Workshop Overhaul Discussion

**Squid** · July 16, 2009, 04:41 PM

After having a conversation with AL back in the fall about how the workshop currently isn't actually very condusive for work. I've been thinking recently that the forum structure (i.e. it being on a forum) is the root of the problem. Currently, the various workshops (though I think ETW hasn't gone this way) are sorted by what is being modded. This is a small improvement from just having everything in one large place, but frequently there is significant overlap in something across multiple areas that we've designated, and no changing what's covered in each sub forum of the workshop will ever fix that. In addition, tags, while helping find things and add more organization, have also pointed that the same entry can be and should be categorized in multiple different ways.

There are a couple of ways I can see achieving what we want, and all of them have their problems. The biggest problem they have is that frequently we'll have multiple tutorials/tool/resources all about the same or very similar things and this leads to significant clutter.

Method 1: Re-organize the workshop forums yet again to achieve a more sensible organization

Spoiler for Workshop Re-organization:

I don't particularly like Method 1 because I think it breaks up content too much (e.g. if I read a tutorial on text editing and then want to go look for a resource, unless it's linked it isn't convenient). Unless you also add forums for the various subject, it's still more or less no multi-sorted.

Method 2: Move the content to the wiki

This has merit, as using categories the same content can be easily placed in multiple locations. The limitations are that a wiki isn't a true content management system. There's also the issue that I'm not sure how people would respond to being redirected to the wiki. It also makes asking questions about a tool, tutorials or resource particularly difficult as talk pages I don't think are commonly used. This also involves porting a large amount of content from forum pages to the wiki.

Method 3: Get a true CMS for the Workshops

Not sure how much more this would offer to the site that moving it to the wiki wouldn't. As it isn't the wiki it might fare better since I'm not sure how many people use or want to use the wiki. Down side, the site would likely need to purchase a CMS, unless a free one was found to fit the need. As with the wiki, this involves a large amount of content porting.

This is all just for discussion. I'm not hugely enamored with the setup of what we have, but no solution really jumps out and says this is what we should do. So any comments/questions please post them.

I'd tried putting this into the CB as I figured that's where it should go, but apparently I don't have thread creation rights there.

**Roman_Man#3** · July 16, 2009, 05:18 PM

Method 1 looks nearly exactly the same as the present situation, except that tools, tutorials, and resources are split up into 3 different categories. I don't reall see the point of number 1 except make more places the modder has to visit to find what he's looking for. Using the prefixes as we do now seems a much better option.

I like the idea of method 2, but putting it into practice may be more trouble than it's worth. As you said, where would people comment on a tutorial? If we had a comment thread for each tutorial, why not have the tutorial the thread in the first place.

No idea what method 3 even entails, so I don't really have an opinion on it.

**Squid** · July 16, 2009, 08:49 PM

Method 1, with the given changes or another, is basically to try and re-align what's there into something more useful.

Method 2, the talk pages are there, but how many people actually make use of them.

**Augustus Lucifer** · July 16, 2009, 11:17 PM

Actually I'm currently working on something of this nature, though it's not on the Workshops per se, because as you've indicated there are some problems. Currently I'm working on it in the CB Councillor's Chambers with B. Ward, Aradan, and GED, as part of a larger project to encourage mod interaction and communication(so it's ironic timing!

).

My solution is actually somewhat like the response to Roman Man's gripes with #2, it utilizes standardization, collaborative development, and forum threads with attached discussions. I can use all the help I can get right now to actually flesh out some of the information before any of this goes public, so if people are interested in this let me know via PM. I'll quote the introduction to one of the stickies I've made in the forum describing the system, so you can get an idea of what it's about:

The strength of collaborative development lies primarily in revision and clarification. The primary function of the Library is to address all of the problems with the other mediums that have been used to store modding information, such as the Workshop(contingent on particular user, threads superseded rather than improved upon, overall inability to index everything, etc.), the Wiki(unverified integrity of changes, potential for vandalism requiring policing, poor ability to allow connected discussion, physically disconnected from the main community hub, etc.), and the Scriptorium(acts as an archive rather than a developing document, inability for direct discussion, potential for overlooked information creating gaps in understanding and reliance on other mediums to fill those gaps, etc.).

The Library provides a venue wherein threads can be collaboratively developed via the enacting of sensible changes by vetted Monitors. It removes the need for redundancy, gets rid of the possibility of a lacking index, allows for connected and familiar discussion directly attached to the information, and overall acts to break down the barrier which has before stemmed the tide of information dissemination within the modding community. If it is properly utilized, the potential for understanding may increase tenfold. If it is not properly utilized, it does the job no better than any other insufficient medium. As such it is important that everyone does their part to propose revisions in a sensible manner so they can easily be enacted.

There's a bit more to it than that, it goes on to explain how the revision process works, how the process works from the enacting side and what tenets are used, and will later include criteria for the vetting(which will be mainly centered on discernment abilities and willingness to contribute). It attempts to do so with as little fluff as possible, because the modding community and fluff don't go hand in hand, so none of that bureaucracy crap. It's a rather ambitious project that seeks to address many of the latent problems in the community, not only in collaborative development of informational documents but in community initiatives towards greater understanding, and an improved interaction system between otherwise disambiguated modifications to facilitate resource exchange.

We've been kind of toying with these ideas for a while now, past versions have not really been to our liking due to complexity, but the current version while ambitious seems to solve many problems and create few if managed properly. If in the future Jelsoft integrates Google Wave functionality into vBulletin, that might be another way of managing it and it is set up in a very similar way but only to the limits of the software.

(Oh, and the name is negligible)

**makanyane** · July 17, 2009, 01:24 AM

Not keen on option one - would be OK if everything was always where it was meant to be, but people seem to have enough trouble getting things right in current sub-sections. If someone had the time to add the prefix options to the current content it would be good though.

Option Two: I personally prefer writing stuff directly to the Wiki, but it doesn't seem to have caught on with many people. I've never liked the idea of porting other peoples stuff without their explicit consent.. as they lose 'ownership' of it - can't control updates / get rep / whatever...

I'd be all for encouraging more people to put stuff there in the first place though - but think questions do need to link back to forum - that's not really what talk pages are for.

Very silly and probably impossible idea - but I don't suppose you could Embed a view of a current wiki page in a first post could you - sort of like a YouTube video - so you can read it from forum and ask questions below, but click on it to go to actual page and edit it???!

By the way, the Org used to have a semi 'wiki' system in the M2 area that used a VB hack that let anyone edit the first post of a thread. I think the idea had some potential, but as it still looked a lot like normal thread not sure many people got used to the idea.. Also when first post was by a named member it seemed to put people off editing it.

Option Three and AL's idea - sounds interesting but don't know enough about system to comment yet.

**Augustus Lucifer** · July 17, 2009, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by makanyane

By the way, the Org used to have a semi 'wiki' system in the M2 area that used a VB hack that let anyone edit the first post of a thread. I think the idea had some potential, but as it still looked a lot like normal thread not sure many people got used to the idea.. Also when first post was by a named member it seemed to put people off editing it.

Indeed, something like that could also be integrated, problem is most vB hacks get defunct with each subsequent version. A search for 'wiki' on vB.org doesn't yield any hacks of that nature.

I love the wiki format, and it has a lot of useful applications(at one point I started a scripting project on it, but that got sidelined for accessibility reasons and time constraints). But the biggest problem is it lacks the sense of community we have on the forums. Were it that they could act in harmonious symbiosis, that might be an ideal system, but that seems about as likely as the resurgence of the dodo. Even merging the two databases wouldn't really resolve it(and I've seen Mim posting in a vB hack thread concerning a dual login of MediaWiki/vBulletin, whether or not he's doing that research for TWC I'm not sure), but it would definitely make it more usable.

If only we had a series of super intelligent robots...

**Squid** · July 19, 2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by makanyane

Option Two: I personally prefer writing stuff directly to the Wiki, but it doesn't seem to have caught on with many people. I've never liked the idea of porting other peoples stuff without their explicit consent.. as they lose 'ownership' of it - can't control updates / get rep / whatever...

Aren't all three of concerns exactly what a wiki is supposed to be about. No one person owns any page or its contents on a wiki and everyone can update it. As for rep, there's the never ending discussion here that it is worthless and should be abolished (and probably would be if people could keep their bling).

**makanyane** · July 19, 2009, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Sqυιd

Aren't all three of concerns exactly what a wiki is supposed to be about. No one person owns any page or its contents on a wiki and everyone can update it. As for rep, there's the never ending discussion here that it is worthless and should be abolished (and probably would be if people could keep their bling).

that is the way a wiki is supposed to work - and I personally prefer that and think its got more potential for developing resources.... (and actually everyone I ever asked about copying their modding content to the wiki said yes, but with a few requests about how it was labelled and where discussion should be directed) - I just don't think you should migrate peoples existing forum contributions to it without asking them first.

**Scorch** · July 20, 2009, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sqυιd

Aren't all three of concerns exactly what a wiki is supposed to be about. No one person owns any page or its contents on a wiki and everyone can update it. As for rep, there's the never ending discussion here that it is worthless and should be abolished (and probably would be if people could keep their bling).

The strength of the Wiki lies in collaboration and editing freedom, but it really depends on what you're aiming, specifically, to do here. If you're suggesting that we literally write all the tutorials and articles currently in the workshop onto the Wiki then I'd have to say that it doesn't belong. The Wiki is great for compiling lists and that's definitely something to look at (Index of Tutorials on X, Y, Z) that can be monitored and updated and an idea that I'll follow up in the next month or so.

However writing every article directly to the Wiki is not a good idea, in my opinion. Problems are created with tagging, how to organise such a huge body of content. The Wiki is meant to be more encyclopaedic. So for example, lists, indexes, etc. The Wiki is great. Articles on modifications, faction information and information on specific modding concepts, also great. Interlinking in the Wiki, category pages, modding portals, all good. But the articles and tutorials have to remain on the forum itself.

Now if anyone modding-related would like to get involved in getting some of this framework instituted (it's very much a team effort, it's incredibly difficult to do on one's own) then PM me. Looking at you two here, Mak and Squid. We have a private Wiki Conference room and if you're up to it, I'll get you guys given access. Just PM me.

The particular strength with indexes and lists being posted on the Wiki is obviously that anyone can edit them and so it can (hopefully) be updated more fluently. The only thing is that this can be done easily enough on the forum using threads, rather than Wiki pages; and also there probably won't be many more people looking to update it, so it's difficult to tell what the best approach is.

In the end, as far as collaboration of information, the idea referenced by AL seems to be a great idea.

For mine, tutorials, articles, etc; they should all be on the forum, not external to the hub of activity. That being said, there's no real benefit to having lists on the Wiki that just link you back to the forum.

I would see the Wiki functioning as an encyclopaedic source of information about modifications, modding concepts, bringing these sorts of things together in one place. Hopefully we can improve on the modding portal once the framework is in place and get more modders involved; but it will always be separate to the main hub of site activity, and so should only function in an encyclopaedic manner.

Having a 'library' wherein collaboration can be encouraged and information shared that is based on the forum would be great. In this sense, collaboration on tutorials, concepts and such will exist in there in a discussional sense, and modding concepts exist in the Wiki in an encyclopaedic sense.

My question is this; is the Library then meant to be not a storage place for tutorials which can then be enhanced and collaborated upon or added to by the community (which is easily policed with the new moderating features of 3.7.4 et al) but rather where concepts can be discussed and where, for example, the first post would be where all the information contained therein was indexed?

**C.M.** · July 17, 2009, 01:40 PM

My biggest gripe with the workshop emanates from the usage of specialties as classification for the subsections. Text editing touches almost every aspect of modding, this subsection covers too broad of a subject to aptly study and expand our knowledge of modding. From a perspective of mod production, i feel that a structure based on the elements that can be modded would make for a more comprehensible platform from which to work from. I would suggest a structure like this:

- Map Editing
- Unit Editing
- Building Editing
- Faction Editing
- Scripting
- Art
- Miscellaneous

Each section should cover every aspect of it's given subject. Mapping pretty much stays the same. Unit editing would include everything that has to do with unit editing be it building new units, setting up mercenary pools, how to make units recruitable, stat balancing, setting up the starting armies, making unit cards and so on and so forth. Building editing would include things like setting up a building tree, setting the starting buildings, building bonuses, hidden resources, texturing and modeling. Faction editing would include aspects such as how to add faction slots, culture, family tree, editing character names, icons, banners, traits & ancillaries, modding religion, character portraits and so on and so forth. Scripting would cover... scripting. Art would include things like sounds, music, designing menus, loading screens and other things of that nature. Miscellaneous would encompass whatever doesn't fit in other categories, maybe include the AI in there.

Under the current system, information on modding units for example is spread across different sections. Skins, models and animations for building the units and text editing for things like coding in the units and stat balancing. Other facets of modding are cramed into one section and would probably benefit from having their own subsection. What my idea does is Instead of having information about one aspect of modding spread over several specialties, several specialties are spread over one aspect of modding.

Of course my idea isn't perfect, but i feel it would be an improvement over the current structure.