I had this typed already but the token got me again grrrrrrr ... dang 

Webster great ideas and i am all for them.  However i think if we just do that then the developers will just skate around it as they have always done. We need to do more. 

What will happen is that developers will just go in and update the checkmark for the version and be done with it. And this does not solve the problem with the plugins not working. 

And the only way to do that is to re moderate the plugins on an annual basis. However that takes money and manpower of which oxwall has neither.  So that means that it falls on us the volunteers to do this in order to make a better oxwall.  So here are my suggestions to go along with yours as well webster. 

1. Oxwall needs to developer some rules for the store and for plugin coding and enforce it vigorously. 

2. I suggest that oxwall just remove the star ratings all together from the store. They can be manipulated and they do not present the confidence in consumers they were intended for.  Leave the text ratings but drop the stars, the stars give a false sense of consumer satisfaction. 

3. Oxwall needs to come up with a "Gold Star" Icon and post the icon on those plugins that have been recently moderated or that have been moderated on an annual basis.  If your plugin fails the moderation then you lose your gold star.  And also post the date of the last moderation and also who it was moderated by.

4. Have two plugin lists, a "Gold Star" listing and a sub par listing.  This will help force the developers to actually fix their plugins.  This will also help protect consumers because it is on a higher risk listing and not mixed in with the higher standard plugins. It will also help to control the fly by night developers because they are not going to waste their time with the new rules, they will go elsewhere and try to distruibute their junk. 

5. Trusted Leaders need to step up and volunteer to help make a better oxwall and moderate plugins to save the company money and manpower.  The company cant do this so we must.  With that said there needs to be at least 6 to volunteer for this because any less everyone will get overloaded.  Also because once a plugin does not make it via moderation then im sure that developer wants it back on the market asap. And this means there needs to be more than a couple of us doing this. 

6. Developers cannot moderate their own plugins.  And anyone that is doing moderation tests will be severly dealt with for malicous or unethical practices such as distributing the plugins without authority or any unethical favoritism. You are trusted for a reason so take pride in what you are asked to do and do it with responsibilty and honor. 

7. Plugins will be checked for coding professionalizm, operation, no error warnings or notices. If the plugin fails the test with one moderation scan then it is passed to another person to verify that result, this could be another leader or a team member.  If the two agree then the plugin will be kept in moderation until it is fixed.  This will help stop unethical practices.

8. If 50% of any developers plugins or the same plugins from that developer have been in moderation for over 1 month then their store will be suspended until further notice. 

9. Once the plugin has meet the moderation standards then it will be released from moderation and given the gold star icon.  And it will be rescheduled for moderation in another 12 months. 

10. The moderation team, leaders, or team members can request moderation for a plugin at any time if they have factual proof that the plugin has errors or issues worthy of a moderation exam. 

11. If there have been no text complaints or complaints to the moderation team at all when the next moderation time is scheduled for a plugin, the moderator can just pass it to another moderator and if both agree then it can be approved without actual exam.  

Hows that...  

All we need is a list of volunteers and we can submit the idea to oxwall. 

I am in of course.

Hi Tammy and Dave,

We need to look at the following :

1. Customer's Satisfaction
2. Developer's Sale Lead

One can't go without the other, at the moment only #2 seems to be the priority, I do agree with Tammy at some of her points. You cant say a dealership sold you a car and claims that when the car was in the showroom it was working just fine without issues, then when i drive off after a few days when i bring it back you don't take a customer serious. I bought what you sold to me as described and i expect as a customer to get what i paid for.....WYSIWYG goes hand in hand with the money paid for. You're selling a Ferrari but the outside is sold out to me and it's looks good but you don't say the engine needs some work....Also you don't say the car has "NO" service plan, when i have issues the dealership is not meeting me halfway. That's false advertising !!

Correct Webster!!  If the plugin developers says that it is seo friendly and it is not then yes that is a problem and the plugin will be denied. 

What i am saying is that if the developer makes no claims of such (seo) then it will not be considered as part of the exam.  What tammy is saying is that regardless of any claims she wants it to be seo friendly or not pass. That is not how it works.. 

Just because seo may be standard in the industry does not mean that every developer will code for that.  And if they dont and you need that, then dont buy their product.  Its the same if you want anti-lock brakes in a car which is standard but the car maker you go to does not provide that feature.  Well then you dont buy that car.  It has nothing to do with if the car runs fine or not, its a feature not a necessity.

Hi Dave,

You say "Just because seo may be standard in the industry does not mean that every developer will code for that.  And if they dont and you need that, then dont buy their product."

1. Industry Standard (Meaning -  Generally accepted requirements followed by the members of an industry.)
2. And if they dont and you need that, then dont buy their product. (Declaration - It's only a handful of developers who would declare that their plugins dont have or rather don't support certain features). I have bought plugins whereby dev.'s don't say i need to buy something else for the plugin to work...e.g: I need to buy user credits plugin transfer credit plugin to work

Quote from dave Correct Webster!!  If the plugin developers says that it is seo friendly and it is not then yes that is a problem and the plugin will be denied. 

What i am saying is that if the developer makes no claims of such (seo) then it will not be considered as part of the exam.  What tammy is saying is that regardless of any claims she wants it to be seo friendly or not pass. That is not how it works.. 

Just because seo may be standard in the industry does not mean that every developer will code for that.  And if they dont and you need that, then dont buy their product.  Its the same if you want anti-lock brakes in a car which is standard but the car maker you go to does not provide that feature.  Well then you dont buy that car.  It has nothing to do with if the car runs fine or not, its a feature not a necessity.

Webster, if the developer does not present the plugin correctly and does not fully disclose that the plugin requires another plugin to function fully then yes that would be a problem and would cause it to not be approved. 

However to your other statement you need to know that there are required standards and acceptable standards.   

A required standard would be something like you dont take the POST data from a form input and save it directly to the database without cleaning the data first. Does this cause a fatal error if you do not, no.  However it is extremely dangerious to the  point it could compromise the whole script security if you do not. 

An acceptable standard is that you code a input form without integrating smilies.  Or you code a photo album without applying the alt tag. Those are standards that do not cause a fatal error but also do not compromise the integrity of the script. 

I hope that explains it the difference. 

Hell, for now I would be happy if the developers would just answer support questions in a timely manner if at all! I can't keep holding up launching my site because the plugins either don't work or are so basic or generic, that they require modification. I purchased the Profile Cover plugin which works great, but no one will answer my basic questions. The developer has yet to respond at all!