Authors CurseForge

Since this seems to be a constant concern through the updater threads, I thought I'd start a thread solely for the purpose of discussing how to best handle using updaters and maintaining fairness to the different sources. I feel this topic deserves its own thread.

Quote from Moo

Of course it would be an idea if the author of WADDU and the people at the various addon sites would sit down together and maybe come up with a solution to avoid them blocking this and similar fine tools; an idea would be that the addon pages offer an adfeed that updaters can or have to integrate into their program to gain access to the downloads.

I see why the sites want ad traffic and similar to pay for their costs, but on the other hand ... users like me that use Firefox/Adblock see zero ads anyway, so what is the next step? Don't allow FF users to download addons?

IMHO: for the addon sites it would make the most sense to work with the addon updater authors to increase their ad revenue. People like me that don't mind manually checking/updating their mods are in fact causing MORE traffic than a working updater since we will connect to their servers several times a day to check for new stuff ... while not seeing a single ad to "pay" for it in any way.

Moo brings up an excellent point regarding those of us who use browsers that block ads, add to that, those addons hosted at google or other domains and it's hard for the common user to see why updaters are such a problem. It'd be bad (or possibly hard) for addon sites to block a specific web browser and well most authors host in multiple locations, so it'd be kind of dumb too.

I think what might help is if the addon sites and updater authors agreed to how best distribute the addons. One way might be, if a user decides to download QualityID (my addon;)) from WoWI using WADDU*. WADDU would have to not only show that I'm the author, they would also need to have a link to the download page for QualityID at WoWI. If the user gets it from Googlecode then it would link to the googlecode download page and so on. Also, it would have to be explicit that WADDU could not profit from the downloads themselves. It'd be one thing for WADDU to have a donation button, but WADDU couldn't charge for the service of the updater or use ads that only benefit the client.

*I am only using WADDU as an example, I actually haven't used it yet due to still being WoW Computerless. If it'll make it easier, substitute WADDU with 'generic wow addon updater of choice' where ever WADDU is used in this post. ;)

Actually, I already Implemented an "Info" Link to the Original Info Site for each Addon and Site that can be downloaded by WADDU.

Quote from Roemer

Actually, I already Implemented an "Info" Link to the Original Info Site for each Addon and Site that can be downloaded by WADDU.

*smirk* Hence why I added my disclaimer to the end of my post. I don't know what features you do or do not have. I just pulled your updater's name due to its growing popularity and reference in Moo's post. But it's great that you do have this info included. :)

I don't think many people click those links. And automatically opening the site for each Addon you update is ... bleh.

I still think the best possibility would be that Addon Sites give us a proper Interface for Addons and a proper Interface for their Ads.

Quote from Torhal

Meh. Here's another updater to rail against. Found it by searching Google for nanoTalk whilst bored yesterday.

This isn't a flame thread where we 'rail against' updater programs. This is meant to be a constructive thread on how to have our cake and eat it too. ;)

The main problem I see with WoWus is that he's not saying where he gets his updates. Though from looking at screenshots, he does list the actual author name in the updater.

That said, a quick glance at WoWus, it doesn't look like he makes money off of the downloads. And other than a request for donations for the updater, not the addons, I don't see that the author is profiting from ads or other revenue.

I also thought it would be a great idea to add a donation link that pooled together the money that was donated and then shipped it off the the addon sites. The amounts sent to the sites would be based on which site had the most data pulled from.

Obviously it wouldn't generate that much money for the addon sites, but it's still a huge banner saying "Look, we make no money off this application and we're trying to get you some money to make up for the bandwidth we're leeching!".

Clearly the application would need to gather usage statistics so the author knew which sites got data pulled from them the most, but it's possible.

I don't see an issue with the author of an updater getting some payment. They did create a tool and presumably support and update said tool. But if they are using other hosts' bandwidth, the hosts should be receiving whatever they would normally receive, usually advertisement views.

One idea might be to take the old school approach - play some sort of ad before the download begins. It's been done on TV for ages, and it's becoming common with online video as well. This ad would be attached to an account owned by the addon site you're downloading from.

Biggest problem is getting any sort of cooperation from the hosting sites. They are all fairly defensive of their official updaters, some more than others. They are all fairly competetive with eachother, some more than others. People have tried to get them to agree to a standard system with no success in the past. I don't hold much hope of things changing in the future.

Quote from sylvanaar

I think that there should be an "update api" provided by addon hosting sites - acessing the API would require "premium" membership.

DING DING DING DING WE HAVE A WEINER

Seriously, then the sites don't have to maintain their own updater, they don't have to try to block other updaters, and they can PROMOTE the use of other people's updaters. Kill off the shady programs with nice ones officially endorsed by the sites they download from.

Then you have to worry about stopping login sharing... and Curse loses their impressions/hits for advertising content and follow on traffic to related content because no one goes to the site any more.

Goodtimes.

Quote from Ragnor

Then you have to worry about stopping login sharing... and Curse loses their impressions/hits for advertising content and follow on traffic to related content because no one goes to the site any more.

Goodtimes.

just restrict the login to idk 3 different source ip's per day for the api that is?

Quote from Ragnor

Then you have to worry about stopping login sharing... and Curse loses their impressions/hits for advertising content and follow on traffic to related content because no one goes to the site any more.

Goodtimes.

API Tokens are trivial to implement.

And that's why the API is only available to "premium" members, most sites don't throw ads at the people that give them money.

Quote from Tekkub

API Tokens are trivial to implement.

And that's why the API is only available to "premium" members, most sites don't throw ads at the people that give them money.

It could even be a combination of the two. I.e. provide an ad rss or some other ad 'stream', that is individual to each updater. (all ads in multiple buckets, and allow each updater to pull from it's own ad bucket).

An updater's "api" fee, is lessened by the number of ads it's RSS ad Stream gets.

I.e. you could almost approach a 'free' updater, if you just serve up the curse ads in your updater.

I personally would prefer if there would be two options:
- Free updater-specific API-Key, which can only check for new versions. If they want to download they have to show a page with ads. By the way... even if it is the simplest way to show webpages in Windows applications... the IE control shouldn't be used for that; especially if JavaScript is required (what shouldn't be the case IMO; I still don't see any acceptable reason why ads often use/require scripts).
- User-specific API-Key which means login to a premium account; here the files can be downloaded by the program without user interaction.

Quote from Marsti

especially if JavaScript is required (what shouldn't be the case IMO; I still don't see any acceptable reason why ads often use/require scripts).

Site use scripts to either set tracking cookies into your machine or to display the content (i.e. Flash). Still any ad that REQUIRES scripts to run on my machine does not get displayed, period.

Quote from Tekkub

And that's why the API is only available to "premium" members, most sites don't throw ads at the people that give them money.

To me it seems that due to rampant Freetardism it's hard to get anyone to pay for a service like this.