Our thoughts on KerbalStuff's closure

[Skalou]

2 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Updated my original research post with the curseforge link. Brings up 25 results.

I just updated my original research. It brings up 25 results.

It also saddens me that even after me quoting you, you still did not read my original post. If you did, you'd know that you can literally just search for what I searched using the "Search..." feature. It's on the top left of the forum's header.

Go ahead and search for "github.com". Heck, even search for the other things. Please.

I don't know what you are trying to prove but your search seems really bad.

[Guest]

Just now, Skalou said:

I don't know what you are trying to prove but your search seems really bad.

I'm trying to show that when compared to other hosting services, Curse is one of the least used to host KSP mods.

My search was simple, type the other services' "mod section" link into the search box on top of the page and compare the amount of results.

[Padishar]

8 minutes ago, Tig said:

Perhaps you could read this entire thread?  Perhaps you could read the entire thread when Curse was announced?  The response was so overwhelmingly negative that there is simply no reason to count the posts.  Feel free to engage in the exercise if you wish...  I believed it to be so well know that I didn't need to provide the link, but I guess I do.  Very well: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/71567-the-curse-thread/&page=1   Suffice it to say that from reading these threads, including the 59 page one, there is ample evidence that people don't like Curse and aren't just a "vocal minority", as opposed to what the person I was responding to was writing (which was utter conjecture and theorized that the boards are not representative of the greater KSP community.)

I have read this entire thread and the one you linked.  People who feel strongly negative about something are far more likely to post about it which applies a completely indeterminate amount of skew to the results making any conclusions speculative, at best.

15 minutes ago, Tig said:

My objection was not to the theory he proposed... but that he then assumed it true with no evidence, then referred to people who don't like curse as a "vocal minority" who should "get over it."  That's not discourse; it's dismissive and unneeded.

I made no mention of either his or your theories.  I didn't actually say that there aren't people who don't like Curse.  I didn't even say the people who don't like Curse aren't a majority (though I don't believe they are).  I simply pointed out that you had done exactly what you were accusing someone else of doing.

16 minutes ago, Tig said:

Before you go about being nasty perhaps you should read the thread, or at least the prior 3 posts.

I wasn't being nasty, as I said above, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.  The fact that you immediately assumed both that I was opposing your argument and had not read the previous posts indicates that you should try reading and comprehending posts before replying to them.

12 minutes ago, Tig said:

"nor do I believe" so, you just think AS made it up?  And it fails your personal standard?

I didn't say anything about him making it up.  That may be what the forum search returns but there's no guarantee it's accurate.  It may even be true.  However, the number of github links on this forum doesn't really provide any evidence about your statements either way.

[Superfluous J]

11 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

...you can literally just search for what I searched using the "Search..." feature.

I'm not going to argue for or against the mod hosting sites because I don't see why it's so important. However I must point out that the forum search is pretty bad and I wouldn't trust it at all. Far better is google.com's search. If you search for "site:forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com github.com" (without the quotes) it'll give a far more reliable number.

Searching for "kerbalstuff.com/mod" brings up 15,400 results.

Searching for "curse.com/ksp-mods" brings up 8,280 results.

Searching for "kerbal.curseforge.com/projects" brings up 1,030 results.

Searching for "spacedock.info/mod" brings up 1,500 results.

Searching for "github.com" brings up 30,500 results.

I'll also not comment on how accurate the above search terms are for deciding on how much a site is used. For all I know someone made a post with 5,000 links to Kerbalstuff. However, maybe Squad should officially support Github as the official mod repository?

Edited February 21, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'm not going to argue for or against the mod hosting sites because I don't see why it's so important. However I must point out that the forum search is pretty bad and I wouldn't trust it at all. Far better is google.com's search. If you search for "site:forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com github.com" (without the quotes) it'll give a far more reliable number.

Searching for "kerbalstuff.com/mod" brings up 15,400 results.

Searching for "curse.com/ksp-mods" brings up 8,280 results.

Searching for "kerbal.curseforge.com/projects" brings up 1,030 results.

Searching for "spacedock.info/mod" brings up 1,500 results.

Searching for "github.com" brings up 30,500 results.

I'll also not comment on how accurate the above search terms are for deciding on how much a site is used. For all I know someone made a post with 5,000 links to Kerbalstuff. However, maybe Squad should officially support Github as the official mod repository?

Huh, now that's a feature I didn't know about.

Thanks for letting me know!

Also, it's amazing that spacedock.info already has more links than curseforge, which has been around for much longer.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Guest
quote removed <3

[Padishar]

1 minute ago, Aperture Science said:

By the way, does anyone know how to remove this pesky quote below? I accidentally quoted a post and it won't go away.

Ctrl-right click on the little target icon that appears top-left when you mouse-over the quote...

[Red Iron Crown]

Worth pointing out that some mods that were solo hosted on Curse with permissive licenses were uploaded by third parties to KerbalStuff (KER is one I know of off hand). Curse attempts to establish ownership before approving such things, KerbalStuff actively encouraged it (mostly due, IMO, to wanting to be able to say more mods were hosted there than on Curse).

[Tig]

2 hours ago, Padishar said:

I have read this entire thread and the one you linked.  People who feel strongly negative about something are far more likely to post about it which applies a completely indeterminate amount of skew to the results making any conclusions speculative, at best.

I made no mention of either his or your theories.  I didn't actually say that there aren't people who don't like Curse.  I didn't even say the people who don't like Curse aren't a majority (though I don't believe they are).  I simply pointed out that you had done exactly what you were accusing someone else of doing.

I wasn't being nasty, as I said above, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.  The fact that you immediately assumed both that I was opposing your argument and had not read the previous posts indicates that you should try reading and comprehending posts before replying to them.

I didn't say anything about him making it up.  That may be what the forum search returns but there's no guarantee it's accurate.  It may even be true.  However, the number of github links on this forum doesn't really provide any evidence about your statements either way.

So you admit that people posted mostly negative things about Curse?

As I said, "The majority of people registered and somewhat active on this forum don't like Curse"

So now, you admit what I said is true, but have decided to dismiss it for a different reason which is that the results are skewed...?  AND I'M THE HYPOCRITE?  lol.  Calling someone a hypocrite, especially when incorrect, is nasty.  [snip] Proof is nothing more than evidence, its not definitive. However, the proof I have supports my conclusion.  You can disagree with my evidence - I truly don't mind that - but instead you incorrectly and rudely told me I had none.  You were then dismissive of @Aperture Science posts in the same way.

I read everything you wrote and tore it down bit by bit.  You've now admitted that the things that you bolded in my prior post are in fact accurate, but now try to hide behind the skirt of entirely different argument. 

[snip] Go ahead and reply, no one but you will care or read it; I've made my point and wipe my hands of you.  Good day, sir. 

[NathanKell]

Yeah, uh, I've linked github more than 25 times in any one of my mod threads. :]

Also, @5thHorseman does google check the link source or just the display text? Because if the latter it'd only find non-pretty direct links, not pretty links like this.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Worth pointing out that some mods that were solo hosted on Curse with permissive licenses were uploaded by third parties to KerbalStuff (KER is one I know of off hand). Curse attempts to establish ownership before approving such things, KerbalStuff actively encouraged it (mostly due, IMO, to wanting to be able to say more mods were hosted there than on Curse).

I don't know if doing that would matter, because the mods would be counting both towards Curse and the other sites.

Also, try not to get personal, guys.

[Red Iron Crown]

2 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

I don't know if doing that would matter, because the mods would be counting both towards Curse and the other sites.

If you are interested in keeping score then of course it matters, it's adding to both totals when it should only be adding to one.

2 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Also, try not to get personal, guys.

I have been incredibly restrained at keeping it away from personal arguments since KerbalStuff's takedown (and I could tell you a lot). It's no secret that SirCmpwn compared KerbalStuff's stats to Curse's regularly, and used this as an argument for KS being superior and worthy of being the official host.

[Padishar]

Just now, Tig said:

So you admit that people posted mostly negative things about Curse?

I said nothing of the sort.  Go read it again.

2 minutes ago, Tig said:

As I said, "The majority of people registered and somewhat active on this forum don't like Curse"

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

8 minutes ago, Tig said:

So now, you admit what I said is true, but have decided to dismiss it for a different reason which is that the results are skewed...?  AND I'M THE HYPOCRITE?  lol.  Calling someone a hypocrite, especially when incorrect, is nasty.  You're a nasty sad little man.  Proof is nothing more than evidence, its not definitive. However, the proof I have supports my conclusion.  You can disagree with my evidence - I truly don't mind that - but instead you incorrectly and rudely told me I had none.  You were then dismissive of Aperature Science's posts in the same way.

No, I didn't do that either.  As I said, I wasn't being nasty.  Your post was textbook hypocrisy and I pointed that out.  You are the one now resorting to insults.  You do not have any proof, you don't even really have any evidence.

11 minutes ago, Tig said:

I read everything you wrote and tore it down bit by bit.  You've now admitted that the things that you bolded in my prior post are in fact accurate, but now try to hide behind the skirt of entirely different argument. 

If you did read it then you certainly didn't understand it and you certainly haven't torn anything down.  I did not admit that any of your statements were true.

[sumghai]

13 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Worth pointing out that some mods that were solo hosted on Curse with permissive licenses were uploaded by third parties to KerbalStuff (KER is one I know of off hand). Curse attempts to establish ownership before approving such things, KerbalStuff actively encouraged it (mostly due, IMO, to wanting to be able to say more mods were hosted there than on Curse).

If this is true, this is actually terrifying - besides the usual concerns regarding proper attribution and ownership, such illegitimately redistributing mods to a host with no admin review mechanism would also cause support nightmares for the original authors/maintainers, since these bootleg editions might be perverted for other purposes, such as deploying malware or containing personal, unverified tweaks by the third-party uploader/modpacker.

I'd hate to see my FusTek or SDHI mods show up on Nexus, KerbalStuff or Spacedock that I myself did not upload, and I certainly won't provide support for any version of my mods that originate from such locations.

[Hotaru]

16 minutes ago, sumghai said:

If this is true, this is actually terrifying - besides the usual concerns regarding proper attribution and ownership, such illegitimately redistributing mods to a host with no admin review mechanism would also cause support nightmares for the original authors/maintainers, since these bootleg editions might be perverted for other purposes, such as deploying malware or containing personal, unverified tweaks by the third-party uploader/modpacker.

I'd hate to see my FusTek or SDHI mods show up on Nexus, KerbalStuff or Spacedock that I myself did not upload, and I certainly won't provide support for any version of my mods that originate from such locations.

If you don't want your mods to be freely redistributed, don't publish them under a license that allows free redistribution. If you want to allow people to build on your work but not just re-post the original, pick a license that allows redistribution of derivatives, but not the unmodified original. This is exactly why we have licenses in the first place: they give mod authors control over if and how their work is redistributed. If you want to play it safe, you can always stick to "no redistribution without permission."

Personally I think it's poor etiquette to re-post somebody's mods without consulting them (unless they've made it explicitly clear that this is OK), but if the mod author picked a too-permissive license, that's at least partly on them. Of course, if people are violating the licenses by re-posting mods elsewhere, that's another story. 

[Padishar]

49 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Also, it's amazing that spacedock.info already has more links than curseforge, which has been around for much longer.

Not really, you also have to include kerbal.curseforge.com/ksp-mod which adds nearly 3000.  There may also be another style of link (I think they changed more than once with the old style links now redirecting to the new /projects style ones).  This just reinforces the point I was making that you just can't trust counting links for this...

[Waxing_Kibbous]

There's a bit of idealism happening here, people have their own ideas of what Squad *should* be doing based on their own personal preferences. The way I see it, Squad is a small team, and the more focus they put into KSP the game and the less everywhere else the better.

 

[Vanamonde]

Speaking as a moderator now, please take the tempers down a notch. Accusing each other of unpleasant things makes the forum less fun for all of us. 

[nobodyhasthis2]

Or lets put another spin on this. Does complaining to Squad make people less guilty about this....

Quote

setting Squad aside, running Kerbal Stuff is a largely thankless job. In fact, for the most part, I just hear complaints. Most people don't actually care about the effort put into it. Whenever I've taken the time to add features or make improvements or meet the requests of users, no one has shown any appreciation. I stopped volunteering my time and energy to extend this website, because my efforts were always met with silence or complaints.

I think people don't want to set Squad aside because it easier to blame them that face the truth. We helped to bring down Kerbal Stuff through a lack of acknowledgment of the services rendered.

Also goes it make people feel better to attack Squad's outsourcing of the hosting problems to a commercial site. Whilst they don't put their up funding themselves to support a non-commercial alternative like Spacedock.info?

 

  

 

[Kerbart]

31 minutes ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Or lets put another spin on this. Does complaining to Squad make people less guilty about this....

I think people don't want to set Squad aside because it easier to blame them that face the truth. We helped to bring down Kerbal Stuff through a lack of acknowledgment of the services rendered. 

Yes... and no. This is basic human behavior. Read up on Dr. Kano's “satisfaction model” which is very basic marketing (a dirty word... not just here. People like to ignore it, and then end up... here). There are “basic needs” and there are “delighters.” For the mods, the most basic needs are probably “uptime, download speed.”

Kerbal Stuff came with an innovation: “not Curse.” Happy customers. We love Kerbal Stuff! As Dr. Kano predicts, delighters tend to morph into basic needs over time. So while the acknowledgements and emails likely came flooding in at the beginning, as Kerbal Stuff became an “established” site, its users did what is normal, predictable and expected; they take the site for granted. And then they start complaining about other basic needs (uptime, download speed) when they’re not being met.

Of course, the right thing to do was, as a community, pick that up and act on it. But that’s not how the human mind works. That doesn't mean Space Dock doesn’t stand a chance. But they should be aware of the effect. And the user community should be aware that server space and bandwidth cost money; and the people running Space Dock should be aware that, right now, they are being inundated with emails on how they are saving modding for KSP, six months from now the emails will be about “I tried to download mod x at 3 AM in the morning and the site was down. And mod y took FIVE minutes to download!” How they deal with that (income from ads? subscription? saint-like patience? Who knows!) will determine the long-term viability of the site.

Curseforge doesn’t have those issues. Yes, they are the anti-christ. Probably worse than that. I bet they eat fried kittens and bunnies for lunch. But they don’t need happy emails to stay motivated; paying the mortgage and food bills is their motivation to keep things running and for those who don’t have to pay for that themselves (yet): let me tell you, it is a mighty motivator. And that is why Squad went with Curse; companies tend to put a disproportionate amount of emphasis on things like “accountability” and “continuity.” Silly companies. They should just do cool things, and not be worried about whether they are still in business tomorrow!

For the community: go out and make it happen. Check out avsim.com and flightsim.com; they're blooming websites for the flighsim community. They didn't need endorsements from Microsoft or other companies to become and stay popular. But don't complain if someone's running an ad banner either, or charges a subscription fee. There's no such thing as a free lunch, after all.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Kerbart

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Curseforge doesn’t have those issues. Yes, they are the anti-christ. Probably worse than that. I bet they eat fried kittens and bunnies for lunch.

 

Why do you need to inject such rhetoric, satirical or not, into an otherwise informative and intelligent post?

[linuxgurugamer]

this thread has gotten old.  Have fun discussing nothing, I'm unfollowing this

[Kerbart]

3 minutes ago, Otis said:

Why do you need to inject such rhetoric, satirical or not, into an otherwise informative and intelligent post?

To save people time, so they don't have to respond 25 times with that. EDIT: On a more serious note: because Squad didn't pick them because they were nice. They picked them because they are reliable, sign contracts, and run things like a business. Something that in a “we make mods for the love of the game” community seems to be villified. I doubt there’s an evil conspiricy by Squad to pick Curse, and everyone can't say enough how evil they are. But they're still around. And that's why they were picked.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Kerbart

[mcirish3]

21 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Of course, the right thing to do was, as a community, pick that up and act on it. But that’s not how the human mind works. That doesn't mean Space Dock doesn’t stand a chance. But they should be aware of the effect. And the user community should be aware that server space and bandwidth cost money; and the people running Space Dock should be aware that, right now, they are being inundated with emails on how they are saving modding for KSP, six months from now the emails will be about “I tried to download mod x at 3 AM in the morning and the site was down. And mod y took FIVE minutes to download!” How they deal with that (income from ads? subscription? saint-like patience? Who knows!) will determine the long-term viability of the site.

With this in mind:

Help Keep the Space Dock team Motivated Here:https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2903335&ty=p I in no way benefited financially from contributions to the space dock team, my only benefit comes from Spacedock being a success.
 

[nobodyhasthis2]

26 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Yes... and no. This is basic human behavior. Read up on Dr. Kano's “satisfaction model” which is very basic marketing (a dirty word... not just here. People like to ignore it, and then end up... here). There are “basic needs” and there

I don't need to. Post graduate here. Look at initial work in Herzberg hygiene factors and extrapolate to MoSCoW method in brokering contract negotiations. Also better not mention the so called dirty word. People might wake up and recognize how Squad funded the KSP start up project. 

The bottom line is we can throw all the psychology papers around like confetti but does not change the facts. The moral high ground from where people like to deliver their rhetoric is pretty weak. 

 

Edited February 22, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[Explorator]

On 2/17/2016 at 0:49 PM, KasperVld said:

It’s probably time to wrap up this post, but we couldn’t possibly do that before thanking Sircmpwn for his efforts that undoubtedly benefited the community. Maintaining a service like KerbalStuff is both costly and time consuming, and not many people would step up to do what Sircmpwn did. Thank you.

Currently the KSP community is already working on an alternative website (working name SpaceDock) based on the open source framework of Kerbalstuff. We hope that this new website will fill a void for many people. At the moment of writing it does not seem to be the case that Sircmpwn will allow this new team to use the KerbalStuff name, domain registration or user and mod database. That means the website will largely have to start over, but if help is needed we’re ready to look at ways in which we could support it. Meanwhile people are free to upload and share mods from any source they wish; we can happily recommend Curse for this purpose, at the very least as a stopgap measure.

Thanks again to Sircmpwn and Majiir for running this amazing website, an even bigger thanks to our amazing modding community and the best wishes to the team picking up where KerbalStuff left off.

Squad probably could have just said this and I would be ok with it. I'm actually glad this is happening because community run mod repositories set up a new chance to improve on what issues we had before. Maybe this time if the team running spacedock.info gets a little weary on their motives we can support them by understanding their issues more clearly. Until then, lets be honest this was bound to happen sooner or later.