Sorting of Themes Thread last updated on 2006-11-13 03:55:36

Posted by member 332237 on 2006-10-22 00:00:49

I think it would be an excelent idea to get some analytics going and create a "sort by # of downloads" option in the litestep theme browser.

Posted by member 212670 on 2006-10-22 01:36:00 link

That is the stupidest idea I've ever seen. I'm offended.

Posted by member 5575 on 2006-10-22 02:16:57 link

Really? Worse than some of mine even?

Posted by member 1 on 2006-10-22 04:29:22 link

Wont happen. In past versions of LSnet there was a display of the top 5 themes by download. What happened was it became a penis measuring stick and people up'd their counts just to get on the list. This is why you can only see how many downloads your own theme has, unless your an admin. Themes are about what you want as a user, not what everyone else wants. So go find what fits your needs and use it!

Posted by member 248213 on 2006-10-22 05:30:18 link

Yeah, downloads does not equal usage.

So 100 people may download some flashy looking theme, but only 3 actually use it 2 or more times,

Then only 30 people might download some other theme, and 28 people like it.


The best way to get accurate community feedback would be to have some kinda "phone home" function in the core, that tells a server what theme the user is running.

But that is kinda creepy :|

Posted by member 93947 on 2006-10-23 13:03:02 link

Phoning home, telling a server which theme people use? You are too late, i wrote scripts to automatically do that months ago ;p
http://www.ls-themes.org/index.php?cat=article&show=updater

Posted by member 248213 on 2006-10-23 19:43:24 link

THC: Yeah, but how accurate is that?
It needs to be mandatory to be accurate (which is also very creepy)

Posted by member 214393 on 2006-11-11 14:05:56 link

How about letting people rate the themes and sort by that rating?

Posted by member 1 on 2006-11-11 18:43:09 link

As soon as we get someone in here that can program a ratings system then it would become possible. But since nobody is coding for the site currently it is very hard to do.

Posted by member 212670 on 2006-11-11 18:45:26 link

I'm anti-rating. Comments are just fine.

Posted by member 214393 on 2006-11-11 19:09:55 link

You can't sort by how good a comment is.

What software drives this site? There are many scripts and CMS addons that could be used to add a rating feature.

Posted by member 1885 on 2006-11-12 03:27:28 link

Has it ever occured to you that maybe the reason there's no rating system is that (gasp!) we don't want one?

Personally I'm with xcal. Comments are good, ratings are useless. Or let me rephrase that: ratings are useful, but people who rate are in most cases useless. Just look at a place like customize.org. People just look at the screenshots and go "OMGZORZ! THIS THEME IS TEH RULEZ!" and give it a 100/100, even though the theme itself is seven years old and will not run on a modern LS setup. Or, alternatively, "THIS THEME IS GHEY" and give it 0.5/100 because they can't figure out how LS works. Ratings will tell you absolutely nothing about the quality of a theme.

Posted by member 214393 on 2006-11-12 03:30:28 link

Wow. Your lack of faith in this community is surprising.

I hold my fellow litesteppers in higher regard than that. This community would produce useful ratings.

Posted by member 212670 on 2006-11-12 05:04:41 link

West wasn't basing his opinion on a 'lack of faith.' He was actually basing it on fact and experience. The site he mentioned is probably the best example. There are countless cases there of 100% fanboi ratings on themes that aren't even close to being 'perfect,' not to mention the 1% ratings given to themes for no reason.

Posted by member 214393 on 2006-11-12 06:25:13 link

My point was that the two communities are distinctly different and that we should not expect the same results.

But it is clear that I am alone in my opinion, with the possible exception of Blairkatu and his "stupidest idea" ever.

Posted by member 1 on 2006-11-12 07:56:28 link

Something will be done in time as soon as we can find a programmer.

Posted by member 1885 on 2006-11-12 10:07:22 link

I hold my fellow litesteppers in higher regard than that.


I wasn't talking about "fellow litesteppers" (by which I assume you mean people who are serious about this shell), I was talking about the clueless morons who will rate themes based on screenshots or wallpapers or their own inability to understand how LS works. The same lazy and ignorant people who come to this forum posting questions about basic things that have been answered hundreds of times before. Or do you have any plan on how to prevent them from rating the themes? A short quiz before being allowed to rate maybe?

"LiteStep skins windows." [true] [false]


edit: Like this guy for example. Is that someone you'd trust with rating a theme?

Posted by member 5575 on 2006-11-12 13:26:05 link

C'mon West, what's your problem? It's the same way in the US with our electoral system, and that works O.... hmmm, wait a minute, I see your point.

Posted by member 214393 on 2006-11-12 14:54:37 link

Off topic: thanks for that link, West. It prompts me to ask this question, at my own peril: Why are the veteran members of this board so rude to new people and new ideas? "Stupidest idea ever" and "Because you are stupid" are not good recruitment methods.

It my view, it is a veteran's responsibility to help bring new members into the fold. Berating them helps nobody. Assisting them politely nets the community a new member who may turn out to be quite valuable.

You never know who you are insulting. Perhaps it is someone with great programming or theming talent or a who needs some help getting over the litestep learning curve. That person, once confronted in such a way, is likely to leave us forever.

Don't you want the community to grow and foster teamwork?

Posted by member 212670 on 2006-11-12 15:10:03 link

"Stupidest idea ever" was a sarcastic joke. I thought everyone knew that.

Before you lump me in to a "rude" or "unhelpful" type of category, I suggest you go looking for my posts and read them.

Posted by member 1 on 2006-11-12 15:18:43 link

If someone doesn't know how to look for an answer on their own or use the working search bar...I doubt they can program anything. However...I could be wrong...but I still can't excuse people for not using the tools we give them.

Posted by member 206411 on 2006-11-12 21:46:10 link

OOh shite...this damn thing is Bustugated. Hopefully the lemmings can fix it soon.
- LiteStep.net Development Team (tuxpow3r)

haha i've seen this message for about.. two/three years.. i love this website

Posted by member 1885 on 2006-11-13 03:55:36 link

Why are the veteran members of this board so rude to new people and new ideas?


New ideas? What new ideas? All I see is someone asking a question for the 100th time.

"Stupidest idea ever" and "Because you are stupid" are not good recruitment methods.


"Stupidest idea ever" was, as xcal confirmed, a joke. As for the second one... why should we want to "recruit" someone who is obviously too dumb or lazy to search a forum?

Assisting them politely nets the community a new member who may turn out to be quite valuable.


What kind of hippy forums have you been visiting? Most forums on the web have clear policies on conduct. First and foremost, you don't go asking questions randomly without first trying to find the answer for yourself. If you do, you're likely to get a verbal spanking in almost any forum. I don't see why ls.net should be different in that regard. I think it's very rude coming to a web community and just expecting people to hand you the answers without any effort on your behalf. We're not a live heldpdesk. That said, users who do search for answers and try a few things on their own before posting get perfectly polite and helpful responses. It's just that we don't get much of that particular kind of users.

Don't you want the community to grow and foster teamwork?


Oh, I sure do. But I don't see how teamwork is fostered by holding people's hands and repeatedly explaining things that they should be perfectly capable of finding out themselves.