Quote:
Originally Posted by fuckinglacist
Let me be the first. What a stupid suggestion. Now I'm not sure whether I need to update unless I download, lol.
|
I’m not surprised.
The file was named that way so people could immediately see what they were supposed to download. If they were unsure, they could always check the changelog. However, people also specifically asked for the changelog to be provided, and then many of them didn’t actually go back and read it.
What’s frustrating is that the person who originally requested the change is now questioning the exact approach they asked for. I assume they now understand why the original method made more sense.
You were right when you pointed out that, with the current approach, there’s no clear way to know whether the file has been updated or not. The irony is that this is exactly the issue people previously said they wanted to avoid, and now it has created a different problem.
People may now say, “Why don’t you just mention in the first post that it has been updated?” I’ve done that before, and people still didn’t read it.
The simple routine is supposed to be: go to the post, click the download link, download and run the file, and then return to the post if you need more information. The problem is that once they’ve downloaded it, they may not even know which version they downloaded.
At the same time, people have repeatedly said that all they want is the download link and no additional information. That is exactly what they were given.
So yes, you’re right. The current approach does create confusion, but it’s worth pointing out that this is largely the result of trying to accommodate the feedback that was given in the first place.