Stupid rules for links

category: general [glöplog]
See recent discussion in "fix me beautiful" about upgrading LHB's Savior demo links with new youtube video and "120% version". Apparently for example "Youtube (party version)" is now considered as nondescriptive and "unsupported labeltype".

Pouet doesn't technically restrict the label texts, and many prods have quite a many links.
Like http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=59107 (Youtube 60fps)
Or http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=9424 (video (.the .mix) or (video (custom mix)).

What is all this "unsupported label" bullshit about? Somebody should maybe clarify the rules. My five cents to this conversation is that all those custom link texts should be kept and allowed, since prods usually have all kinds of associated extra stuff surrounding them, like makingofs, music remixes, whatever. There's just no point in defining some strict set of allowed labels and try to implement that ruleset like a robot.
added on the 2018-08-30 17:01:46 by havoc havoc
btw don't forget to mention that your idea of a suitable label name is stuff like "inferior platform port"
added on the 2018-08-30 17:03:13 by havoc havoc
"Inferior Platform Port" is not that different from "video (.the .mix)". How does ".the .mix" describe that video to you? :D
"video (.the .mix)"

was already gone before you typed that...
added on the 2018-08-30 17:08:53 by havoc havoc
Ok so be it. Turning the world gray, one link at the time.
yeah fuck consistency and userfriendliness, let's just plaster the site full with "inferior platform port", "youtube HD 50,25fps" and whatnot, that'll be a joy for everyone surely
added on the 2018-08-30 17:13:29 by havoc havoc
Lets also delete all demos that are not running on for example DX12, I think some users might be upset when there are productions that require "amiga OCS" or "amiga AGA" and some even require "OCS 1MB". And then there's these disgusting "Linux demos" that probably don't work with any distribution you currently have!
It might also upset some users that demos look different. Maybe we should only allow demos that display full hd gray screen with no music? And the only allowed name is "gray screen with no music" because all these "savior" or "gaia machina" or "fr-030: candytron" names are really unconsistent, confusing and non-descriptive for the users!
Wait what is the problem here?

There's plenty of links where it says "youtube (party version)".
added on the 2018-08-30 17:21:22 by Gargaj Gargaj
There's plenty of links where it says "youtube (party version)".

Doesn't look like that any more, at least a couple prods of mine have had such links removed from their pages.

Like... maybe chill a bit? Links like this should be totally fine.
added on the 2018-08-30 17:34:23 by noby noby
I happen to know what is the problem firsthand.

Certain gloperators are obsessed with removing prod links: http://www.pouet.net/gloperator_log.php?which=63359&what=prod
added on the 2018-08-30 17:34:35 by introspec introspec
ideal situation would be to have label and description as separate fields but since it's not, i'd prefer to have "youtube (party version)" and similar kinda links.

For example in my opinion this prod deserves to have two different youtube links with clear descriptions.
added on the 2018-08-30 17:42:29 by waffle waffle
What is all this "unsupported label" bullshit about? Somebody should maybe clarify the rules. My five cents to this conversation is that all those custom link texts should be kept and allowed, since prods usually have all kinds of associated extra stuff surrounding them, like makingofs, music remixes, whatever. There's just no point in defining some strict set of allowed labels and try to implement that ruleset like a robot.

word. i also prefer if the links are self explanatory like youtube (live), youtube (party version) and so on since that makes me know beforehand what i am about to watch and which link to choose.
added on the 2018-08-30 18:08:48 by Defiance Defiance
actually there's not plenty of links with "youtube (party version)" because i'll reformat those whenever i come across them, same goes for a bunch of other stuff like mixed up soundcloud/soundtrack links, extra download links for a final version (which should be the main download link so it gets monitored), and so on and so forth.

of course you can kneejerk into thinking that's stupid and you're totally welcome to do so, i really don't care. but there is in fact some logic to it all, believe it or not. the key word here is "consistency". if you think you can come up with a new consistent naming scheme i'll be happy to try to shoot some holes in it, and if i can't we should probably adopt it.

until then, please do continue calling me stupid etc :)
added on the 2018-08-30 18:38:32 by havoc havoc
havoc allow me to remind you:

Don't swim upstream

If multiple people tell you to stop, stop. Everyone can think they're the only person who's right and everyone else is wrong, but unless you can prove your point solidly, it's probably better to just leave it be.
added on the 2018-08-30 18:48:50 by Defiance Defiance
I think this argument feels stupid because it is in the best interest of prod's authors to have clear and useful links. The argument for the site-wide consistency does make *some* sense, but then again, is not really enforced consistently and, frankly, not having a party video because a consistent naming scheme has not been decided for those is a bit of a strawman argument.

You could have implemented a drop-down list with about 10 "allowed" types of links and then you would not even need to enforce their use. Instead, a complicated scheme allows for flexibility, which some gloperators embrace and others apparently despise. I am pretty sure I can go through the bunch of releases and find a selection of party videos. I see them regularly. In fact, they are fundamentally not the same as "quality" YouTube recordings, because they often include reactions from viewers. People do want to see party versions vs final versions. People do want to download soundtracks which are often uploaded to Soundcloud. This is what the living scene looks like at present; I cannot for the life of me understand what is this notion of consistency is even intended to achieve.

Let us even put the argument of "scene history preservation" aside for a moment. For the site concerned with supporting scene and caring about scene, there is surprisingly little trust that sceners would do what they think is best for their own prods.
added on the 2018-08-31 00:09:00 by introspec introspec
i'm 100% with havoc on this one.
added on the 2018-08-31 00:36:33 by dipswitch dipswitch
If the party version of a prod is significantly different than the final (but still in essence the same prod), then I don't see why the party version couldn't have it's own Youtube link.
added on the 2018-08-31 00:52:12 by Gargaj Gargaj
you should all bear in mind this has been discussed 200 times before, and the current consistency scheme does have a logic behind it. perhaps it should be better publically documented somewhere (is it on the faq? i haven't checked) to avoid re-explaining things that might get a bit lost with time?
added on the 2018-08-31 00:52:53 by psenough psenough
i wanted to stay out of this but since i'm glopperatin' as well i think links like e.g. youtube/download (party version) are okay because one can see what they get and there is a reason behind it. but "120% version" and "Inferior Platform Port" (to come back to where this all started in the first place) are more a vision of the author than helpful for visitors (compared to "final" or "bla bla bla port"). why not putting all ports/versions in one file to be downloaded besides the party version (which nowadays lands on scene.org in most cases anyway). and i am not talking about 800mb monsters like asd and cocoon prods just to be clear ;) :D
It would nice to have links with "Inferior Platform Port" label, but I admit it's not very descriptive and might be a bit bending the rules. That's why I dropped requesting that.

However I don't understand why even "Youtube (party version)" is too much.
there's exactly 2 relevant youtube link labels: "youtube" and "youtube(live)"

former is for the best possible recording of the demo, latter is a recording from the party (preferably with crowd reaction included)

if prod versions are different enough between party/final, or original/remix, or or or- then each version can be added as a separate prod, with not just the correct youtube link, but also a correct screenshot, nfo, source download, github, soundtrack, soundcloud, vimeo, and so on

if we allow "youtube (party version)" why should we not allow "random supported linktype (party version)"? and why shouldn't we allow for separate "remix" or "port" links in a similar format? who cares how messy the link sections of prod could get :P
added on the 2018-08-31 09:30:03 by havoc havoc
Slippery slope much? :)

How is the difference of "live" acceptable and "party version" isn't? (Granted, there is an overlap between but let's assume the edge case where the prod only has one and not the other.)

I don't consider the party and final versions of a prod to be distinct prods - they're versions of the same prod, the same way I never really liked the idea of separate prods for a Windows port or so. It's still in it's essence the same prod, just with minor changes in content. The Candytron mix example was something that I thought was genuinely interesting, and I can't for the life of me understand why it got removed.

I don't disagree that there are possible edge cases if someone releases 74 final versions and wants 74 different Youtube links, but clearly we're trying to be reasonable here? I mean what percentage of prods even GETS a final version?
added on the 2018-08-31 09:53:15 by Gargaj Gargaj