RE: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2]
Roberto, thanks for this. Comments in-line > -Original Message- > From: Roberto Galoppini [mailto:roberto.galopp...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 14:23 > To: dev <dev@openoffice.apache.org> > Subject: Re: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2] > > 2015-11-21 19:28 GMT+01:00 Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>: > > > [not cross-posting] > > > > SourceForge is valuable to the project for providing the mirror > capacity > > that AOO requires. The penalty is in regard to user distrust and > these > > awful situations that the list and Forum folks have to contend with. > As > > far as our users are concerned, it is the AOO project that is > unreliable > > and has them need to be so cautious. > > > > Of course SourceForge relies on advertising revenue to offset their > > costs. That is to be expected. The problem is the confusion, not the > > advertising. We must work with SourceForge to avoid the confusion > with > > regard to ad placement and prominence. > > > > With my SourceForge hat on, there are two ways we can jointly work on: > > 1. Report misleading ads here, following our instructions, see > https://goo.gl/LQFHmE [orcmid] This puts us in the position of playing wack-a-moley and having to watch the download-started page by requesting downloads just to see what happens. That we have to do that, and have no clue what another ad rotation will present, is not practicable. The main way these come to our attention is when users stumbles into them. By then, we may not be able to see the offender and users have been abused by the arrangement. We must also presume that a very large proportion of the AOO user community consists of causual, non-expert computer users. I suspect that is an unusual demographic for SourceForge. I am doubtful that the procedure at <http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Report%20a%20problem%20with%20Ad%20content/> is particularly comprehensible to the folks that are likely misled by one of those ads. In particular, most of the complaints we receive are in the belief that it is AOO that they are dealing with. We need SourceForge's assistance in finding a way to serve that community well. > 2. Supporting the Clean Software Alliance guidelines (misleading ads) > https://goo.gl/69XhqW [orcmid] I think the issue at hand is under Misleading ads, item 1.5, about calls to action not being clearly for the ad and not what the page is about -- an AOO download having been requested. (I am not quoting because of the restrictions on the CSA document.) I believe this could be cured if (1) the "your download will begin... " material was more prominent and made the focal feature of the page and that (2) the ads were clearly separated by some sort of "you might also be interested in these ..." prominently labelled and separated by a clear and emphatic boundary from the non-advertising content of the page. > > For #1 I do actively monitor our mailing-list and I make sure > SourceForge > removes promptly misleading or unwanted ads. > #2 would actually help to push the whole advertising industry to agree > on > more strict guidelines. > > It would probably help to contribute feedback to those guidelines, since > those are in a commentary period till the end of the year. > > Having been involved in the CSA works I'd be happy to draft a comment if > we > intend to do so. [orcmid] I don't see a problem with those guidelines. I think the issue of misunderstood ads can be handled on the page where the ads are accepted. One rule of thumb for the page might be that the non-advertising content and text be larger than any "download" button and text in an adjoining ad, however that is assured [;<). > > Roberto > > > > > > > Andrea has pointed out separately that the alternative mirror system > may > > not be workable if even available for the demands that AOO downloads > > represent. > > > > - Dennis > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dave Barton [mailto:d...@tasit.net] > > > Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 07:09 > > > To: Apache OpenOffice Users <us...@openoffice.apache.org> > > > Cc: Apache OpenOffice Developer <dev@openoffice.apache.org> > > > Subject: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2] > > [ ... ] > > > > > > Is it not time to _*SERIOUSLY*_ review the distribution of our > binaries > > > via SourceForge? > > > > > > Rory O'Farrell and others dutifully expend their valuable time > advising > > > "unaware" users NOT to click on download links and butt
Re: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2]
2015-11-22 18:29 GMT+01:00 Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>: > Roberto, thanks for this. Comments in-line > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roberto Galoppini [mailto:roberto.galopp...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 14:23 > > To: dev <dev@openoffice.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2] > > > > 2015-11-21 19:28 GMT+01:00 Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>: > > > > > [not cross-posting] > > > > > > SourceForge is valuable to the project for providing the mirror > > capacity > > > that AOO requires. The penalty is in regard to user distrust and > > these > > > awful situations that the list and Forum folks have to contend with. > > As > > > far as our users are concerned, it is the AOO project that is > > unreliable > > > and has them need to be so cautious. > > > > > > Of course SourceForge relies on advertising revenue to offset their > > > costs. That is to be expected. The problem is the confusion, not the > > > advertising. We must work with SourceForge to avoid the confusion > > with > > > regard to ad placement and prominence. > > > > > > > With my SourceForge hat on, there are two ways we can jointly work on: > > > > 1. Report misleading ads here, following our instructions, see > > https://goo.gl/LQFHmE > > [orcmid] > > This puts us in the position of playing wack-a-moley and having to watch > the download-started page by requesting downloads just to see what > happens. That we have to do that, and have no clue what another ad > rotation will present, is not practicable. > That is exactly why I've added #2: we need Advertising Network Providers help. We need companies like Google to provide us with a better mouse trap, until then the only option is the actual post mortem approach. > > The main way these come to our attention is when users stumbles into > them. By then, we may not be able to see the offender and users have been > abused by the arrangement. > > We must also presume that a very large proportion of the AOO user > community consists of causual, non-expert computer users. I suspect that > is an unusual demographic for SourceForge. I am doubtful that the > procedure at < > http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Report%20a%20problem%20with%20Ad%20content/> > is particularly comprehensible to the folks that are likely misled by one > of those ads. In particular, most of the complaints we receive are in the > belief that it is AOO that they are dealing with. > > We need SourceForge's assistance in finding a way to serve that community > well. > We actively take care of all complaints and issues raised here in a timely manner, and usually computer literate friends living in the geographies where issues are raised do help me to collect such information. For everything else, see #2. > > > 2. Supporting the Clean Software Alliance guidelines (misleading ads) > > https://goo.gl/69XhqW > [orcmid] > I think the issue at hand is under Misleading ads, item 1.5, about calls > to action not being clearly for the ad and not what the page is about -- an > AOO download having been requested. (I am not quoting because of the > restrictions on the CSA document.) > > I believe this could be cured if (1) the "your download will begin... " > material was more prominent and made the focal feature of the page This is a suggestion you can definitely bring on the table, the SourceForge Community Panel seems to be the most appropriate place for raising that. > and that (2) the ads were clearly separated by some sort of "you might > also be interested in these ..." prominently labelled and separated by a > clear and emphatic boundary from the non-advertising content of the page. > As above. > > > > For #1 I do actively monitor our mailing-list and I make sure > > SourceForge > > removes promptly misleading or unwanted ads. > > #2 would actually help to push the whole advertising industry to agree > > on > > more strict guidelines. > > > > It would probably help to contribute feedback to those guidelines, since > > those are in a commentary period till the end of the year. > > > > Having been involved in the CSA works I'd be happy to draft a comment if > > we > > intend to do so. > [orcmid] > I don't see a problem with those guidelines. I think the issue of > misunderstood ads can be handled on the page where the ads are accepted. > One rule of thumb for the page might be that the non-advertising content > and te
SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2]
Original Message From: Philippe Roig Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 13:25:35 +0100 > Bonjour, > > Je possède un ordinateur avec Windows 10. > > J’ai voulu télécharger la nouvelle mise à jour 4.1.2 mais pendant > l’installation le téléchargement m’a imposé d’installer vidéo > converter sans possibilité de refuser j’ai finalement accepté mais le > téléchargement de cette application se plante et l’installation > s’arrête. > > En conclusion je ne peux pas installer la nouvelle mise à jour à > cause de l’imposition de vidéo converter. > > Cordialement > > Philippe Roig The English translation of Philippe's message is: === Hello, I have a computer with Windows 10. I wanted to download the new update 4.1.2 but during installation download directs me to install video converter, without the possibility of refusing I finally agreed, but downloading this application crashes and installation stops. Consequently I can not install the new update due to the imposition of video converter. Best regards Philippe Roig === Is it not time to _*SERIOUSLY*_ review the distribution of our binaries via SourceForge? Rory O'Farrell and others dutifully expend their valuable time advising "unaware" users NOT to click on download links and buttons after they are redirected to the SourceForge mirror page. While commendable, this is a "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" approach. No matter what efforts SourceForge make to "weed out" fraudulent and malware links, our mailing lists and forums continue to receive a steady stream of download problem messages from "unaware" users. There is no way to prove this discourages individuals and organizations from using AOO software, but continuously published reports of AOO distributing "unwanted" and/or "malware" programs reflects badly on us and by association the ASF. I have no personal "gripe" against SourceForge and Roberto Galoppini's support in this area is invaluable. However, I do not understand, or find any reasonable explanation, why our download page does not redirect to the ASF's own mirror network: https://www.apache.org/mirrors/ where our binaries are already being served by 200+ mirrors around the world. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2]
[not cross-posting] SourceForge is valuable to the project for providing the mirror capacity that AOO requires. The penalty is in regard to user distrust and these awful situations that the list and Forum folks have to contend with. As far as our users are concerned, it is the AOO project that is unreliable and has them need to be so cautious. Of course SourceForge relies on advertising revenue to offset their costs. That is to be expected. The problem is the confusion, not the advertising. We must work with SourceForge to avoid the confusion with regard to ad placement and prominence. Andrea has pointed out separately that the alternative mirror system may not be workable if even available for the demands that AOO downloads represent. - Dennis > -Original Message- > From: Dave Barton [mailto:d...@tasit.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 07:09 > To: Apache OpenOffice Users <us...@openoffice.apache.org> > Cc: Apache OpenOffice Developer <dev@openoffice.apache.org> > Subject: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2] [ ... ] > > Is it not time to _*SERIOUSLY*_ review the distribution of our binaries > via SourceForge? > > Rory O'Farrell and others dutifully expend their valuable time advising > "unaware" users NOT to click on download links and buttons after they > are redirected to the SourceForge mirror page. While commendable, this > is a "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" approach. > > No matter what efforts SourceForge make to "weed out" fraudulent and > malware links, our mailing lists and forums continue to receive a steady > stream of download problem messages from "unaware" users. > > There is no way to prove this discourages individuals and organizations > from using AOO software, but continuously published reports of AOO > distributing "unwanted" and/or "malware" programs reflects badly on us > and by association the ASF. > > I have no personal "gripe" against SourceForge and Roberto Galoppini's > support in this area is invaluable. However, I do not understand, or > find any reasonable explanation, why our download page does not redirect > to the ASF's own mirror network: > https://www.apache.org/mirrors/ > where our binaries are already being served by 200+ mirrors around the > world. > > Dave > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2]
Dave Barton wrote: I do not understand, or find any reasonable explanation, why our download page does not redirect to the ASF's own mirror network: https://www.apache.org/mirrors/ where our binaries are already being served by 200+ mirrors around the world. Leaving all the SourceForge discussion aside, one reasonable explanation for this last question is that the vast majority of Apache mirrors do NOT mirror OpenOffice: those who do are a minority. I've just tried with the Italian mirrors and only 2 out of 7 offer OpenOffice. Load balancers are broken by this incomplete mirroring: even if you try to download the source package http://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html you often have to try multiple mirrors before getting one that works. In short, the ASF mirror network is not nearly as complete and reliable as it seems at a first look (besides having other issues such as lack of stats and lack of unique download URLs). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2]
2015-11-21 19:28 GMT+01:00 Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>: > [not cross-posting] > > SourceForge is valuable to the project for providing the mirror capacity > that AOO requires. The penalty is in regard to user distrust and these > awful situations that the list and Forum folks have to contend with. As > far as our users are concerned, it is the AOO project that is unreliable > and has them need to be so cautious. > > Of course SourceForge relies on advertising revenue to offset their > costs. That is to be expected. The problem is the confusion, not the > advertising. We must work with SourceForge to avoid the confusion with > regard to ad placement and prominence. > With my SourceForge hat on, there are two ways we can jointly work on: 1. Report misleading ads here, following our instructions, see https://goo.gl/LQFHmE 2. Supporting the Clean Software Alliance guidelines (misleading ads) https://goo.gl/69XhqW For #1 I do actively monitor our mailing-list and I make sure SourceForge removes promptly misleading or unwanted ads. #2 would actually help to push the whole advertising industry to agree on more strict guidelines. It would probably help to contribute feedback to those guidelines, since those are in a commentary period till the end of the year. Having been involved in the CSA works I'd be happy to draft a comment if we intend to do so. Roberto > > Andrea has pointed out separately that the alternative mirror system may > not be workable if even available for the demands that AOO downloads > represent. > > - Dennis > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Barton [mailto:d...@tasit.net] > > Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 07:09 > > To: Apache OpenOffice Users <us...@openoffice.apache.org> > > Cc: Apache OpenOffice Developer <dev@openoffice.apache.org> > > Subject: SOURCEFORGE [Was: téléchargement version 4.1.2] > [ ... ] > > > > Is it not time to _*SERIOUSLY*_ review the distribution of our binaries > > via SourceForge? > > > > Rory O'Farrell and others dutifully expend their valuable time advising > > "unaware" users NOT to click on download links and buttons after they > > are redirected to the SourceForge mirror page. While commendable, this > > is a "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" approach. > > > > No matter what efforts SourceForge make to "weed out" fraudulent and > > malware links, our mailing lists and forums continue to receive a steady > > stream of download problem messages from "unaware" users. > > > > There is no way to prove this discourages individuals and organizations > > from using AOO software, but continuously published reports of AOO > > distributing "unwanted" and/or "malware" programs reflects badly on us > > and by association the ASF. > > > > I have no personal "gripe" against SourceForge and Roberto Galoppini's > > support in this area is invaluable. However, I do not understand, or > > find any reasonable explanation, why our download page does not redirect > > to the ASF's own mirror network: > > https://www.apache.org/mirrors/ > > where our binaries are already being served by 200+ mirrors around the > > world. > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
