Quality & Quantity of Files on FlashDen

Hey guys, all the recent feedback regarding quality and quantity of files on FlashDen is awesome! Keep it coming.

Instead of responding across multiple threads, I thought I’d open a new thread, as a reviewer, as a response to all the comments and feedback posted the past few weeks. Hopefully it will address some facts about the reviewing process which in turn may answer some of the questions posed here about quantity of files, quality of files, and home page exposure.

1. We DO reject files if they look terrible or if they are not useful. This is very important to understand. For every file we accept, we probably reject another one or two for all sorts of reasons. Meaning, we do not allow just anything into the the library.

2. There are some files however that we approve because they are conceptually good, meet our criteria, and we KNOW they might not look too hot, BUT , if a designer purchased these files and reskinned them, they would be great. You will usually notice these files have a slightly lower price because of this. And just to qualify that statement, what we are saying is, if you file is awesome AND looks good, it will probably be priced a little higher than others.

3. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” One man’s gold is another man’s trash. Believe it or not, reviewers sometimes don’t want to publish certain files because of the appearance of a file…

(a) But we have seen time and time again how, what we think is an unattractive file, has gone on to sell pretty well. Ultimately, people have different tastes and different needs.

(b) We don’t publish EVERYTHING . Trust us, we have spared you all some very, very basic and unattractive files.

(c) Staff/reviewers have a NEW system in place where we openly discuss any files we are unsure about publishing. So please don’t think any one reviewer or staff member is being biased about approvals OR rejections – we are more and more frequently getting second opinions on any borderline file(s).

(d) All reviewers are on the same page as far as what can and can’t be accepted. We have pricing and quality guidelines standards that have to be met. But of course, as with all human interaction, there’s going to be a 1% error rate due to individual subjective opinion. On those occasions, when perhaps a file that is approved is later deemed not useful or poorly designed, it has the potential to be removed later. So know that some files have been pulled at a later date due to quality control.

4. We’re hearing contrasting feedback at the moment. “It’s bad when reviewers approve files too slowly” and “It’s bad when reviewers approve files too quickly”. Kinda funny really. But the ultimate “problem” here that we have to focus on is obviously file exposure. That includes what goes on the home page, what goes on page one of the main Flash category page and what appears in the the recent items block in the footer. Two things to comment on here: Firstly, yes, it’s always a challenge. It’s something staff are always thinking about and wanting to improve. But to help paint a picture of how complex this issue is, take a look at these stats:

• We have almost 150,000 members.
• Approximately 50 files a day are uploaded.

So if 50 files a day were all approved (let’s say they were all awesome), then something has to give. Meaning, only the last 30 of those 50 files will appear on page one of the Flash category (new files) page. So to whoever is arguing that “files are approved too slow” or “files are approved too quickly”, that is not addressing the fundamental problem.

Here’s another scenario. Someone suggested that files get approved more slowly. Well, if we have 50 files uploaded a day, and we purposely only approve 20 a day, the queue is going to grow by 30 files each day. So after 5 days, you would have 100 files approved and 150 left in the queue! Eventually, you would be in the position like most other stock/marketplace sites where you are waiting WEEKS and MONTHS to get your files approved. I sincerely do not mean this flippantly, but there are more benefits than negatives to how files are approved/rejected presently when we compare ourselves to other marketplaces. Some times you might have to wait 4 days for your file to get approved, sometimes it’s 1 – 2 days. Again, it’s not perfect, but it’s good and we are ALWAYS trying to improve.

5. Yes, we too hope that improvements and solutions will come quickly for authors. All reviewers are authors too, we KNOW how you feel! But let’s try to look at things from a slightly different angle.

If you shop at ANY store in real life, WAL -MART, TESCOS , AMAZON.COM etc… they have a HUGE inventory of stock. And consumers shop in different ways. Do consumers always look for what’s new in a store? Not always. Does all new stock in a physical store get put right near the entrance? Not always. Do ALL new items on Amazon.com get listed on the home page? No.

So when you think about it, there are at least two things going on here. Firstly, all consumers shop differently. Sometimes they come to the store knowing what they want, and sometimes they just stumble across things and end up buying them. So in the case of FlashDen, (and I am not dismissing the importance of home page exposure), you have to realize that some FD consumers actually use other means to get to your content. Such as (i) the search engine, (ii) the categories of files, and finally, (iii) how YOU take responsibility to market your own files.

I don’t want to make this too long-winded or complex, but understand that yes, home page exposure is great, and it’s an ADDED BONUS , but it is not EVERYTHING , nor is it the golden ticket to great success. I would say that the “golden ticket” to great success starts with a great file with great design, filling a niche or a demand, coupled with some exposure on FlashDen, and coupled with how YOU yourself take responsibility to market your file. Don’t put 100% of your marketing plans on home page presence because, as we are seeing now, with a huge amount of files uploaded and approved each day, this cannot be guaranteed any more.

Please understand that all your feedback and comments are listened to, they are very important to us, and we are always discussing solutions and planning to implement changes in the future. Unfortunately, due to the time it takes developers to re-write applications and for designers to redesign Web sites (and THEN to test them), solutions are never going to happen overnight. But please know that all your concerns and feedback are wonderful, and we read and listen to everything that is said. It’s important to realize that we can never make everyone happy either. But what we try to do is make the majority of customers AND authors happy, for all the right reasons.

From what I’m seeing in this post, you seem to think that we are basing what we are complaining about on aesthetics alone, and nothing could be farther from the truth. The big problem is that many of these new files are simply built shabby, and people are paying money for a non-commercial grade build.

I give an example: In the “new files” list right now there is a template that when you click image thumbs to load them up larger, but click another one before the first one is done loading, then the preloader starts to fritz, moving spaztically and showing random percentages, and the last one you clicked isn’t always the one that ends up showing. I can tell just from looking at the preview that the internal build of that system is crap and should not be for sale as a commercial grade product, and that the author is far from an expert that should be building templates. I was able to notice the quality of build less than 30 seconds after opening the page, and without access to any sources. And issues like these are not uncommon in the new files being put up.

You also seem to think this is about the authors, as in exposure, or whatever. It is about the buyers keeping the buyers happy and buying will keep me happy. And right now buyers are paying hard earned money for shabby built files. It is not right, and must change. It is our responsibility as flash experts to know quality of build and make sure only those files go up on a commercial marketplace, since most buyers will not have the expertise to determine this on their own, nor bugtest a preview, and will leave the marketplace after wasting their money. Only commercial grade files can pass to be sold on a commercial website.

From what I’m seeing in this post, you seem to think that we are basing what we are complaining about on aesthetics alone, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

On the contrary, file quality = appearance + usability + functionality. And it has to work, of course. So just to clarify, we always look for those things and we reject if we find bugs. If something goes through that DOES contain a bug, we will look at it again. Contact support@flashden.net if ever someone observes something like this. Not trying to make excuses, but reviewers do check for bugs, but we don’t have time to regression test every file for an hour, that’s the author’s responsibility.

First of all let me preface this by saying I have great respect for you and the other reviewers, and that I don’t believe that the problem is the reviewers, it is the process. And everything you and the other reviewers keep saying only reinforces this.

Quite simply any company that has to go through a means of production (or approval in this case) must have a process. But when the final results are not up to the tolerances that need to be kept to (or in this case quality of programming/design/build) then the process is almost always to blame, NOT the people working it.

So what you keep telling me is how it’s not the reviewers fault, and they simply can’t do this or that, and what I’m telling you is I agree! The process is failing the reviewers, not the other way around. The process needs to be changed with a motive for quality control in mind.

Not trying to make excuses, but reviewers do check for bugs, but we don’t have time to regression test every file for an hour, that’s the author’s responsibility.

That is an obvious point. We cannot expect so much from the reviewers. They have a lot to do everyday and estimating a file’s price is a very tough job. GOOD WORK REVIEWERS . I AM ALWAYS HAPPY WITH YOU .

I don’t doubt that home page exposure helps sales, but there are also many who come to FD for something specific and go right to search. I know the search results serve up 3 “popular” results. But are the rest listed from most recent to oldest?

I don’t doubt that home page exposure helps sales, but there are also many who come to FD for something specific and go right to search. I know the search results serve up 3 “popular” results. But are the rest listed from most recent to oldest?

I think this touches upon a good point. When you go to the main Flash new files page, there are a list of options that allow you to sort the results:

Sort Results By: Title | Author | Category | Published Size | Opens With | Resolution | ActionScript Version | Rating | Sales | Price

However, when you search from the home page or indeed anywhere else, you do not get these options. I think it would be helpful (at least a start!) to be able to sort all search results by the above criteria AND other criteria too (date for example).

Not sure if there’s a reason why that was not originally included. I’ll pass it along. Thanks, CrackerJack.

This keeps getting mentioned regarding the home page but surely could the thumbnails on the home page not be randomised of files that had been uploaded in the last 48-72 hours or something?

If I remember rightly, reviewers get 4 minutes per file right? Thats pretty tight so you dont test whether the files build is up to the standard it should be, as MD pointed out this is not the reviewers fault, its the process letting them down. Before a shop sells a new item i’m sure they spend more than 4 minutes considering it and TRYING IT ...

The first thing that i’d like to think most of us devs here do when we see a new file is to try and break it, if its breakable then i’m sure not gonna buy it…

On a side note, I really hope the new design scraps the dashboard, its a complete waste of space. The front page should be littered with files and show at least this weeks featured files which would maybe stop file exposure critics…

I’m sorry, but my complaints have nothing to do with the sales of individual items, or how fast they are pushed off the homepage, but have to do with the overall health of the marketplace in the long term. If the process is not made to motivate quality of files, then it is the long term health of the marketplace that will suffer, not the sales of your most recently uploaded items this week. If FD does not tackle this by changing their process then there will be long term consequences that are much worse than a file getting pushed off the homepage too quickly.

Again, not the reviewers fault, the process is failing them.