesting install. However ... is it supposed to be in a language other than english? How do I get it in english? I downloaded it right from your sig. Seems to be in arabic?<
MaD2ko0l
31 October 2007, 16:05
Originally posted by NetMan96SS
It's an interesting install. However ... is it supposed to be in a language other than english? How do I get it in english? I downloaded it right from your sig. Seems to be in arabic?
thats because you have dowloaded the wrong 1...get the version at the top...that is the proper 1 to get..dont know what the bottom 1 is<
Panhandler
31 October 2007, 16:16
The bottom one is not mine. . .it's some sort of an add-on that contains arabic language and symbols.
<
NetMan96SS
31 October 2007, 16:17
ok ... thanks!<
Davio
01 November 2007, 07:41
Did that guy upload an arabic version of your mod PanHandler? He has no description of it. I am prone to remove for lack of description. I have no clue what "copy startimes editing (copy 8) . .Team Work startimes" means.<
Panhandler
01 November 2007, 07:56
Originally posted by Davio Did that guy upload an arabic version of your mod PanHandler? He has no description of it. I am prone to remove for lack of description. I have no clue what "copy startimes editing (copy 8) . .Team Work startimes" means.
I don't know what it is. I looked at the graphic files and there's nothing wrong with them. The writer obviously put some effort into it. It seems very undocumented and I did not try to implement it.
Its misguided and probably should not be there as illustrated by the complaint posted earlier in this thread. <
Davio
01 November 2007, 15:43
I've sent the author an email. If he doesn't respond timely I will remove it.<
Shaggy
02 November 2007, 05:12
Star was the name of one of those Arabic forums that was distributing a translated version of the forums with the copyright removed. Have a look in the inc_footer.asp of the download to see if the copyright is intact.
<
ejm3
29 March 2009, 22:59
I realize that I'm digging up the past, but I've spent over an hour reading this rant so I wanted to contribute.
I would first like to say that I am totally new to ASP and programming in general. I did not download the Snitz forum because it was free. I wanted an open source solution so I could learn.
I don't think that an "approved" mod list is a bad idea, but I don't think the "open source" aspect should be ignored. I get frustrated adding mods, but I think that has taught me more than a school ever could. I search these forums and usually find help. Maybe one day I will be able to help too. Who knows?
Anyway, I'll just share my procedures for the rest of us n00bs;
Add the mod to my local server, tweak (if necessary), and test with multiple users and multiple machines.
If the tweaks and tests go well; Backup every file from my host's server to my machine (just in case).
Add the mod to my host's server so my users can use (test) it.
My local server is an XP Pro machine with IIS configured. I do not host my own site, I just use it for testing. I think this is a good option for anyone running XP. IIS comes with it so you can test before you upload your mod.
PS: This has been noted in several other topics, so this is just a reminder. Turn off friendly HTTP errors. This has helped me almost as much as these forums have.
Again, I don't mean to dig up an old topic, but I hope I helped someone, somewhere.
SiSL
30 March 2009, 01:19
I gave up modding sometime ago. There are some solutions that is just not suitable for "all dbs". I mean I dont know how I can make performance + generic DB solutions or have time to do different tests or different solutions for each database type. I can't do without ROWID, RANK etc. now or FreeTextTable. Linux based forums are lucky to have only one single type of database. Which they require different DB's till minor versions let alone major now. For me best solution turned out to be make work specific codes for Snitz now. My entire work now turned out "customisation" of Snitz for my own, removing extra lines that I will not use and finding more custom perforamance solutions for my DB type/version and work, which I MUST with a db over 120k users and million posts.
Ofcourse continuing to share info if someone looks for them.
<
<
