Thread

Also, I’m not accusing EllisLab of not supporting awesome developers or the community. You guys are great at that. Brandon Kelly is just used as an example of an addon author who isn’t in the library here.

My point is not about exclusivity. My point is about what value it brings.

However, Its been shut down for a year, so who is to say that you won’t shut down submissions again in 2 years when you’re working on 3.0?

It currently may be used, but its been poorly executed. If you guys are going to make it a valuable, frequently updated resource, then that is awesome. The track record is different. I think promising that submissions won’t be closed when you’re busy and that it will be updated frequently will go a long way towards changing my opinion of the idea. Otherwise, I think that resources spent on it would be more useful elsewhere in propelling the community forward.

The value it brings is add-ons that have been vetted. And you’re really not in a position to know how we should spend our resources or if the library is successful. Also your assertion that we either work on it or move the community forward are exclusive is wrong. We’ve done both successfully for years. Looking at the download records shows me it is successful and plays its role quite well.

Shutting down submissions was the mechanism we used to ensure that the value remained, i.e. vetted code. If we can’t vet code, for whatever reason, we’re going to close submissions. For the purposes of the add-on library vetted code > frequently updated. If those two choices are at odds, we’re going to go retain the value by closing submissions.

We are agreed that it needs improvement, but on everything else we’ll have to respectfully disagree and that includes the basic purpose of the add-on library and the value it provides. We see a tangible value to it every day and therefore, we’re keeping it and have plans to improve it.

If you want to extend this discussion, feel free to email. Thanks.

Although my add-ons aren’t listed (yet), I have to side with EllisLab on this. I completely see the reason for the official add-on library to exist—extensibility is a huge feature of EE, there needs to be an official collection of top-notch, trusted add-ons. I agree that it should not be another Devot:ee (EllisLab can’t blindly promote/vouch for add-ons), and thus, there’s a need for Devot:ee to exist, separately from EllisLab.

At the same time, I can see where Kenny’s coming from. Even when the library was accepting submissions, it was a bit strange, due to the number of add-ons listed. It feels like it’s trying to be Devot:ee—that it’s a mostly-complete list. (Does that make sense?) You don’t really get the impression that there are tons of other add-ons out there, that just aren’t listed here.

So maybe the problem is that it pretends to be Devot:ee when it’s not (and shouldn’t be).

My suggestion is this, then: Along with the release of EE2, start over (EE2-compatible add-ons only), and approach it more as a showcase than a library. Only show off bigger add-ons with a wide audience. Maybe even limit it to commercial add-ons. Say “Here are a few ways you can extend EE.” And let Devot:ee be the big, all-encompassing library. Maybe even link to it from within the showcase (with a disclaimer).

Although my add-ons aren’t listed (yet), I have to side with EllisLab on this. I completely see the reason for the official add-on library to exist—extensibility is a huge feature of EE, there needs to be an official collection of top-notch, trusted add-ons. I agree that it should not be another Devot:ee (EllisLab can’t blindly promote/vouch for add-ons), and thus, there’s a need for Devot:ee to exist, separately from EllisLab.

At the same time, I can see where Kenny’s coming from. Even when the library was accepting submissions, it was a bit strange, due to the number of add-ons listed. It feels like it’s trying to be Devot:ee—that it’s a mostly-complete list. (Does that make sense?) You don’t really get the impression that there are tons of other add-ons out there, that just aren’t listed here.

So maybe the problem is that it pretends to be Devot:ee when it’s not (and shouldn’t be).

My suggestion is this, then: Along with the release of EE2, start over (EE2-compatible add-ons only), and approach it more as a showcase than a library. Only show off bigger add-ons with a wide audience. Maybe even limit it to commercial add-ons. Say “Here are a few ways you can extend EE.” And let Devot:ee be the big, all-encompassing library. Maybe even link to it from within the showcase (with a disclaimer).

Those are excellent points and an intriguing suggestion Brandon.

My suggestion is this, then: Along with the release of EE2, start over (EE2-compatible add-ons only), and approach it more as a showcase than a library.

I agree with Brandon here. I think the biggest issue with the Add-On library right now is simply communication. There isn’t a clearly defined explanation of its purpose (hence Kenny’s disagreement). As already stated, it is very important to have vetted code and I’m grateful that 144 add-ons are already vetted for 1.6.x. Closing submissions was a very wise thing to do considering the development of EE 2.0.

The ball was dropped when these things were not clearly communicated. When I first picked up EE a year ago I went directly to the Add-On Library on this website and noticed that there were “144 Add-ons and Growing” (may have not been exactly 144 a year ago but that’s irrelevant). That number is highly deceiving. I had no idea the number of add-ons that were really available. One could argue the benefit of that lack of knowledge is good so the noob keeps to learning the core, but that is beyond the scope of my point 😊 The best communication on that page is the following sentence

There are currently 144 add-ons that have been accepted to the official repository…

That somewhat hints towards vetted code, but not really. Who know what you really mean by “official repository”. Not all companies do it the same way. My suggestion is to write a short & well thought-out opening sentence on the Add-On homepage that truly explains the purpose of EllisLab’s “official repository”. You guys have done a fantastic job learning from the communication errors with regard to the 2.0 release date(s) being announced pre-maturely. I’d love to see more clear definitions of the add-on repository when it’s redone/reopened/rewhatevered.

Only show off bigger add-ons with a wide audience. Maybe even limit it to commercial add-ons.

This one I disagree with. Commercial add-ons will likely be of more interest to some EE users and of no interest to others. I think EllisLab would benefit from vetting both free and commercial add-ons because of this. Also, if they stuck to commercial add-ons you would risk a couple of things:

• Implying that all EE add-ons are commercial to the first time visitor who is skimming the site
• Putting a larger load on EllisLab since commercial add-ons tend to be larger in lines of code

Sorry to see a positive thread hijacked into criticism, my work-life joy depends muchly on both EE and add-on developers so THANKS TO ALL, esp. my fav Brandon Kelly who made my favorite add-ons and provides ridiculously awesome support.

That said, I feel obliged to chime in and say that the User Guide is awesome, as are the forums. But the add-ons directory has confused me (as a new comer), specifically not being able to find widely used add-ons (BK’s for example) but finding other older ones that have long since been replaced by better ones. From a user-experience standpoint…it’s made me stop going to the add-ons library…

I wasn’t really aware that the add-ons in Ellislab’s library were vetted and checked (I honestly haven’t looked at that library in ages) - I just thought people were slow to add things there. I probably knew that at a low level, but it’s not something I would have immediately identified about EllisLab’s library being different than devot:ee’s library. One reason it may be small(er) is that I think in a library where the code is checked, a developer is more prone to submit their own work, rather than anyone else’s. Because devot:ee doesn’t imply any sort of checking is going on, people are submitting anything they find. In fact, some people have made a hobby of submitting to the library, so I’ve given them free memberships.

Being more acutely aware of the vetting going on in EllisLab’s library after reading this thread, it might make sense for devot:ee to show some sort of identifier for those add-ons that are also in the Ellislab library, sort of a “seal of approval from the mothership” if not outright mothership certification - maybe something a user could look for when deciding whether or not to try an add-on (if the Favorites, Ratings, Reviews or Awards aren’t enough to sway them one way or the other).

Devot:ee is definitely a different library than EllisLab’s. It aims to be complete and accurate, but we’re certainly not going to rip open every add-on to see if there’s malicious or poorly-written code in there before letting people know the add-on exists. We don’t currently offer any downloads, and, as the disclaimer states on every single add-on page:

Information about ExpressionEngine add-ons is provided as a service to you, the user, and every member of the ExpressionEngine community. Commercial add-ons are not offered for download at this site. Devot:ee is not responsible if you hose, mangle, wreck, or otherwise destroy your EE website by installing an add-on that you found out about at this site, regardless of its rating, Favorites status, or general popularity. Caveat EEmptor!

At first listen, I think I like the sound of EllisLab’s add-on library being more of a “showcase”, and not implying that the add-ons there are all there is out there.

I know it won’t necessarily mean much to anyone at EllisLab (talk is cheap; they don’t really know me or my intentions; I’m just a dude with a website), but I’m not planning on going anywhere for a while, and neither is devot:ee. Unless I spontaneously asplode. Or the site asplodes. No more talk about asploding the site, thank you very much!

I think I should also apologize for the language of this publicly:

“I’m ok with EllisLab having a list of updated addons, but the addon library at EE.com has been poorly mismanaged. So why not jettison it to the community and focus on other parts of EE?”

As it was poorly worded and didn’t reflect my criticism accurately. It was internet sensationalism and brashness mixed with stupidity. The other posts I feel illustrate my arguments better.

I feel the official library has outlived its originally vital usefulness and will henceforth be a total no-win for all, unless sufficient resources are committed to it so it is 95% complete and vetted. Personally, I’d rather the resources went to 2.1 features and more EllisLab notebooks for me.

Even if Ryan asplod…. never mind ... something like De:votee would be reinvented (cloned) nearly immediately. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a competing (complementary) user directory at some point anyway. Point: I don’t think Ellis Lab has to worry any longer about lists of addon’s being generated.

The showcase idea is awesome, but agree that it should definitely not be commercial only.

Perhaps separately, there could be a list of 50 to 100 addon’s submitted and rated (voted) by the community with an appropriate disclaimer about their not being vetted. Start with 20 to 30 and let it grow as more are submitted and enough votes are done to make it meaningful but cap it at some number. This would complement an Ellis Lab showcase, give newbies ‘crowd wisdom’ on addon’s to check out and just generally be lots of fun/useful.

As for Kenny, is his forum avatar going to be available for default use? On second thought 😉

I feel the official library has outlived its originally vital usefulness and will henceforth be a total no-win for all, unless sufficient resources are committed to it so it is 95% complete and vetted.

*sigh*

I don’t know how else to say this except that this idea that it isn’t useful to people is 100% wrong. We get significant amount of traffic there and it is generally well received. We reference it along with 3rd party options all the time. It may not be useful to you but there are thousands of new people hitting ExpressionEngine.com all the time who do get use out of it.

This idea that it has no value or “isn’t working” doesn’t match the facts we see in usage statistics or the feedback we get via sales and most of the forums.

Clearly, as this conversation productively points out, there a lot more that can/could be done to increase its value and that’s something we’re looking forward to providing in the future.

But these generalized statements about its lack of value have no basis in reality and in fact, we see the opposite proved true everyday.

I think I should also apologize for the language of this publicly:

“I’m ok with EllisLab having a list of updated addons, but the addon library at EE.com has been poorly mismanaged. So why not jettison it to the community and focus on other parts of EE?”

As it was poorly worded and didn’t reflect my criticism accurately. It was internet sensationalism and brashness mixed with stupidity. The other posts I feel illustrate my arguments better.

No worries. Its not been my bestest moment ever either. However, its led to a solid discussion and generated some good ideas, which I believe was your original goal.

I feel the official library has outlived its originally vital usefulness and will henceforth be a total no-win for all, unless sufficient resources are committed to it so it is 95% complete and vetted.

*sigh*

 

Good point; I had read your reasons and they did make sense. On a separate but related matter, is it possible that today is Friday and no one told any of us?

Although my add-ons aren’t listed

I think that’s where Kenny is coming from with this. Brandon, none of your add-ons are listed, yet FF is going to be a part of EE2.0. However you look at it, that’s a major failing of the add-on repo if an add-on that is SO good that it’s being added into EE isn’t listed.

Leslie, some of the thoughts and opinions here may cause offence, but - it’s ALL constructive criticism, and from actual customers - not prospective customers.

Perhaps the problem here is bad or mis-communication on part of EllisLab? I’ve certainly noticed that some things could be better explained than they currently are.

No offense has been taken, I assure you. At this point we’ve stated our position quite clearly. We have plans to update it (which DJ mentions in the blog post) and that we don’t consider it a failure as some in this thread do. This is based on concrete usage data.

What I think is clear is that some customers, particularly long time users and people who routinely use add-ons that aren’t listed, don’t find any significant value to it and that I understand and agree with.

I’ve subscribed to this thread and will use it for internal review later but since I’m just repeating my own perspective at this point, I’m stepping away unless there is a new angle to respond to.

Feel free to continue it here if you wish or email me directly, either way know that I’ll read it and share it with the team.

Thanks!

I’m curious, does every new version of an add-on need to be re-checked before addition to the official EE add-on library? For example, the Valid URL plugin (v1.0) is in there now, but the 1.1 version is 2.0 ready. In order for Valid URL 1.1 to show in the official library, it would have to be re-submitted and reviewed again, like the iTunes App Store?

I know the 1.x add-ons will initially be separate from the 2.0 add-ons in the official library (as stated in this thread somewhere) but looking down the line at smaller incremental updates, if Valid URL 1.1 was updated to 1.1.2, for example, it would need to be checked again?