Sandbox

This developer "encourages" ratings for his component by giving free licenses to his work. I do not think such "incentives" are fair and i do not see the point of these reviews since it's clear that the user did not even had a chance to test the product.
I am sure that only if you give a positive review you will get the product.

http://www.pimpmyjoomla.com/content/view/28/32/

Product is Forme...

and i was wondering how some products get extremly quick votes and reviews..

Perhaps if he offered a free version and required (encouraged) his clients to install and try the free version to offer a more informed review?
As far as I can tell this does not violate any rules on the JED. The JED does evolve as the community around it changes. They always seem to do the best they can to make everything fair. So in time they may change their policies to address this, but for now it looks ok.
Just my thoughts!

Sure, i know there is nothing written in the JED policies that forbids this kind of incentive.
But we should see what the purpose of the rating system is .. as far as i understand it should be a way for endusers to get fair and non biased reviews and informations.
I do not think this is provided in that way. it's why all the reviews are manually checked by the JED team - to ensure the information is as correct as possible. or at least not obviously biased.
As far as i can tell this cannot be the case for this extension.

Hi gringo6969,

Had they required users to review/vote before testing/using it then they would see their listing disappear.
As long as a full featured free trial version is available and they clearly state that they want "a honest vote/review", then this seems to be a fair approach.

Hi all,

My idea is that a user is "sold on" the fact that he is getting a "non-free" thing for free and see it is just a very easy and fast thing to post a review which may not be "fair" at ALL, why ? because if he did post a bad rating then this may offend the developer  , It is as if he is using the directory as an ad for his extension!!!

This means that I can put at my site something like this : In order to get a free license please try all the forms category extensions, and when you reach to the fact that mine is the best ( and you have to reach to this fact so we are cool ) then please give me 5 stars and also give competitors less than 5 to prove this!!

Admins please consider this new way which only helps unfair votes/reviews!!!

Thanks,

Max

Hi sheva77,

Inviting for honest review/votes from users that have had the option to actually try the full featured extension can hardly be considered unfair.
Should the extension not fullfil the expectations then the honest review/vote wont be in favour of the extension.
That itself takes some guts 

sheva77 wrote:This means that I can put at my site something like this : In order to get a free license please try all the forms category extensions, and when you reach to the fact that mine is the best ( and you have to reach to this fact so we are cool ) then please give me 5 stars and also give competitors less than 5 to prove this!!

You know that the above is directly against the rules for being listed. Might be a joke, dunno. But I can assure you we wont allow any manipulation with votes!

Hi Ot2sen,

( and you have to reach to this fact so we are cool ) then please give me 5 stars and also give competitors less than 5 to prove this!! Cheesy
You know that the above is directly against the rules for being listed. Might be a joke, dunno. But I can assure you we wont allow any manipulation with votes!

Yes, just a joke of course!!

My thoughts are : we must not allow "buying" users votes!! its like undemocratic actions in any elections, you pay for people to vote you, in this case user gets a valuable revenue from his vote which is the problem, we need user to go and vote if and only if he/she wants this, with no motivation factors, and nobdoy gives him a bad rating will get the license, thats logical!!

Thats only my own thoughts.

Thanks,

Max

That was my thought also.
I know that people tend not even to vote you, not to mention writing a review (not even a bad one!) if you beg them to review you honestly (as i do in my forums) without any other incentive. I did not give them anything but the product free of charge and asked them if they want they should vote and write a honest review (exactly these words) .. no one bothered...

anyway if JED has no problem with this practice, i won't have either. I thought it's a thing worth mentioning to the staff. 

Perhaps what is more interesting is that:
- v1.0.2 is * @license http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU/GPL
- v1.0.3 is * @license Commercial License, http://www.pimpmyjoomla.com/license/forme.html

A file comparison clearly shows a huge amount of overlap.
v1.0.3 appears to be continuation and expansion of v1.0.2, as expected.

So it would appear that the v1.0.2 GPL code is now in v1.0.3 Commercial component.

That was another rather dubious marketing scheme... I noticed it but did not want to go there since there is already this big debate regarding licensing.
That project "started" as a GPL project and after getting some "attention" it turned to Commercial .. i am no expert, but that is kind of bait and switch ...
Anyway .. i really have nothing against the developer or so.. do not get me wrong..

So it would appear that the v1.0.2 GPL code is now in v1.0.3 Commercial component.

Just a note to clarify about this particular extension in target.
We did notice that it was submitted with one license and then changed to another license.

We did not compare code from the two releases, but to ensure a fair representation of votes given, all votes/reviews from releases before 1.0.3 was removed earlier this week.

Ot2sen,

thanks for the clarification. this sounds fair. No argue there.

Keep up the good work, the JED is a very useful and needed tool!

Just to be clear...  there isn't necessarily anything wrong with releasing GPL code under a commercial license.

If I write code and release it under GPL, I am still free to take the same code and release it under a commercial license.  So, assuming that the copyright to the code belongs to the person releasing it under the commercial license, there is no problem with that, AFAIU.

That being said, if license remains commercial, it still is subject to JED policies regarding commercial extensions.

Ian

True. But the code also remains GPL, and should also be made available as such.

After speaking with the Joomla extensions editors, they decided that this will not break the rules of extensions.joomla.org as long as we clearly specify that we want a honest vote/review. So keep in mind: we are asking you your honest opinion and vote.

What do you have to do to get a license code?

  1. Go to http://extensions.joomla.org/component/ ... Itemid,35/ and cast a vote for the Forme component and write a small review in which you specify what you think about Forme.
  2. E-mail me This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it and specify the title of your review.
  3. Shortly after we verify your review and vote, you will receive an e-mail back from us with your license code.

ot2sen wrote:

So it would appear that the v1.0.2 GPL code is now in v1.0.3 Commercial component.

Just a note to clarify about this particular extension in target.
We did notice that it was submitted with one license and then changed to another license.

We did not compare code from the two releases, but to ensure a fair representation of votes given, all votes/reviews from releases before 1.0.3 was removed earlier this week.

I dont understand this.. the votes are for the extension not a commentary on the appropriateness (or lack of same) of the license???

what concerns me rather, is the wording of the 'offer' and its implications for the integrity of the system as a whole.

The 'free license giveaway' is contingent on the review being 'reviewed' by the giver - the implications are clear (protestations notwithstanding) that there is a clear quid-pro-quo situation going on.


Frankly, I know y'all are just 'feeling your way' and 'making it up as you go along' but much of what is happening seems to be bungling and stumbling from one arbitrary decision to another

Its also clear, that the whole supporting of 'commercial extensions' and the whole high maintenance moderation and WORK the JED workers have to do to counteract the human and financial tendency to skew (and screw) the results and voting in their favor puts a disproportionate AND UNFUNDED mandate on the system!

The review system is somewhat arbitrarily hobbled as well, since one cannot ( as I understand it) describe your experience with the supplier/vendor - which is I dare say, the hallmark of an experience.

As far as the extension itself specifically, I downloaded it, decrypted much of the code and was more concerned than impressed.
I would NEVER use an encrypted product on my server - or any code that had back door call backs or the ability to load code from external sources after installation.

I believe that all commercial extensions, nay ANY extension that is not GPL *AND* hosted on Joomlaforge should PAY for their entry in the JED - the same way one pays for  a listing in the Yellow Pages. There would still be a White Pages - where ALL KNOWN extensions would be listed, REGARDLESS of security status, GPL affiliation, Political Orientation etc. etc. 1 line entries without voting records or any kind of 'endorsement' "editors pick" or otherwise.


why does the JED itself have to be 'tied' to Joomla? it could be a commercial directory, earning an income and still be a resource to the thousands of Joomla netizens out there?

Restructure the JED to be a non-profit or whatever, with the costs paid for by listing fees and a few Google Adsense adds, maybe add a forum of sorts where the REAL uncensored dialog on the component can take place.

Finally, how can we verify that a voter or reviewer on a commercial component actually bought anything????

aruba,

i did not mean this thread to start another debate about free vs commercial. I was just bedazzled by some marketing strategy i thought it would not be compatible with my system of thought. it's clear that there is no contradiction to JEDs policy, ot2sen explained it pretty clear.

of course JED is not a perfect review system, and i personally would never use these kind of marketing schemes to promote my Extensions (commercial or free - regardless).

For instance i never had an idea that that particular component is encrypted. This would be a nice flag additional to the JED (like the tickboxes  with the license - there could be a tickbox with encrypted source)

aruba wrote:As far as the extension itself specifically, I downloaded it, decrypted much of the code and was more concerned than impressed.
I would NEVER use an encrypted product on my server - or any code that had back door call backs or the ability to load code from external sources after installation.

Is that what you found?
Forme has an encrypted phone home?
Not disclosed anywhere.
Sure users will eventually notice.
Don't these guys ever learn?

Hi all,

Just one last thought I want to tell and want to know if anybody agree with me on it :

At some point, the developer will stop this offer while he is at the top of the list OF COURSE, so in other words this way we encourage every new extension to be a commercial one, and why he should be free if he can get maximum number of votes in shortest time for just some downloads ? then all free ones will be at the bottom because nobody gets any benefits from adding a vote/review, and I feel that the whole matter will be some kind of a "battle" to be at the top!!!

Anybody agree with me ?

Max

Max, but this is not the future. as we know this is the status quo.

I have more free extensions then commercial ones listed in JED. Since i just asked the users to review me fairly (without giving any incentives) in my forums, i got practically no votes and no review. Some were deleted with the "summer sweep" of the JED, so i got minimal interaction on JED.
Views are thousands, downloads also thousands.
What i got right away was negative votes (have no idea why)  - but these were mostly deleted by the "sweep" .

i think the battle for the top has long started. I just hope JED manages to keep this Directory clean, so the endusers get maximum benefits.

Of course this will happen soon, or why its a "commercial" one!!! it will happen. 

aruba wrote:[/b]
We did not compare code from the two releases, but to ensure a fair representation of votes given, all votes/reviews from releases before 1.0.3 was removed earlier this week.

I don't understand this.. the votes are for the extension not a commentary on the appropriateness (or lack of same) of the license???
[/quote]

I agree.. my vote for that extension was also for a free one. If it was a paid one i would be less tolerant with faults!

I liked the idea of an white/yellow pages for JED
With all that the extensions developers are doing ... some day we will end up closing all votes for extensions.

gringo6969 wrote:For instance i never had an idea that that particular component is encrypted. This would be a nice flag additional to the JED (like the tickboxes  with the license - there could be a tickbox with encrypted source)

Second that!