Is it just me, or is the download section becoming more and more cluttered with junk?

Looking at just the reports, there are 36 pages of them - but if you weed out all the doubles, I would guess there would be about 20 pages or so...

By doubles I mean people uploading reports they did not create themselves. An example: There are nine copies of the "Invelos Simple Listing (v 1.0)" report - oddly enough, none of them uploaded by Ken. Now, I could ofcourse take a guess as to why some people do this, but every time I arrive at the same answer - an answer I can't accept, as I simply refuse to believe that anybody is that stupid!

Maybe it would be an idea to let the reports go through a screening process as the profiles already do? This could perhaps even be automatic, and check if there is already a report with the same name, if the thumbnail matches a thumbnail in another report or if the description in the report matches the description in another report, and then reject the upload if any of these are true...

Okay, we might get get around the human involvement anyway, as it seems a lot of people uploading reports have trouble understanding the categories - or maybe it is just me that can't get my fat head around how a report can be both "Detailed" and "Simple"...

One last thing: The plug-in forum is almost overflowing with great and useful plugins - why aren't any of them offered up for download in the Plugins-section of the download page? After all, if that was never the intention, what is the point of the Publisher-field?

Oh yeah, will the search-function on the downloads be fixed at some time? It is still taking you to the login-page when trying to search, and I know that this was reported months ago...

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting Rander:

Quote:
One last thing: The plug-in forum is almost overflowing with great and useful plugins - why aren't any of them offered up for download in the Plugins-section of the download page? After all, if that was never the intention, what is the point of the Publisher-field?

Last I heard this was more for legal protection for Invelos.  If someone created a malacious plug-in that formatted your drive or something like that, and Invelos was the company that provided that download, it could cause them some headaches.  Since they're created by a third party, it's safer for the third party to host them.  At one point Ken mentioned that he was working on something, but it never happened.

Okay, I'm not that much in to american law (except I'm amazed what americans can sue each other for - but that is a whole different problem), but wouldn't that problem be solved if it was simply stated on the page that Invelos did not do them? Something along the lines of "The following plugins were not developed by Invelos, therefore we can not be hold responsible for their function?"

Quoting RossRoy:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
If someone created a malacious plug-in that formatted your drive or something like that

I've never coded a plugin, so I would know, but shouldn't the plugin engine prevent that?

No.  It would be very easy to do.

As for American law, I'm not familiar with it either.  But if Ken feels it's not with the risk, I can live with that.