Quote - How would you set up the certification process?

I was afraid someone might ask me that. LOL.

But seriously the certification process has to be a measure against a standard / criteria that has to be agreed with between the stakeholders (example - SM / Rendo / Content Creator). In this way a check list can be made such as the following example:-

001 Are all geometries in the Geometries folder? yes / no.

002 Are all textures in the Textures folder? yes / no.

003 Are there absolutely NO exclamation marks in the file/folder name? yes / no / depends!

999 And so on....

This check list can be part of Rendo's package to the Content Creators so that the CC's can check it themself and submit it with the product to Rendo for verification.

The check list should be reviewed often based on customer feedback (we customers are also stakeholders) on the products.

The check list should be realistic and applicable, and not just a wish list.

I'm not sure if the check list should be made public or included in the product package sold. That maybe a bit of a touchy point. Just like all other manufacturers our company does not publicly display it's internal quality check reports or neither should it. At the end there is always a warranty period and of course the Law.

Most manufacturing companies have Quality Assurance accreditation, but that is a huge overhead of time / labour / costs that someone (dearly beloved consumers) has to pay for at the end of the day.

Therefore the check list should be part of the natural workflow and assistance to, but not a burdon to, the Content Creators.

Just thought I'll add to my above certification process "guide" that this doesn't happen in any Company. Instead the Company creates a QA department.

At worst the QA department asks noone about how the work is actually done in each department and makes procedures that have nothing to do with the workflow and are a burden to all.

At best the QA department may ask the depatment managers how the work is done in their depatment.....as if they know!!! And then the QA department makes procedures that have nothing to do with the workflow and are a burden to those actually doing the work.

Let me reiterate my previous comment "All very boaring stuff that sucks the fun out of the job."

i like it.  i think you have provided a very solid approach.  If you have the time, talk with the others, get their input and have something i can present to the investors by apr 30th

All very boaring stuff that sucks the fun out of the job

That's with we need the breakroom*.lol

Quote - i like it.  i think you have provided a very solid approach.  If you have the time, talk with the others, get their input and have something i can present to the investors by apr 30th

Well I was even more afraid someone may ask that!

Thank you for your confidence in me and I hate to dissapoint you. But my day job is normally busy enough. Actually a little too quite at the moment because of the cascading effects of the Global Financial Crisis. Hence some quite time taken to check out Rendo's Galleries & Forums.

I understand the Certification process from what we do for our Company products and from what I learnt in Management classes (4 years of wishy washy stuff, except Accounting which seemed more solid). But I come to Rendo to relax and not do what I consider as their and the Content Creator's job discription to provide <> quality in products to the market.

Quote - That's with we need the breakroom*.*lol

AMEN brother!

Thank you for your confidence in me and I hate to dissapoint you. But my day job is normally busy enough. Actually a little too quite at the moment because of the cascading effects of the Global Financial Crisis. Hence some quite time taken to check out Rendo's Galleries & Forums.

You're welcome and thank you for your presentation.

Enjoy the quite while it last.  Eventually the Bulls must run.

I don't fret over this anymore. I've fixed so many Poser files over the years, free & paid content, that I can do it with my eyes closed and I'm not a content maker. Infact, I spend more time fixing files then I do rendering them. It's just the nature of the beast.

I don't fret over this anymore. I've fixed so many Poser files over the years, free & paid content, that I can do it with my eyes closed and I'm not a content maker. Infact, I spend more time fixing files then I do rendering them. It's just the nature of the beast.

Should we offer a repair service along with the certification process?

I recently put a ! in front of a folder name, for the sole purpose of putting it at at the top of the MAT folders in one of my products. It's located in MaterialsBionicRoosterProductName, so I saw no harm in doing it. I would never do that in the main library, only within the confines of my own folders, and only in certain circumstances. I've never done it before, but saw the need this time to keep a Bonus MATs folder at the top of the list instead of mixed in with the rest, somewhat hidden.

I recently put a ! in front of a folder name, for the sole purpose of putting it at at the top of the MAT folders in one of my products. It's located in MaterialsBionicRoosterProductName, so I saw no harm in doing it. I would never do that in the main library, only within the confines of my own folders, and only in certain circumstances. I've never done it before, but saw the need this time to keep a Bonus MATs folder at the top of the list instead of mixed in with the rest, somewhat hidden.

i don't see any harm in that.

I don't think certification is the right approach, I think it is too complex a solution, too costly in terms of effort required to police/manage it. It won't fix everything, there will still be vendors who don't seek certification for whatever reason, so there'll still be products out there that need fixing after you buy them. And Free stuff will still be a mess.

I think the simplest approach would be to draw up a really detailed set of guidelines based on some of the checklists that have been touched on in this thread and then to make those guidelines available to content creators. It would basically become a set of instructions on how to package a product.

Sure, there are vendors who will choose to stick with their !!!names and convoluted folder structures, but they wouldn't have bought into the certification process anyway.

The vast majority of vendors and freebie creators would welcome it, it's a heck of a lot easier to follow detailed guidelines/checklists than it is to invent your own system every time you do it and wonder if you got everything. At the moment everyone is making it up as they go along and the result is chaos. The end user probably can't tell a well-packaged product from a sloppy one anymore because the bad ones outnumber the good. Vendors have been getting away with sloppy work because customers often don't know any better.

Once Joe customer has a better idea of what constitutes a good product (via "The Guidelines") vendors will be under a bit more pressure to come up to standard, or risk bad reviews for sloppy work. A Pose should never ruin a facial expression or move the figure to a different place in the scene, but a lot of customers don't know that, they just get frustrated when it happens. If more customers demanded their money back (or a fix) when they encountered it you'd soon see vendors improving their standards and checking more thoroughly.

Quote - I don't think certification is the right approach, I think it is too complex a solution, too costly in terms of effort required to police/manage it. It won't fix everything, there will still be vendors who don't seek certification for whatever reason, so there'll still be products out there that need fixing after you buy them. And Free stuff will still be a mess.

I think the simplest approach would be to draw up a really detailed set of guidelines based on some of the checklists that have been touched on in this thread and then to make those guidelines available to content creators. It would basically become a set of instructions on how to package a product.

Sure, there are vendors who will choose to stick with their !!!names and convoluted folder structures, but they wouldn't have bought into the certification process anyway.

The vast majority of vendors and freebie creators would welcome it, it's a heck of a lot easier to follow detailed guidelines/checklists than it is to invent your own system every time you do it and wonder if you got everything. At the moment everyone is making it up as they go along and the result is chaos. The end user probably can't tell a well-packaged product from a sloppy one anymore because the bad ones outnumber the good. Vendors have been getting away with sloppy work because customers often don't know any better.

Once Joe customer has a better idea of what constitutes a good product (via "The Guidelines") vendors will be under a bit more pressure to come up to standard, or risk bad reviews for sloppy work. A Pose should never ruin a facial expression or move the figure to a different place in the scene, but a lot of customers don't know that, they just get frustrated when it happens. If more customers demanded their money back (or a fix) when they encountered it you'd soon see vendors improving their standards and checking more thoroughly.

That's the most sensible suggestion I've seen in this whole thread!!! If this were Facebook I'd have clicked on the Like link!

To use another post of mine from that 4 year old thread I mentioned before, I suggested something like this:

Quote - ReadMe
    Merchant  
        ProductName folder
            product readme files
Runtime
    Geometries
        Merchant
            ProductName
                product obj files
    Libraries
        Regular library folders
            Merchant
                ProductName
                    product files
                    AddOn folders*
    Textures
        Merchant
            ProductName
                product textures
                AddOn folders*
               
For the AddOn folders (marked by asterisks), what I mean are merchant addons to an existing product.  For example, if I made mats and textures for the Daz Morphing Fantasy Dress and sold them, my texture directory layout might look something like this:

    Pose
        MATs
            DAZ
                MorphingFantasyDress
                    KeithsAmazingMFD

    Textures
        DAZ
            Clothing (if organized like this, otherwise move stuff up a level by removing this one)
                MorphingFantasyDress
                    KeithsAmazingMFD

Doing it this way means it's a lot easier to find things.  I know all the MAT files from everyone making stuff for the MFD will be in the MFD directory structure.  If I want to move the dress from, say, the V3 runtime to a dedicated DAZ clothing runtime, it's easy to find all the files and the add-on products that I've bought.

At the time I suggested this, someone pointed out that they'd hate the structure the way I did it, and that's fair enough because that sort of thing was personal preference. What I was getting at, though, is that it isn't trying to create a folder structure that would make everyone happy, which is an impossibility, but one that's consistent, so that if and when I want to reorganize things to suit my preferences, I know where they can be found as a default in a newly unzipped/installed file.

The single biggest pain in the ass with the wildly individual structures in product distribution is the textures folder.

Quote - To use another post of mine from that 4 year old thread I mentioned before, I suggested something like this:

Quote -     Libraries
        Regular library folders
            Merchant
                ProductName
                    product files
                    AddOn folders*

    Pose
        MATs
            DAZ
                MorphingFantasyDress
                    KeithsAmazingMFD

At the time I suggested this, someone pointed out that they'd hate the structure the way I did it, and that's fair enough because that sort of thing was personal preference.

I would hate it too! In the libraries I don't want my top level folder to be cluttered with a million merchant names and not have any clue what's in them or what figure they are for. That's why I would structure it by figures first. IE:

    Libraries
        Regular library folders
            Figure Vendor (IE: DAZ or SM or 3D Zone etcetra)
                     Figure (IE: Victoria or Jessi or Toon Sam etcetra)
THEN I would go      Merchant
                                         ProductName
                                                    product files
                                                                    AddOn folders*

Yeah my tree structures are deeper but the top levels are very clean.

Quote - At the time I suggested this, someone pointed out that they'd hate the structure the way I did it, and that's fair enough because that sort of thing was personal preference. What I was getting at, though, is that it isn't trying to create a folder structure that would make everyone happy, which is an impossibility, but one that's consistent, so that if and when I want to reorganize things to suit my preferences, I know where they can be found as a default in a newly unzipped/installed file. The single biggest pain in the ass with the wildly individual structures in product distribution is the textures folder.

Amen!

I totally agree. I would not really like that particular structure. But as you say, it's not the specifics of any given structure that are important. No way will anyone come up with something that would satisfy everyone. All that matters is that the structure is logical and consistent.

With your suggestion, I'd probably rename or move an average of two folders for every product. At the moment, I'm renaming most of them. But I don't even bother with textures because I'd like to have time to render something occasionally. As a result, the mere thought of actually moving products from one runtime to another makes me want to cry.

Quote -

That's the most sensible suggestion I've seen in this whole thread!!! If this were Facebook I'd have clicked on the Like link!

Really?! Because that's what I've been advocating from the get go. I guess I haven't been very clear. Maybe "certification" was the wrong word; it was one I borrowed from MicroSoft.

As obm890 rightly states, the core of all of this is nothing more than a clearly defined set of standards, guidelines, conventions - whatever you want to call them.

When I was doing programming work, the better run shops all had some set of standards regarding coding, naming conventions etc. While these standards were never entirely satisfactory to everyone, everyone agreed that any standard was better than no standard at all, but that's what we have right now with Poser - no standards. To say that merchants are free to come up with their own standards is a little misleading. It would be more accurate to say that they are obligated to come up with their own standards. I suspect that most merchants would be delighted to have a set of clearly defined standards to follow.

Earlier today I was at the Dimension 3D site looking at some of the tools they have there, and I realized that almost everything we have been talking about on this thread could be automated, and in fact probably has been automated. See, e.g., the Poser File Organizer and the Runtime Repair tools. So what I'm suggesting is very simple and very easy to follow and very easy to check. The hard part will be in putting the list together.

As I said earlier, it would be nice if SM or Renderocity took the lead with this, but, really, anyone could do it. Remember - any standard is better than no standard at all. No matter what the standards are, there will be those who will object and often they will have very valid reasons for their objections. That's just the nature of the beast. Of course, users could still reorganize and rename everything to their hearts' content.

Quote - I would hate it too! In the libraries I don't want my top level folder to be cluttered with a million merchant names and not have any clue what's in them or what figure they are for. That's why I would structure it by figures first. IE:

I keep all my stuff in seperate runtimes, so that isn't relevant in my case.

OK this is my suggestion for folder / file structure (based on Poser 5 and later for the PC). And you may notice no exclamation marks. !!Please!! LOL

One main thing to point out is that some files can be moved around whilst other files shouldn't. This is because of the file path created withing the library files to load geometries, textures, etc.

Basically the library files are an instruction file to load content (but of coarse they do a bit more than that). And the geometries, textures, etc are the content to be loaded.

For example: Mum wants to make omlet and gives you an instruction to get some eggs from farmer John at No 3 Lanes End. But farmer John has moved. The instructions are no longer valid so mum can't make you an omlet. Sigh!

The Hand file should be hd2 / hdz. And the Face file should be fc2 / fcz.

This is the correct image now. Sorry about that, my eggs were scrambled. LOL

Again, there is no way I would ever have a million vendor names at the top of my runtime libraries structures with no indication as to which figure their products were for. First of all you would very quickly find that your top folder was over run by vendor names and second you would have to root down their file structure and HOPE that their products tell you which figure they are for. (That hardly EVER happens).

The above method is the quickest way to clutter your runtime and waste your time forever searching for items for the character you are using in your scene.

The market is still the best place for vetting products. I do not mean they should not be tested by the creator, but I have bought products that were reportedly tested and fixed and retested and still encountered issues. I also have bought products that no indication that they were tested and never encountered a problem. (I also have bought products that there was no indication they were tested and they were dogs)

The market is best because if you buy something that is no good, you will not turn around and buy another similar product without some reason to try it again (unless you are an idiot or a masochist)...  There are some vendors I will never buy from again. There are some I will always buy from.

I do think vendors do need our feedback. If we buy a product and encounter an issue, contact the vendor. Do not give them a bad rating, give them a chance to fix it. On the same note, just because the vendor is a friend, do not give them glowing reviews. If you are a true friend, be honest (with Sitemail) give them a chance to improve the product and then write a factual review. Piling sugar on crap will not make the crap any better and will ruin the sugar.. (you will ruin your reputation and do nothing for the vendors)

@SteveJax - The vendor does not know your runtime structure one level after the official Poser folders. And basically a purchaser doesn't give a F%$#K about the vendors runtime structure either.

I am 100% certain that we all like to structure our folders differently to each other with noone willing to budge because we all think and work differently. Our workflows are not all the same. So there has to be some reasonable compromise.

Provided that the vendor keeps to the folder/file structure as I suggested then you can move (yes move) the library instruction files (cr2, pp2, pz2, etc) where ever you want within the appropriate official Poser library folder and your prefered subfolder (not mine, or the vendors, or others, but your prefered subfolder).

However the files/folders within the external folders (geomeries, textures, morphs, etc) must not be moved (so as not to break the file addressing link as I previously advised). Considering a purchaser (and most noobs) normally only needs to access the files in the library folders then that should not be a problem.

I expect the vendor subfolder would be named appropriately to identify what the contents are for and I expect the name of the zip file would also give you a hint to what the files are for (and it should always include a readme).

Example: vendorname_V4_naughtystuff_253747.zip

That was uncalled for. I was merely voicing my opinion the same as everyone else. Your assumption that purchasers don't give a hoot about the vendors runtime structure is however, complete nonsense. This thread wouldn't exist if we all didn't care about the product runtimes that vendors are using.

@SteveJax - My sincere appologies if what I wrote came across rude. I was venting some frustration, and that lead me to exaggerate a bit, but I wasn't trying to target anyone personally.

I recently had an experience with a customer on the supply of technical documentations. All because what our factory names the documents  is not what the customer names the documents then the customer has not accepted we have actually supplied the required documents.

I cannot change our factory documentation because it is part of the internal control system that has been developed for the global market; not for a specific customer. Therefore to reach a compromise I have to reissue the documents with two title blocks; our factory title block and another one I created specifically for this perdantic customer. It's been a frustrating week.

My sincere appologies again.

Appology accepted. I'm familiar with stress related foot in mouth disease. You're quite forgiven. If I knew you were a huggy person I'd give you one. LOL! (Yeah I'm a hugger)

When I was first working with Poser and trying to figure out their library (dis)organization, I was struck by how many people took a vendor-centric approach to their runtimes. My feeling was that if I wanted an evening dress I would look for evening dresses regardless of the vendor. Having done this for a while I'm beginning to gravitate to the vendor-centric approach myself.

So not only will it be impossible to please everyone with a single standard, you're not even going to be able to please the same individual as their style evolves. Still, that's OK. Any standard is better than no standard.

However, one of the considerations to any proposed standard should be ease of reorganization.

LBAMagic,

If I used your file setup, I would have to change EVERY folder.

Anytime I have a folder with the vendor's name, that folder goes to the bit-bucket.

It may hurt their egos, but I don't want to see the vendor's name as a seperate folder or as the leading part of the folder.  I care about the product, not the vendor. 

How about this example instead:

Libraries

               Character -

                                   Product name(Vendor Name)

Libraries

                   Character - Evening Dress(Hongyu)

                                      Evening Dress(Idler 68)

                                      Evening Dress(Vendor Name Here)

With this set-up in the Poser runtime, all the dresses are together, and if the vendor wants to add a million exclaimation points, it will just reorder my list of evening dresses, not the entire folder.

Quote - LBAMagic,

If I used your file setup, I would have to change EVERY folder.

Anytime I have a folder with the vendor's name, that folder goes to the bit-bucket.

It may hurt their egos, but I don't want to see the vendor's name as a seperate folder or as the leading part of the folder.  I care about the product, not the vendor. 

How about this example instead:

Libraries

               Character -

                                   Product name(Vendor Name)

Libraries

                   Character - Evening Dress(Hongyu)

                                      Evening Dress(Idler 68)

                                      Evening Dress(Vendor Name Here)

 With this set-up in the Poser runtime, all the dresses are together, and if the vendor wants to add a million exclaimation points, it will just reorder my list of evening dresses, not the entire folder.

I'd even be satisfied with this simplified version of what I suggested. Simple fact. It's easier to find a dress for your figure if it's in a "Clothing Subfolder" under that figures main folder. Plain and simple. I just go the extra step and put all my characters under main folders for who made them like:

Character
          DAZ
               Figure
                    Clothing
                           Dresses
                           Shoes
                           Pants
                           Shirts
                           Underwear
                           Other
          Smith Micro
               Figure
                    Clothing
                           Dresses
                           Shoes
                           Pants
                           Shirts
                           Underwear
                           Other

This my actual libraries (sorry it in in Das Studio).

@All - I think now I understand there has been some missunderstanding. My file setup is only for  the vendor to distribute their products. It is not for the end user (purchaser).

There really can't be one standard for all as everyone agrees that we like to organise our files differently as our workflows and think are different.

However with the vendor distributing their product in one standard then the end user can easily find andthe products and relocate them to their library subfolder of their choice.

Setting standards isn't a problem, many stores already do that and some are stricter than others and the concept  of a "ISO" style standard makes sense. The question I see here is going to over see this?

Because stores and content creators have time and financial constraints which might clash with the standards, would you go back to the longstanding idea of the "poser guild"?

If so then, then the 2nd question is who runs the guild?

Quote - Setting standards isn't a problem, many stores already do that and some are stricter than others and the concept  of a "ISO" style standard makes sense. The question I see here is going to over see this?

Because stores and content creators have time and financial constraints which might clash with the standards, would you go back to the longstanding idea of the "poser guild"?

If so then, then the 2nd question is who runs the guild?

Yeah I remember "The Poser Guild"! That sure lasted long didn't it?

Quote - I'd even be satisfied with this simplified version of what I suggested. Simple fact. It's easier to find a dress for your figure if it's in a "Clothing Subfolder" under that figures main folder. Plain and simple. I just go the extra step and put all my characters under main folders for who made them like:

People are missing the point.

This isn't about setting up a file system that everyone would switch over to. As has clearly been demonstrated, this simply is not going to happen.

It's about some consistency in the installation. What you do after that, however you want to reorganize it, is your own damn business. Which is exactly the situation as it stands right now, so you're not any further behind. The goal would be to provide some sort of logical basis, the raw material, as it were, for your later reorganization. If you want to put all your dress CR2s in one folder, knock yourself out. The point is that when you install, you know that what you just installed would have a certain organization so that you know where everything is. It doesn't matter if you like where it is or not; nothing prevents you from changing it.

Think of it like going into a supermarket. The vast majority of supermarkets look pretty much the same. Fresh vegetables and fruit are off on one side, the meat and dairy on another, there's an aisle where all the cereals are, so on and so forth.

Maybe you don't like the way it's organized. Maybe you'd organize the food in a different way, just like you do at home when you take the food there. But that's not the point. The point is that there's a pretty standard supermarket setup that allows a wide range of people to quickly locate what they need and then go off and do whatever they want with what they've got.

Same thing for department stores. There's a very good reason why the inside of a WalMart looks a lot like the inside of a Zellers looks a lot like the inside of a K-Mart looks a lot like the inside of a Target looks a lot like the inside of a Sears. They've adopted a standardized approach that allows the costumer to find things. I've been in department stores that didn't belong to a major chain, and didn't follow their type of layout, and it took me forever to find anything I was looking for because of their individualistic way of organizing things.

Yes.  This is it, here.  Consistancy would be a plus.

Quote - People are missing the point.

This isn't about setting up a file system that everyone would switch over to. As has clearly been demonstrated, this simply is not going to happen.

It's about some consistency in the installation. What you do after that, however you want to reorganize it, is your own damn business. Which is exactly the situation as it stands right now, so you're not any further behind. The goal would be to provide some sort of logical basis, the raw material, as it were, for your later reorganization. If you want to put all your dress CR2s in one folder, knock yourself out. The point is that when you install, you know that what you just installed would have a certain organization so that you know where everything is. It doesn't matter if you like where it is or not; nothing prevents you from changing it.

Think of it like going into a supermarket. The vast majority of supermarkets look pretty much the same. Fresh vegetables and fruit are off on one side, the meat and dairy on another, there's an aisle where all the cereals are, so on and so forth.

Maybe you don't like the way it's organized. Maybe you'd organize the food in a different way, just like you do at home when you take the food there. But that's not the point. The point is that there's a pretty standard supermarket setup that allows a wide range of people to quickly locate what they need and then go off and do whatever they want with what they've got.

Same thing for department stores. There's a very good reason why the inside of a WalMart looks a lot like the inside of a Zellers looks a lot like the inside of a K-Mart looks a lot like the inside of a Target looks a lot like the inside of a Sears. They've adopted a standardized approach that allows the costumer to find things. I've been in department stores that didn't belong to a major chain, and didn't follow their type of layout, and it took me forever to find anything I was looking for because of their individualistic way of organizing things.

Because stores and content creators have time and financial constraints which might clash with the standards, would you go back to the longstanding idea of the "poser guild"?

Most certainly...Question is though,  if the Poser Guild is reborn from the ashes of its former self,  will the new members carry the idea in their hearts or in their wallets?

If so then, then the 2nd question is who runs the guild?

Good question...  Should we consider the triangle as a symbol of the balance of power?

Exactly, Keith.

I'm going to fiddle with any imposed structure, in order to suit my needs. And I will probably change it over time.

But it would make it so much easier if the structure I started with, directly from the vendors, was consistent.

Heck, it would make a HUGE difference if vendors would just agree to put their morphs in the same morph folder and their readme's in the same place -- with unique file names. If we could get extra userguides, templates, backgrounds, and pz3's in the same places, I'd be ecstatic.

I don't see why these small changes would be so hard. But it's not unlike making public policy. The perfect really does turn out to be the enemy of the good.

 It is very irritating when you have quite a few resources and it takes awhile to find what youd like to use. Honestly when im working I dont care to waste time searching for things nor renaming unless its a really really needed product, i just avoid those merchants. My dream is for a uniform and sensible naming scheme that everyone would use instead of variously the "!!!" etc, or the vendors name or the studios name or some other name. Thats ok tho, Im moving on to other software so poser will just be a side and its respurces will be exported.