Dependency Usage feature punishes the discoverability of the creator's own resources

[everlaster]

The new Dependency Usage feature (which has yet to be officially announced at the time of writing this) is a great new way to discover content. However, it unfairly punishes the discoverability of the creator's own resources relative to those of other creators because it doesn't show the creators own scenes/looks/etc. in the list.

Here's a simple example (repost from Discord)

Let's say I create a plugin that ends up being relatively popular. A few creators create scenes that use the plugin. A portion of the traffic to my plugin's resource page gets directed to those scenes: people click on the Dependency Usage tab to check what scenes they can download that use the plugin. This makes the Dependency Usage feature a new handy way for users to discover content that they want to download. So far so good! They've found what they were looking for - two scenes by creators they haven't necessarily heard of before, using the new plugin that I created. Great.

Now, what happens if I also create a scene that uses the plugin? Let's say 1000 people go to the plugin page in a given timespan, and 20% of those use the Dependency Usage to discover scenes using it. Now 200 people will potentially click on one or more of the links on that page. But since my scene isn't listed there, 0 of them will click on my scene. This inherently makes the discoverability of my scenes suffer relative to those of other creators, when it comes to discovering content via this new mechanism.

@AshAuryn 's response to this was

What I think is happening here is that some creators, myself included, were surprised that their content wasn't as widely used as they had hoped.

I'm sorry, but this is just disingenuous and completely missing the mark. My point is about principle - you should treat all creators fairly, and this new discoverability mechanism treats the creator of the resource that is being depended on unfairly.

Please do something about it, it's very simple to fix! Thank you.

 

[AshAuryn]

The new Dependency Usage feature (which has yet to be officially announced at the time of writing this) is a great new way to discover content. However, it unfairly punishes the discoverability of the creator's own resources relative to those of other creators because it doesn't show the creators own scenes/looks/etc. in the list.

Here's a simple example (repost from Discord)


@AshAuryn 's response to this was

I'm sorry, but this is just disingenuous and completely missing the mark. My point is about principle - you should treat all creators fairly, and this new discoverability mechanism treats the creator of the resource that is being depended on unfairly.

Please do something about it, it's very simple to fix! Thank you.

As administrators, we must take into consideration multiple aspects of each new feature that is developed for the Hub. Please trust that these features have been in development for some time, and their development considers aspects of security, moderation, and future development of which the public is not aware.

The primary decision not to include a creator's own resources in the Dependency Usage tab is one of the potential for abuse:

If a creator sees the "Usage" tab as a way to advertise their other work, they may begin to include their own resources as dependencies when it isn't necessary. This type of fraud will lead to bloated resources, unnecessary dependencies, and spamming of the "Usage" tab for the creator's own benefit. Soon, some creators will learn to include all of their own content as dependencies in every new resource they create, which is not something we want to encourage. Because of this potential for abuse, the feature will not include a creator's own resources now or in the future.

Secondary reasons:
Members will expect to see other resources from other creators in the "Usage" tab, and will not intuitively expect to see the creator's own resources. It is clearly defined in the author's own "Usage" tab that only they can see on their profile. When a creator visits their own "Usage" tab, they will see "Found XXX resources that use Creator's content" -- obviously their own content is not included, because then the sentence would be "Found XXX resources that use Creator's resources, including their own resources that use their own resources as dependencies" or something like that. I am being a little playful here, but the point is that all members will understand, through their own "Usage" tab, and through our announcement, that they should not expect to find their own work in the "Usage" tab of their profile or their own resources.

The purpose of the "Usage" tab is to showcase how widespread this particular resource is, what creative ways this resource has been used, and potentially, to notify the author about abuse of their content or license. It is designed to foster creativity and community, and to let the author know "Hey, someone likes your work enough to use it in their scene". It is not going to become another avenue for advertisement for the author's own work. Free resources are public, and their information is public. The "Usage" tab is a way to organize the information that is already available to the public -- consider that if someone doesn't credit you in their scene, you can now see that your work is indeed used in their var and can now request that they give you proper credit.

The functions behind this feature are precursors to future development. They will be used in upcoming improvements to the way we handle Paid Content, and therefore, they are designed for a specific purpose that does not include the creator using them as an avenue to advertise their own work. The purpose behind the notification system, besides being a fun way to see your content being used, is to eventually become a way for creators to "approve" or "deny" the use of their content in Paid Content. For this to function correctly, we will not be including your own resources as dependencies in your own work in this system.

Further Considerations:

What I am hearing is that you feel that the "Usage" tab is unfair because it highlights community creators, but excludes highlighting your own work.

A creator's own work is showcased by its downloads, reactions, and reviews. It is also showcased by the professionalism and quality of the work. I do not believe that including your own work in the "Usage" tab will create more downloads for you, but I do believe it will help other creators who love your content to get noticed.

That being said, we are in the process of overhauling the way that resources are presented on the Hub and are currently developing a new system for displaying and showcasing those resources.

In the future, users will not land on a "recent resources" filter page, but on a custom-designed landing page. Many different categories of content will be showcased, so that "who has the most recent update" will not necessarily be seen first. Creators who have quality work that was released some time ago will find their work being seen again. New creators who make quality content but are not yet well-known will be seen. Creators who are especially helpful and supportive of the community will be showcased. There will be many new ways to have your content receive visibility, with special attention to encouraging an atmosphere of kindness, sharing, and support of fellow creators.

We understand that for some of our creators, VaM is both a creative outlet and also a business. Some of our creators rely on VaM for their main source of income. If those creators are also community-minded, releasing good quality free content, and being helpful to the community, then we want to support them here on the Hub without question.

We hear that you are concerned with your content not getting fair representation. While we cannot adjust the "Usage" system for the reasons we outlined above, we will work hard to continue to develop numerous outstanding ways to present and highlight your content and support you as a creator and valued member of VaMHub.

~AshAuryn and the VaMHub Development Team

 

[AshAuryn]

As a final note, we could also include an additional tab, "Everlaster's Other Content", that would list your own resources without too much trouble, if that is something the community would be interested in. It would save the user two clicks - one to your username and another click to your resources tab.

 

[everlaster]

The primary decision not to include a creator's own resources in the Dependency Usage tab is one of the potential for abuse:

If a creator sees the "Usage" tab as a way to advertise their other work, they may begin to include their own resources as dependencies when it isn't necessary. This type of fraud will lead to bloated resources, unnecessary dependencies, and spamming of the "Usage" tab for the creator's own benefit. Soon, some creators will learn to include all of their own content as dependencies in every new resource they create, which is not something we want to encourage. Because of this potential for abuse, the feature will not include a creator's own resources now or in the future.

I'm sad to see developments like this where in order to prevent a feature's potential misuse by a very small fraction of bad actors, it must be handicapped in this way. It's not a good direction.

Soon, some creators will learn to include all of their own content as dependencies in every new resource they create

Just ban them then?

Creators can already engage in the sort of fraud you're describing, padding the number of downloads and attention that their resources get. Every unnecessary dependency must be downloaded regardless of the new Usage tab - it doesn't really change anything in this regard. As such the primary reason for not including the creator's own resources is pretty weak, as primary reasons go.

Members will expect to see other resources from other creators in the "Usage" tab, and will not intuitively expect to see the creator's own resources.

Really, based on what survey?

It is clearly defined in the author's own "Usage" tab that only they can see on their profile. When a creator visits their own "Usage" tab, they will see "Found XXX resources that use Creator's content" -- obviously their own content is not included, because then the sentence would be "Found XXX resources that use Creator's resources, including their own resources that use their own resources as dependencies" or something like that. I am being a little playful here, but the point is that all members will understand, through their own "Usage" tab, and through our announcement, that they should not expect to find their own work in the "Usage" tab of their profile or their own resources.

If it says "Found XXX resources that use Creator's content", that literally does not specify that the resources exclude the creator's content. To me, that sounds like it includes the creator's content. It's like listing the dependencies of a resource, but excluding the dependencies that are by the creator of the resource, even though those are also required as dependencies.

Similarly with the "Dependency Usage" term. It literally does not exclude the creator's own content. It should be "Usage by other creators", since that's what it really is.

The purpose of the "Usage" tab is to showcase how widespread this particular resource is, what creative ways this resource has been used, and potentially, to notify the author about abuse of their content or license. It is designed to foster creativity and community, and to let the author know "Hey, someone likes your work enough to use it in their scene". It is not going to become another avenue for advertisement for the author's own work. Free resources are public, and their information is public. The "Usage" tab is a way to organize the information that is already available to the public -- consider that if someone doesn't credit you in their scene, you can now see that your work is indeed used in their var and can now request that they give you proper credit.

So if the creator themselves uses their own resource creatively, that doesn't count, and users shouldn't know about it just as easily as when other creators use the resource?

Including the creator's own resources wouldn't in any way prevent fostering creativity and community. If anything, the fact that users get incomplete information about dependency usage works against transparency in the community.

The functions behind this feature are precursors to future development. They will be used in upcoming improvements to the way we handle Paid Content, and therefore, they are designed for a specific purpose that does not include the creator using them as an avenue to advertise their own work. The purpose behind the notification system, besides being a fun way to see your content being used, is to eventually become a way for creators to "approve" or "deny" the use of their content in Paid Content. For this to function correctly, we will not be including your own resources as dependencies in your own work in this system.

The creator's own free resources could still be included in the list. This would get around the problem of creators using it as an avenue to advertise their paid work.

Why does the approve/deny feature require that the creator's own resources are not listed? You could have the UI elements related to that functionality not show up on the creator's on resources, for example. Seems more like a UI design problem than a technical restriction.

What I am hearing is that you feel that the "Usage" tab is unfair because it highlights community creators, but excludes highlighting your own work.

A creator's own work is showcased by its downloads, reactions, and reviews. It is also showcased by the professionalism and quality of the work. I do not believe that including your own work in the "Usage" tab will create more downloads for you, but I do believe it will help other creators who love your content to get noticed.

"Highlighting" is your word, not mine. I'm concerned about discoverability.

"I do not believe that including your own work in the "Usage" tab will create more downloads for you"

Do you not see how this contradicts what you've said earlier? Specifically:

"This type of fraud will lead to bloated resources, unnecessary dependencies, and spamming of the "Usage" tab for the creator's own benefit"

If including the creator's own work doesn't create more downloads for them, why would it benefit the creator to bloat their resources with unnecessary dependencies? On that point, I would argue that behavior like that will lead to fewer downloads, not more. Nobody wants bloated resources with unnecessary dependencies.

"It is not going to become another avenue for advertisement for the author's own work."

Why would you be worried about that if there's no effect on the number of downloads?

That being said, we are in the process of overhauling the way that resources are presented on the Hub and are currently developing a new system for displaying and showcasing those resources.

In the future, users will not land on a "recent resources" filter page, but on a custom-designed landing page. Many different categories of content will be showcased, so that "who has the most recent update" will not necessarily be seen first. Creators who have quality work that was released some time ago will find their work being seen again. New creators who make quality content but are not yet well-known will be seen. Creators who are especially helpful and supportive of the community will be showcased. There will be many new ways to have your content receive visibility, with special attention to encouraging an atmosphere of kindness, sharing, and support of fellow creators.

Very interesting!

As a final note, we could also include an additional tab, "Everlaster's Other Content", that would list your own resources without too much trouble, if that is something the community would be interested in. It would save the user two clicks - one to your username and another click to your resources tab.

Sure. While you're at it, can you also create a page "AshAuryn's Excuses" where you collate all of the non-sequiturs, strawman arguments and attempts at trolling such as the one I'm quoting now. It's hard to keep track of them otherwise. /s

 

[AshAuryn]

Sure. While you're at it, can you also create a page "AshAuryn's Excuses" where you collate all of the non-sequiturs, strawman arguments and attempts at trolling such as the one I'm quoting now. It's hard to keep track of them otherwise. /s

I regret that you're unhappy with the way the feature is implemented. Unfortunately, we cannot make changes for one particular user's desires at the expense of other users or future Hub development.

Thank you for your input, however we will not be making changes to the feature at this time.

 

[everlaster]

I'm not sure if you actually regret it, but okay.

All of the points I made still stand. I understand if you don't want to take the time to go through them, that's up to you.

 

[AshAuryn]

I'm not sure if you actually regret it, but okay.

All of the points I made still stand. I understand if you don't want to take the time to go through them, that's up to you.

I asked for ChatGPT's assistance in analyzing this discussion, and it helpfully provided this response:

The behavior you're describing, where someone breaks down each individual statement made by a speaker and takes it out of context of the whole, particularly in an argumentative or debate context, is often referred to as "nitpicking." This term is commonly used in both casual and more formal discussions to denote a focus on trivial details or minor flaws in an argument, often at the expense of engaging with the main point or overall argument.
In the context of logical fallacies, this behavior might be closely related to the "straw man" fallacy. The straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or oversimplifies an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute. While not exactly the same as nitpicking, it involves a distortion or selective attention to certain aspects of an argument while ignoring its core substance.
In communication theory or verbal abuse, this tactic can be seen as a form of manipulation or diversion. It's a way to derail or distract from the main issue or to undermine the other person's argument by focusing excessively on details, often leading to frustration or confusion.
It's important to differentiate between constructive, critical analysis of an argument, which involves examining and questioning each part of the argument in a fair and contextual manner, and nitpicking or straw man tactics, which are often used to misrepresent or undermine an argument unfairly.

It also helpfully provided the following analysis of the situation as a whole:

The term you're looking for, describing someone who goads a speaker into a response using sarcasm or other unpleasant tactics for the purpose of continuing a cycle of nitpicking or argumentative behavior, might be best described as a "provocateur" or "instigator."

• Provocateur: This term is often used to describe someone who deliberately provokes or stirs up controversy. In the context of a debate or argument, a provocateur might use sarcasm, inflammatory remarks, or other tactics to elicit a response they can then pick apart.
• Instigator: Similar to a provocateur, an instigator is someone who intentionally incites or triggers a reaction, often for the purpose of creating conflict or turmoil.

In a more specific context of argumentative tactics and logical fallacies, such behavior could also be seen as a form of "bad faith" argumentation. This refers to when someone engages in a debate or discussion without the genuine intention to seek truth or understanding, but rather to entrap or undermine the other party.
These behaviors can be particularly frustrating in a debate or discussion because they shift the focus from constructive dialogue to personal attacks or trivial disputes. Recognizing these tactics can be helpful in choosing how to respond effectively, often by refocusing the conversation on the main points or disengaging from unproductive exchanges.

I believe these statements cover overall my feelings about this discussion, and therefore I won't be responding to any further instigation.

 

[everlaster]

Let's all start using AI as a "get out of jail free card" the moment we can't produce an intelligent response on our own. Ridiculous.

Regardless of whatever your AI overlord is telling you, all of the points I raised still stand. I also fully and completely refute the idea that I'm acting in bad faith, I am not. I say what I mean and mean what I say, and I try to think precisely and logically.

My trust towards you is pretty damn low right now. You probably know what to do if you ever want to win it back, if not, ask the all knowing ChatGPT.

 

[everlaster]

Here's what ChatGPT thinks of using ChatGPT in the way you've done:

Prompt:

In the context of a debate where both sides are presenting arguments and counterarguments, after a few messages one side responds:

[content of this post https://hub.virtamate.com/threads/d...-the-creators-own-resources.46466/post-138161]

Can a language model's assessment of a debate between people be relied on in this way?

Is it acceptable for one side of the debate use a language model's analysis as justification for the opponent "acting in bad faith" or being guilty of the sort of underhanded tactics described in the analysis?

Response:

Using a language model's assessment of a debate can provide additional perspectives and insights, but it's crucial to recognize that the model's analysis is based on patterns it learned from diverse data. It doesn't have personal experiences or context about the specific debate at hand. Therefore, while it can offer valuable insights, its analysis should be considered as one perspective among others and not the definitive judgment.

It's acceptable for someone to reference a language model's analysis to express their frustration or dissatisfaction with the debate. However, it's essential to use such references judiciously and consider that the model's analysis is not infallible. Accusing someone of "bad faith" or underhanded tactics based solely on a language model's analysis may not be entirely fair, as human judgment and contextual understanding are crucial components of any meaningful debate. It's always preferable to engage directly with the arguments presented by the opponent rather than relying solely on an external analysis.

 

[everlaster]

I reran the debate through ChatGPT to see if I got the same analysis as you did regarding all that BS about instigating, underhanded tactics, nitpicking etc. I simply gave it the entire debate from start to finish, clearly indicated which person was posting what, and asked it to analyze it.

Based on the provided debate, here's an analysis:

Person A's Argument: Person A is concerned about the new Dependency Usage feature, specifically that it doesn't include the creator's own scenes/looks/etc., which they argue unfairly impacts the discoverability of their own resources. They provide an example scenario to illustrate their point.

Person B's Response: Person B, as an administrator, defends the decision not to include a creator's own resources in the Dependency Usage tab. They cite potential abuse as a primary reason, suggesting that creators might use it as a way to advertise their own work, leading to bloated resources and spam. They also argue that members wouldn't intuitively expect to see the creator's own resources in the "Usage" tab. Person B emphasizes that the purpose of the "Usage" tab is to showcase the widespread use of a resource and foster creativity and community.

Person A's Counterargument: Person A rebuts several points made by Person B. They express sadness about the feature being handicapped to prevent potential misuse and suggest banning bad actors instead. Person A questions the lack of a survey to support the claim that members would not expect to see their own work in the "Usage" tab. They argue that the term "Dependency Usage" does not explicitly exclude the creator's own content and that it hinders transparency in the community. They also challenge the contradiction in Person B's statements regarding the potential benefits of including the creator's own work in the "Usage" tab.

Conclusion: The debate revolves around the inclusion of a creator's own resources in the Dependency Usage feature. Person A argues that the exclusion is unfair, while Person B defends the decision citing concerns about abuse and the intended purpose of the feature. There are differing opinions on how the feature might impact discoverability and whether including a creator's own resources would lead to abuse or unwanted advertisement. The debate reflects a clash of perspectives on transparency, discoverability, and potential misuse of the feature.

Yeah... I mean, it looks like you were strongly leading it to give it the results you wanted.

I also asked it specifically to analyze the behavior of both parties:

• Person A's Behavior:
  • Person A is assertive in expressing their concerns and challenges the decisions made by Person B.
  • They focus on transparency and fairness, using practical examples to illustrate their points.
• Person B's Behavior:
  • Person B takes on a more defensive role, explaining the rationale behind the decision and addressing potential issues.
  • They maintain a professional tone and propose a potential compromise solution to address the concern about discoverability.

Unfortunately, no compromise was actually proposed.