Community Mod Repository and The Majiir Challenge

[sharpspoonful]

But as the title states, this will be a mod repository. I understand sharing of craft files, but as I said, that is something that should stay on the forums or on reddit.

[Daemoria]

I'd like to point out the Mod Nexus as a very stable distribution method. I personally use the Skyrim, Oblivion, Morrowind, Witcher, (...etc, you get the point) nexus sites for keeping all my mods organized.

http://www.nexusmods.com/kerbalspaceprogram/

It has nearly all the points you guys want. The 'star'/'thumbs up' on that site is referred to as 'endorsements', so slight terminology changes. Check out the other sites on the nexus network (top right side of the tool bar) for examples of other games. They recently implemented a method to support *every single* PC game, and it works as far as I can tell.

[Majiir]

It might be a good idea to have some kind of designated version indicator, not just the [version] text that some people add to the name of their mod.

I'm leaning this way. I particularly like how NPM has an indicator like "last updated 2 months ago". For mods, another decent indicator could be the KSP version when the mod was released. It doesn't give a complete compatibility picture, but it gives a first-glance look at whether a mod has actually been updated for the latest version.

Allowing listings without download links that just refer to some external location (forum thread or even spaceport) might be a good idea as well, especially for the transition phase.

Being comprehensive is very important for users accepting such a database and sth like that might make it easier for mod creators or even allows entries to be created initially by someone else.

I don't think it would be a good idea to allow non-authors to create entries by linking to other sources. Some projects are licensed such that anyone can distribute the work, so that's fine. As you mention, direct-linking can bypass such license restrictions, which isn't an intended effect. My personal opinion is that direct-linking isn't worth what it costs. If a modder isn't comfortable with the repository hosting files, he can give feedback on why. It's healthy for the site to have to earn adoption by modders.

I'm also a little worried about the competition between multiple such projects. As mentioned, having a comprehensive listing is very important for such a project and both users and mod developers tend to be lazy. That means who ever launches first to get a head start will most likely win, regardless of its usability features (competing against spaceport with lots of modders behind you is one thing, but but an open competition sth else). Unless ofc there would be some rule that forces them to share content between each other...

If multiple competing projects launch, they'll likely still be in a beta phase. It would be good to make an announcement to the general public if a clear winner emerges.

Moderation - Someone is going to need to weed out the trash/spam etc AND help make the mods go in the right subsections. Who is going to spend a LOT of time moderating the stuff (which is what has caused Spaceport to fail so dismally). It's something to think about.

I think it's worth considering that moderation might not really be necessary. Crowdsourcing quality control can be really advantageous. Taking download counts and user feedback into account, we might be able to get away with a flagging system for egregious cases (e.g. illegal content).

If this does take off and actually begin developing, I think that it would only be appropriate to ask SQUAD for some official support, and allow them to focus on the game itself rather than the mod repository. If we get support, there stands the possibility of having logins tied into our forum accounts and simplifying the voting, reputation, and bug support issue.

It would be great to have access to a login API to authenticate forum accounts. I don't think any other involvement by Squad would be a good idea. They've already demonstrated incompetence in this arena, which is why we're here.

I propose that we use an open source GitHub clone, such as GitLab, as a starting point.

My concern is that we'd be starting with a huge pile of features aimed at accomplishing a different goal. Large systems are harder to maintain, so adding the features we want (and removing the ones we don't) becomes more difficult. If modders don't take advantage of our Gitlab clone as a source repository, we get nothing except the releases system; if they do, we lose a lot of history on Github and switch everyone from a well-maintained, reliable service to our amateurish installation where we don't really care so much about the source control features.

This is along the same lines as cloning Wordpress (which is what Spaceport did). I'm not convinced that the benefits of a "head start" are outweighed by the significant development and maintenance costs.

[NeoMorph]

I think it's worth considering that moderation might not really be necessary. Crowdsourcing quality control can be really advantageous. Taking download counts and user feedback into account, we might be able to get away with a flagging system for egregious cases (e.g. illegal content)

As long as it's not susceptible to manipulation (ie like some mod makers spamming competitors mods with bad flags that has happened in the past - didn't that happen on Mod-DB or was that another site? My memory really needs a defrag though so I may be wrong) then yup, that would be great.

Ultimately, as long as we can finally find the stuff we want (finally without those damned .craft file spam and sorted in the correct order) then it will succeed. The problem with good search functionality is that it takes up more CRUs (computer resource units) which can slow down a site to a standstill if not done correctly (and yeah, I speak from experience of doing it wrong lol).

Actually it would be nice to have SEO so that we can guess the right page for popular mods like "www.kspmodrep.com/mechjeb/" or "www.kspmodrep.com/kos/" for example (have you ever tried searching for mechjeb on the forums or Spaceport? lol). It would mean not even slamming the search engine for those. I'm not a SEO expert though and this is just something I have craved in the past when struggling to find the REAL mod threads.

Could I also suggest that we have a hardware modding section. It would be nice to have a place where ALL us hardware modders can post our work in a single place and not shotgunned all over the place making them hard to find. Mulbin has made a single thread (HERE) on the forums which has tried to draw a few of the hardware mods together but it will only get bigger and and more cumbersome as time goes on (just look at the flight sim community hardware mods out there and remember KSP is still in alpha).

[Pontiac]

*cracks his knuckles*

My desired wish list;

- "Confirmed working with v0.x of KSP" - Developer assigns the tag as what version of KSP the code was written for - Users vote that it works which ups the ante for search results. Removing a site admin to manage the version numbers issued by SQUAD, this could be user definable.

- Ability to link dependencies for 3rd party mods and mark them as "Required" or "Optional" with a link to the other mod -- The 3rd party mods will have a list indicating what depends on them (Thinking of Toolbar). 3rd party mod author can optionally allow all links immediately, authorize each requested link, deny links, or whatever else may be deemed necessary.

-- My thoughts on that are that the mod author can link to the 3rd party mod by ID of the 3rd party mod. The ID would indicate what version of the mod it was last confirmed working with. The user would have an interface to look at the most recent version of the 3rd party mod, as well as the last known good copy. The links would be for local lookups only, not external sites. If files are not hosted locally, then only the "most recent" probably would be valid.

- Comments are AVAILABLE, however, to make a comment a user must be [A] Registered with appropriate confirmed email address on file allowed to enter only ONE comment per mod (Think of it as a review) but DOES have the ability to modify and delete their own comment. Mod Author has ability to hide, but not delete or edit notes from other users. Basically, end users will be able to see a "Hidden Comments" field and have to click to view them. Possibility of allowing registered users to up/down vote other user comments.

- Historical view of previous releases if files are mirrored or hosted locally.

- Third party download site support (GitHub pages) with optional mirroring to the server.

-- A link to a publicly accessible "read.me" file on GitHub (Or any other text file on the net) for version information. The server only downloads text file version history when the mod author chooses, which would eliminate duplication for them (They update on GitHub, or their personal wiki, or a file in their DropBox, the server would download the text file and update). Back end code on the server would strip out non ASCII characters. On the fence about HTML/JAVASCRIPT, but probably HTML Encode that as well. Could potentially scrape the OP of the forum, but if Squad changes the forum, scraping would suck.

- Forced to use a certain subset of visual styles and colors. Similar to basic Wiki syntax. Embedding images (Hosted locally or remotely) and videos supported. Can't use flashing red huge letters or automatically play music.

- Notification of mod updates as an instant notification, daily, weekly, or monthly digests.

-- I'll have to look into it, but notifications via push services like "Notify My Android" as well as whatever the Apple equivalent is. I know with NMA there is a certain limit that a site can push. Its cheap to get a pro account though.

- Mod Author can 'email in' Mod Updates, but prior to being published to the public, the author must log into the site to authorize the upload and assign appropriate requirements. I've had issues in the past with uploading larger files via a web interface. (Even in the lower megabyte range)

***

- Mod Author definable link to support pages (Points to Original Post) and most recent post announcing new release

- Mod Author definable link to development pages (Points to Original Post) and most recent post announcing new release

-- The above two would be restricted to point to forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com based on the thread ID and post number. (For example, this thread would be 71133) Both are optional additions.

I'm 90% interested in coding something like this. Just a matter of finding the time. I love doing database projects.

[psyper]

hmmmm I could do this :/

I'm not big major web developer but I have built similar web based systems before and I can't see anything here which is outside of my skills set - its just creating a multi relational database and some file management. The stars/download stats/version tracking is pretty simple to do. Mod account creation - easy. security of such a system might be a bit of fun but doable. The style/graphics will be adequate (I'm not big in the design front) but I'm sure a design-a-logo competition would soon sort that out

Now one question comes to mind. If we do this. If we get this up and running. How would Squad feel about this? If this gets more views than spaceport and we are hosting say retextured squad parts or mods which of course affect a Squad game how do we stand legally?

[Majiir]

Could I also suggest that we have a hardware modding section. It would be nice to have a place where ALL us hardware modders can post our work in a single place and not shotgunned all over the place making them hard to find.

How would this work? If it's a mod that requires a plugin, then that plugin is what's listed as the download. If not... how do you download a hardware mod? It might be a good idea to take this up with the forum moderators to get a dedicated hardware projects section.

*cracks his knuckles*

Before I address your points in detail, I have to say I think you've missed the point of simplicity. There is no lack of feature ideas here. What we lack is a cohesive set of core features. In other words, we haven't yet (in my opinion) established a good starting point. If someone had to start coding right now, they wouldn't have even a basic idea of how the site should function. One file per mod or several? What kind of files are allowed? Can people download from the site, from an external link or both? Who gets to upload files? There are many such decisions to make before we can even think about more complex features. I highly recommend everyone read Minus 100 points.

With that said:

• Voting on compatibility is possible, and it's been suggested earlier in this thread. I have doubts about both the efficacy and necessity of this. I doubt its efficacy because I've seen too many cases on the forums where the masses get it wrong. I doubt its necessity because ultimately, only the mod developer can say whether a plugin is intended for use with a particular KSP version. Yes, an unmaintained mod might still appear to work in a newer versionâ€â€and this is the sort of information, with all its caveats, that's best communicated on forums. A simple up/down vote cannot encapsulate the nuances of version compatibility.
  
• Dependency linking is possible, but it's overly complex. Dependencies are fairly rare and easy to communicate with a simple link in the mod description. I'm not really sure what this idea actually accomplishes.
  
• Others have come out strong against comments. You offer a middle ground where comments are highly restricted, but again, I wonder what the point is. If we treat them as reviews, maybe we can design a proper review system, but that doesn't seem appropriate for a core feature.
  
• Version history would be nice. The question here is not so much if but how.
  
• What do you mean by "third party download site support (GitHub pages)"? And more acutely, what benefit justifies the feature?
  
• Github has a set of standard names and formats for README files. It would be possible, like NPM, to link a mod to a Github repository and automatically fetch the README. I'm not arguing that this is a bad idea, but I do think the feature should be justified.
  
• Mod update notifications would appeal to a lot of people. The same questions apply: Should it be a core feature? What justifies the feature? Exactly how should it work? And one more, specific to notifications: How, if at all, should this interact with other features like star/favorite/endorse rating systems?
  
• Push notifications to specific mobile services is getting way outside the realm of core features. Start with e-mail.
  
• Uploading large files is a server configuration issue, and e-mail often fares worse. If the site is built and some users have problems uploading, that's an issue to address then. I don't expect any mod will exceed a couple hundred megabytes anyway.
  
• When you mention links to support and development threads, you're talking about four pieces of data (two links for each thread) with constraints on that data (the release posts have to be from the same thread as the original post, and all links have to be from the KSP forums). Since the support/dev thread dichotomy is not universal among mods, I don't think it's reasonable to expend development effort on something that could just as well go into a mod description.
  
• If you're interested in coding, I highly recommend you take a more conservative approach to development. "Finding the time" is hard if you make yourself a feature list that large. I can't say this enough: start simple.

If we do this. If we get this up and running. How would Squad feel about this? If this gets more views than spaceport and we are hosting say retextured squad parts or mods which of course affect a Squad game how do we stand legally?

Squad has failed in its responsibilities and promises to maintain and develop Spaceport. Squad has also failed to resolve the simplest of the community's concerns. At this point, I don't think they have any business being upset if another site obsoletes Spaceport.

Regarding retextured stock parts, there's nothing this site would do that others haven't already done. A lot of modified stock parts are distributed outside of Spaceport. Modders are de facto allowed to create and distribute derivative works of stock parts. I put in a request to Squad's lawyer several months ago to clarify the status of derivative mods, and the response was that there's not yet an official license, but they like the idea. I wouldn't worry about this.

[Moon Goddess]

One feature I'd really really love to request.

Mod subscriptions.

I want to be able to subscribe to a mod, and have a page that has a list of every mod that has a newer version uploaded since the last time I downloaded it.

So from a database side my account would have a list of mods and a last download date for each one.

I don't know how to interact with the Star concept, I'd probably subscribe to mods I wouldn't star.

I have webdev, php, and mysql experience, I can help on this project but no time to do the whole thing.

[Majiir]

I want to be able to subscribe to a mod, and have a page that has a list of every mod that has a newer version uploaded since the last time I downloaded it.

...

I don't know how to interact with the Star concept, I'd probably subscribe to mods I wouldn't star.

Interesting. I'm inclined to say subscriptions are a good indicator of a mod's popularity, especially if combined somehow with downloads. It's true that "stars" are not particularly descriptive.

I can see the "last download date" being very useful. I wonder how to handle new subscriptions. Should the subscribe date be considered the "first download" if the user hasn't downloaded the mod? I also wonder if this would get irritating for users who don't log in to download mods. I suppose there can be a "dismiss" option, but as always I prefer caution with new features.

[blizzy78]

One thing that really bugs me on the current Spaceport is the "Most Popular Addons" box on the front page. I think we should avoid that at all costs. My reasoning is that because those mods are popular, they don't need all the attention. But because they are features all the time, they "steal" attention away from other mods that might be new, but just as interesting. That of course is frustrating for new modders.

In other words, that box does nothing to help players discover new and interesting mods, and as such, it is a waste of screen space.

[TMS]

Craft file uploads should be easily filtered from searches. Ideally, 'mods' that consist solely of a craft file would be kept entirely separate... like on the forum.

[DMagic]

One file per mod or several? What kind of files are allowed? Can people download from the site, from an external link or both? Who gets to upload files?

As far as these concerns go, I think Spaceport has the right idea. Every mod should be packaged in one file, .zip only, no rar, tar, or anything else. I think it's the simplest solution, and the one least like to run into problems with people not knowing how/being able to extract the files (maybe there are issues of download integrity? Is there no way to verify that a zip package is not corrupted? Even if so, I think the simplicity outweighs this problem). I can see some justification for multiple downloads if there are some kind of alternate versions of the mod, but that is probably better handled by including all of the necessary files in one package.

Onsite download is also a major feature in my opinion. The only reason I can think of to add alternate download links is if it is possible to access the site, but not be able to download from it. Otherwise alternate download links can live on the forums.

And if the site is going to have some kind of log-in, then that should be required for uploading, if only to better categorize everything (ie: no mods listed by "anonymous").

About stars, reviews, etc... it's worth noting that barely anyone uses the star review system on spaceport. It seems to be around 1/1000 downloads. I don't see why this would change drastically on a better site, so I don't see much value in adding such a feature.

Edited March 3, 2014 by DMagic

[Trueborn]

Here's my stab at first and second tier feature sets. The required features are required just to have a working system. The major features are what makes it better than spaceport. I think all of these make it past the "minus 100" check. What's missing?

Main Features - Required

• Hosted downloads of mods, uploaded by registered users
  
• A set of required metadata for each mod
  
• Search engine with more reliable/intuitive results
  

Major Features – Almost unanimous

• Update notification system
  
• Mod versioning
  

Hosted downloads of mods, uploaded by registered users

As Majiir has so gracefully provided us significant bandwidth and storage space, hosted downloads only make sense. Mods must be uploaded as a single .zip file. Also, there seems to be no convincing argument to allow anonymous uploads. Although not a requirement, there is some utility in linking accounts with Squad’s forums.

A set of required metadata for each mod

This list is flexible and subject to discussion, but here are my personal suggestions:

• Mod Name
  
• Mod Author (automatically linked from user account)
  
• Mod Version (possibly standardized as Major.Minor.Tertiary)
  
• Intended KSP Version
  
• Summary (plain text, description to appear in search results)
  
• Description (plain or rich text, description for mod page)
  
• Mod Image (a hosted logo or screen shot, fixed size or scaled to a fixed size)
  
• One or more tags (Propulsion, C&C, Struct&Aero, Utility&Sci, etc)
  

If rich text is allowed in the description, consistency can be sacrificed for the sake of flexibility. Otherwise, optional fields for installation, how to use, etc may be implemented instead.

Search engine with more reliable/intuitive results

Just a Majiir said. If a user searches for “kethane,†it should come up first. Useful refinements would be tags and intended KSP version. I think we all know how we all want this to work.

Update Notification system

An opt-in system that allows users to be notified that a new version of this mod is available. The most obvious push method would be an email (w/user selectable frequency). For a passive notification, logging on to the site would yield a notification icon that would link to a page listing mods that are newer than the version last downloaded by the user. This requires two significant elements. First, users must be logged in when downloading for this to be tracked. However, requiring registration as a barrier to entry is probably not what we want. Second, date and version of download must be tracked by the server for logged-in users. The opt-in system would ideally be something simple, like a subscribe button on individual mod pages.

Mod Versioning

By versioning I mean two things (and they should probably be broken up). First, when a mod is uploaded it will be required to have some version information. The key element is that ordering must be easily obtained. A simple comparison of two versions must be able to determine which one is later. Furthermore, when a mod is updated by the author, it must have a version that is higher than the last uploaded version. This allows for update notifications.

The second part of versioning is more version archiving. This would mean that versions other than the current mod are stored on the server, and can be downloaded by users. The main purpose for this would be to allow users to download versions of mods that are compatible with historic versions of KSP. It might be useful to allow some author curation of these archives, say to remove a version that has a catastrophic bug. The understanding with all archived versions would be that there is no expectation of “official†support from the author.

[Daemoria]

As amazing as all this planning is, once again I must point out the mod nexus. It has all the features you are wanting, in a proven stable platform. With the mod manager on their website, it even allows pain-free installation and management of files, removing some of the main points of confusion for people new to using mods.

My question is why are you guys re-inventing the wheel when there is a ground-effect hovercraft already out there?

[DMagic]

As amazing as all this planning is, once again I must point out the mod nexus. It has all the features you are wanting, in a proven stable platform. With the mod manager on their website, it even allows pain-free installation and management of files, removing some of the main points of confusion for people new to using mods.

My question is why are you guys re-inventing the wheel when there is a ground-effect hovercraft already out there?

I have never really cared for nexus, I'm not entirely sure why, but I think it's the sum of many minor issues.

For one, I don't like the way images are handled. In my opinion the ideal image format for showcasing mods is an embedded imgur album. It allows for easy captions, it doesn't take up space, and it can be integrated with the text of the description without breaking things up too much. Not every mod relies on images, but a lot do, and nexus' system of pushing them onto a different tab, with no clear context doesn't seem very good to me.

The general consensus here seems to be that we don't need another comment/question area, and nexus has two.

Most importantly though, nexus lacks what I've already stated is the most important function to me, a big, obvious, idiot proof, Download - Here button. One that immediately downloads the file in question.

[Daemoria]

For one, I don't like the way images are handled. In my opinion the ideal image format for showcasing mods is an embedded imgur album. It allows for easy captions, it doesn't take up space, and it can be integrated with the text of the description without breaking things up too much. Not every mod relies on images, but a lot do, and nexus' system of pushing them onto a different tab, with no clear context doesn't seem very good to me.

The image system isn't perfect, true, but it does allow you to click on the image no matter what tab you are in to get a Lightbox Pop-in with a larger res image. You don't need to switch over to the specific gallery tab.

The fact that there is a separate tab in the gallery for users to upload their own creations with the mod is what I love about the system. Many mod authors want to have their users share what they've made with their parts, and this enables that to happen.

Most importantly though, nexus lacks what I've already stated is the most important function to me, a big, obvious, idiot proof, Download - Here button. One that immediately downloads the file in question.

It's a big green button to the top right, not sure how much more obvious you need it to be. Yes, it does point you to the download tab, instead of automatically downloading, only if the option is set to {manual}. With the correct setup, you can automatically download 1 targeted version. This is up to the mod uploader to setup.

The fact of the matter is that the download page has a version tracking system and the comment/note display will let people know what they need to download if they are running strange versions of KSP. Examples such as Deadly Re-entry. FAR. DRE+FAR. Real Scale. Stock.

--

I guess I'm just trying to sell this page to people to save some work, instead of waiting for whoever is going to write the database/security/upload protocols...

Edited March 4, 2014 by Daemoria

[Superfluous J]

For me the one big thing the Nexus lacks is knowledge about it. I'm not a modder really but as a player and pretty heavy mod user I'm surprised this existed without my at least hearing about it. I've never seen a link to it on a mod's front page and have never seen it mentioned as a way to get a mod.

I think what we need to determine is... why don't modders advertise it as a download option? Do they (like I) not know it exists? Do they not feel the need? Is it lacking in some way (DMagic thinks so, is this a common thought among modders?)

[Daemoria]

As to the lack of knowledge of the site... I think it's purely situational. The KSP community at large just hasn't been introduced to it. I was first introduced to it when I got into heavily modifying the Bethesda games (Elderscrolls and Fallout series)

As the real time tracker reads here;

Hosting 98,331 files for 85 games from 38,213 authors serving 6,983,356 members with 720,384,182 downloads to date

It's defiantly not a small unheard of site. We just need to introduce it to our small community here. I for one plan on making my mod exclusive to download on the Nexus, but that's going to be a while yet before that happens. Like you said, the currently active mod authors need to be exposed to this site and to explore the options it allows. But as to how to do that... that's a good question. It's kinda odd trying to 'advertise' this site, just on this one sub-thread as it is, I don't know how I would feel about trying to convince other authors to use a site that they have likely never heard of.

[Superfluous J]

I just glanced at the site and didn't notice it wasn't KSP-only but a KSP section of a larger site. That seems fine.

But I'm not trying to down-talk the Nexus. I was honestly ignorant about its existence. My fear is that ANY non-Spaceport mod site will suffer a similar fate. 5% of modders will embrace it, the other 95% will ask, "ANOTHER mod site? No thanks. One's bad enough."

[ferram4]

My main problem with the Mod Nexus is the fact that it has a mod manager; unlike most people here I really don't think that a mod manager is a good idea:

It hides the mod "installation" from the user, which makes them less likely to have any idea of what to do if something happens to go wrong; they don't know what changed and what to delete or copy over to fix it, and it makes the mod "installation" out to be more complicated than the simple copying-over-of-folders that it is.

It also means one more thing for modders to support. We already have to support our own mods, other people's mods (since bugs are mis-attributed when multiple mods are in use), and KSP itself (since some stock bugs are exacerbated by mod behavior). A mod manager of any kind will simply be one more thing that we have to support, since everyone will blame the mod author for a botched installation, not the author of a mod manager; it's even worse since Nexus has a 3rd party mod manager not even intended for KSP alone, which means there are likely to be more issues with it. If some type of issue comes up, I'll need to change my mod to get around whatever edge case in the manager it's hitting, even if it's otherwise perfect.

Depending on how the mod manager handles dependencies (are they bundled with the mod download, or is the manager supposed to find and download all the dependencies?) users who don't want anything to do with the mod manager for security reasons or because their favorite mods have issues with it can end up having a much harder time dealing with the installation of mods that involve any kind of dependency. It basically pressures users into using software that they don't want to because the distribution standard punishes anyone who doesn't use the mod manager.

And finally, it lowers the barrier to entry below the already stupidly low bar that it's currently at. Currently a mod user has to have a minimal understanding of how to navigate directories and move files around, which is pretty much Using a Computer 101. What happens when we have to deal with users who can't do that? Users who report bugs, but can't even be lead to the output_log.txt, or that treat programming more as some kind of magic voodoo that we just make happen rather than carefully figuring out how to make the computer do exactly what we want. It'll just give all of us more support trouble to deal with and there's no incentive on our end; it's not like any of us get paid by the download.

Back on topic, I think that most of what Trueborn put down is good, but I'd ask that we get free control over what type of tags we set in the mod metadata. I'd like to be able to label FAR with "aerodynamics," "lift" and "drag" to help lead people who are looking for that type of mod to it.

[Greys]

I think we should take a moment and step back from things we'd like to have and focus on things spaceport does wrong specifically that replaceport must not faff up. Some of these have already been covered, some of them are more specific versions of them.

Accurate and Consistent statistics; Spaceport is really bad at this. The download counts cannot be trusted at all, do not appear to filter out bots and spiders at all, and are not consistent between logged in, logged off, and owner; sometimes by thousands. More statistics is definitely good, but if I can't trust the statistics they may as well not exist.

Prevent Useless Tagspam; It's not uncommon for a listing on spaceport to have every single tag and a bunch of custom ones, and of them only one actually applies to the listing. Either by limiting the number of tags, grouping them up, or having that be a thing users can flag; however it gets done, abusing tags is harmful to the system as a whole. (is there ever a reason for a listing to have more than 5 tags anyways?)

Either have categories that make sense and serve a purpose within the engine, or don't have categories.

When an author updates the files on a listing, those updated files need to be made live RAPIDLY. With Spaceport, it sometimes takes hours for for an update to go live, which causes this infuriating period where you have told players that you updated, but they're not downloading the new archive that you gave spaceport; so you're getting all these confused people reporting bugs because either the last version was incompatable or they're not able to use the new feature or whatever, point is you get pissed off and punch a hole through a dog. Don't use spaceport; makes you go to jail.

Powerful Moderation Tools; Checkbox Multi-Select. I've used ****ty moderation tools, I've watched Stupid_Chris work on cleaning out spaceport. Ideally replaceport should require a minimum of direct moderation by authority figures, but in the situation where there is a lot of work to do the system needs to not fail to offer dumb **** that makes the task trivial.

More pretty girls. Last time I checked, less than 1% of spaceport was attractive, fix that.

any others?

[avivey]

One thing I thing will be very nice is some kind of "manifest" file format to enable mod-managers set stuff up, update, remove, etc, without guessing. Most mods are very easy to install anyway, but sometimes, there's something else.

I'll be happy to help building/coding/setting up things (I'm good at it).

[Moon Goddess]

More pretty girls. Last time I checked, less than 1% of spaceport was attractive, fix that.

Wooo I'm finally a 1%er.

[GavinZac]

I'm a web developer. I'm pretty sure I could do this, but:

1. This is a large scale project. I'm not sure a single developer on his own can create a mod repository like this from scratch in a period of time that the community will find acceptable. The old adage of "on time, cheap, as described: pick 2" applies.

2. Isn't Squad supposed to be working on a better SpacePort?

[psyper]

you missed out the 3rd

3. why aren't people using this Nexus.

I've seen people slatting Nexus because of A, B, C. and others saying they love it because of A, C, D. and others saying they never heard of it - me included. What would an extra mod site accomplish that Nexus couldn't?