No offense to you but I hear a lot of talk and little real action on that end. I've worked through at least 4 programmers, left hanging and have come to the conclusion that if it's not already done, working and support ready, it ain't worth talking about.
************************************************** **********************
Of course most programmers suck, so that is not a solution for everyone.
************************************************** **********************
The third thing I noticed, was the scripts I saw were from programmers, but where were THEIR freesites? Their AVS sites? Their TGP galleries? Did I know any of these people from the boards over the years? Did I know them as adult webmasters? No. None of them did I know of or hear of before coming across their sites and scripts. While that doesn't mean they weren't webmasters, it means I saw these products as coming from companies, from programmers, not with adult webmaster experience behind them. (Again, they might have it, I'm just saying at the time my observation.) So I think the advantage Content God has is "it's by adult webmasters for adult webmasters."
************************************************** *********************
Drav, I know some very good programers who have done very well in adult - you just do not see them publicly.
As far as customizng scripts, I always would advise people if they have the money build their own, so they have full control.
Why would someone like me give you all my unique, cool ideas for you guys to charge me to add to your script, that you would then sell to other webmasters.
Have to keep somethings proprietary..... unique ideas are rare in this business.
************************************************** *********************
PHP? While I am by NO means technical, and PHP is a wonderful language, I've had enough programmers I asked about custom projects lately tell me that it's not a hearty language for what *I* want to do that I seriously wonder what it is for...
************************************************** *********************
you have to be very careful in selecting any "automation" software to make sure that you avoid looking like everyone else. Your galleries and sites can get lost in a seas of similar sites if you are not careful.
Also, everyone works differently, we all see the process differently. Be careful in selecting any tool that makes you significantly change the way you are working, you might find the losses exceed the gains.
************************************************** *********************
I agree whoelheartdly. That is why I have have done most of our coding ourselves, or at least hired people I knew I could trust. There are TOO many FAUX programers out there
************************************************** *********************
The problem is programmers. Mike if you're set on developing something I'd love to here more about it and if you're open to it, I'd love to work with you on this and help you defray cost if it's something I can use.
Otherwise, once I do find a programmer I'll develop something so flexiable anyone can use it.
************************************************** *********************
Plugger, I am no programer. But I try to keep up with trends and such... I really do not know anyone programing in PERL anymore... everything has gone to PHP. But hey, what do I know?
************************************************** *********************
Diana: You get into that "what I really want and how I really work" thing that makes commercial programs harder to work with. There are some really good programmers out there that can do the work, but the good ones are usually booked many months ahead!
************************************************** *********************
Takes a realllllll deeep breath...............
Ok, I have been following this thread with interest...lol... Have been holding back my comments but finally decided to dive on in
First of all.... Dravyk, I have not seen Content God (have seen the specs listed on the site and such) so, I am not makingany comments about the package in any way.. If it does everything you say it does then it is probably at present the strongest full package available right now.. and your comments above, about how it was developed hit the nail right on the head....
Lots of bagging on programmers in this thread... I am a fairly newbie webmaster, but I am a 20+ year programmer and systems designer, and as such, I am taking it upon myself to do a little defending..
First of all... MOST programmers are not great designers. For a system to work properly, it must first be designed properly... I see, in our industry, a lot of folks working with individual scripts, not a package.. Almost any programmer can pull off an individual script that does it's one thing properly. Putting together a system, or package if you will, is a completely different story... From my experience in system design, the designer must have a complete understanding of what he/she is trying to automate.... You cannot just go hire a programmer, explain in user terms what you want and expect a good solid program out (unless you are in the 1% of users who actually know how to describe a process). A good design will come from many hours of observing how people do a particular task... In the scenario that Dravyk describes above, he used folks who had actually built sites to define and create Content God. This is the right way to do it. Quite often, programmers get blamed for not being able to complete a project. In my experience, many people hiring programmers do not know how to define a project. Often definition is in pieces.. I want it to do such and such and such and such. The programmer takes this and runs with it and produces his INTERPRETATION of "such and such and such and such". His interpretation is not what the user expected, so therefore the programmer has screwed up. Not the way it should be looked at in reality. When designing a package, the designere should sit down with the users and get all the info he can extract from them. He should them diagram it out, work up some screen mockups and process mockups, go back in front of the users and say "Is this what you wanted?". The answer from the users is almost always "no" on the first round. The designer takes teh feedback from the users, makes adjustments, re-presents to them and then repeats and repeats until the users are saying, "Yes, that is what I want". At that point, the designer can produce a set of system specifications that virtually any programmer could code from. Unfortunately, that process takes a lot more time than most users are willing to give. Users don't understand why the programmer cannot just sit down and code what the user says to code. Well, most of the time the programmer does code what the user SAYS they want, unfortunately, what the user SAYS they want is not usually what they actually WANT. There are many good programmers out there (mainstream and adult) that can code virtually any system if it is well designed, there are bad programmers out there too, they usually end up out of work or working for a consulting firm and getting lots of bench time. If you are trying to come up with a good package that covers all your needs and is flexible enough to be added to without much effort... A good dynamic system that basically acts like it thinks for itself, then you want to start with a good systems designer, NOT a programmer.
The comment above "Be careful in selecting any tool that makes you significantly change the way you are working, you might find the losses exceed the gains." is a very true one, unfortunately, the only way to avoid "significant changes in your work habits" is to have a package designed that emulates exactly the way you do your work.
Unfortunately, that option is a very expensive one. To have a system designed especially for you means that you are paying ALL of the development costs (my current charge for design hours is $100.00/hour, coding is $75.00, and I am considered cheap around here..lol). If the designer/programmer is going to be allowed to market the package, then they might work with you on a split deal or a royalty deal.... If you cannot afford "Full Customization", then you are stuck with "off the shelve" or something that someone else has developed. At that point, you have adjustments to make to your work habits to use the package effectively.
A BIG misunderstanding often occurs between USERs and Designers/programmers during the definition process. Often the user describes everything in INPUT terms, "well, I want them to enter their email address...etc etc etc". When I am designing a system, I could not care less what INPUT the user thinks they need. I want to know what the user wants OUT of the system. The OUTPUT should always drive the input, not vice versa. Way too often, the definition of reports is "to be defined later". Doesn't work. If I do not know what you want out of the system, I can not possibly decide what to capture and how to capture it on the front end. If I know what you want out, I can define what needs to go in. My favorite example of that comes from my "Junkmail" days. I was working for one of the largest Junkmailers in the country, doing custom marketing database solutions. The client decided that they wanted to mail Birthday cards to their database members, unfortunately, while investigating the database we found that although AGE was captured, none of the client input devices had ever asked for BIRTHDATE. In the clients eyes, they were the same thing, but they are not. We ended up in many hours of trying to define an accurate algorithm to pinpoint the birthday based on how many times a member had answered the AGE question and what the date was when they answered. The algorithm ended up being accurate to within 364 days. The client was angry over the whole situation, but when we went back to the OUTPUT definition, never had a birthday mailing been mentioned, the only thing they wanted reported was an age report. They had already been asking the AGE quwestion before they came to us as a client, so without knowing that they were going to want to do the Birthday tracking, noone had suggested that they change the question. Was this the Programmers fault. hardly...
Anyway, I have gone on and on on this, I don't know if I have made my point...lol... But hopefullym, I have contributed to the discussion.. from a programmers point of view.