Changes to my class description were not altered

Hello,

I've made changes to the description of my class Dyverath (http://www.phpclasses.org/package/8079-PHP-Compose-and-execute-MySQL-database-queries.html), but they were not altered.
The current description is not correct and does not express what the class actually is about!
Also, I think I should be able to decide for my own how my class is described, because I'm the one who wrote it.
So, I will be making those changes again and please don't refuse them again!

Thanks.

All the changes done to descriptions go through moderation because it is important that the users understand what the package does when they read the description.

If you feel the description is not accurate, that is OK. Just propose a more accurate description.

The moderation always happens in the best interest of the authors, as a clear description helps the users to decide if they want to try the package based on what the description says it does.

If a description is not clear or mentions things that only the author understands because he knows the code, the users simply go away and move on to a different package.

For instance, if you say "It represents a database system with php classes." this is too vague. It may make sense to you as author, but for the users it is too abstract to understand what it means in practice.

So, to make it acceptable, please provide a better description that the users can understand without having to study your code first.

I hope you understand and cooperate.

I can understand the sense of this system, but as soon as you don't take the time to really understand what the package is about and then refuse the changes to the description which I do as the original author, then I think this goes beyond your responsibility.

Let's give it two clear examples:

1.
If I read the description you have made to my Dyverath class, the second sentense is "It can compose SQL queries using different classes for different types of queries like SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE.".
Now, when I take a look at my documentation (http://xyndravandria.ohost.de/Dyverath/Documentation/), I have mentioned these classes under "IV. Building a whole query manually" and I wrote that "Please note that this is not how Dyverath is thought to work! This is just if you want to make a very long query which is not yet supported to make with Dyverath, but of course might be added later.".
So when you put this as the second sentense to the description, you make the classes much more important than they actually are in the package. You make people think the main feature of this class is that there is a class for each kind of query and this is completely the opposite for what I have written this package.
I wrote it to make queries EASIER and FASTER IN PRACTICE, but I have not written this class to just use it to make queries more difficult than they already all.

2.
You have mentioned that
"A separate class can also query database table metadata like table fields and primary keys."
Again, this is wrong, because the feature with the primary keys what NOT created to get the primary keys of a table, but it was created to faster acesss a dataset by PASSING a primary key value to my classes.


So, to sum up:
It is nice that you take a look at the packages and write a description, but this should only be a SUGGESTION made by you and I it is completely wrong to force these description to the authors of the package even if they completely disagree to what you have written and even if they think this will rather damage the project because it's not emphasizing the real important features and eventually will lead to that people will not even take a look at the package.
So what you have done here is completely counterproductive and it rather causes damage to the packages (in my case) than helping it!

Apart from that, this is really insulting to me, because with taking me the possiblity of chosing my own descriptions and making me understand that your description is rather right, you are downgrading my competences as a web developer.

Don't you think you should react to my post?

Sorry for the delay, I was busy with the latest developments that I wanted to be ready now since it is the 14th anniversary of the site.

There still seems to be a misunderstanding.

As I explained, the descriptions exist to clarify the users coming to the site to quickly understand what the class can do, so they can decide if a class is useful enough to be downloaded.

For you as an author of the site, your descriptions may be OK because you know what your classes do, but for the user that never seen your code, you description may not be so evident.

When a description that you submit is fixed, that is most certainly the case.

If you still feel the fixed description is not accurate, that is OK, just add your improvements to clarify any inaccuracies. Additional rounds of fixes may happen. That is normal until all is clarified.

So feel free to edit your packages descriptions if you still feel they are not accurate.

If you do not agree with the fixes, that is OK, just try to provide a clear explanation why you do not agree that the fixes make the description cleared.

You just should not take any fixes as something personal. The fixes happen to make your package description clearer for the users, so they are motivated to try your package.

Are you sure that you have read my post? I don't think so.


This is really annoying now, because you're just repeating yourself while you ignore what I have actually wrote before.
You are not referring to the actual problem and the concret examples I have given.
There are no misunderstandings at all and you keep ignoring the actual problem I have described with a very long text including two conrect examples in my earlier post!


You have NOT understand what the package is about and you made a wrong description. In my last post, I have cleary described two points which you completely described wrongly.


1.
Why do you keep ignoring that I feel you haven't understand the package?
I have cleary described why I feel so in detail in the last long post I have made, but you haven't lost any word about this!


2.
I would like you to DIRECTLY refer to the two examples where I described what is wrong with the current description. Why do you ignore these examples?


Because of that, it is not true, that you help my project with these descriptions, you rather damage it, because you are not giving a right description, but a wrong description, which does NOT clearify what the package ACTUALLY is about.


3.
Why do you keep telling me that this description would help my package, while I have clearly and with a long text described why your description is wrong and why it does rather damage the project?


4.
Why do you keep refusing my alterations to the description, while you tell me here that I just have to make changes and you will accept them?


5.
Who do you think you are you that you think you can force your own descriptions to the actual author, just because YOU think they are rather correct?
This goes far beyond your responsibility, does neither help me, nor the project and is insulting to me.


I'm really thinking about removing my projects from this site, because you are obviously ignoring my problem and this is really disappointing.


So, there are five questions now and it would be great if you have an answer to all of them instead of just ignoring them again.

Well, if you are starting to become rude, it will be hard to help you.

It seems you do not agree with what I am telling you and then make unfair claims that I am not reading what you wrote.

I already answered to all your questions. If it is not clear for you I will try once more.

1. What I already told you is that if you feel I misunderstood your package, you just need to explain it again with a better description considering the explanations that were given to you why your previous editions were not accepted.

2. All package description changes are moderated. When the changes are reviewed you get a message with explanations to why the changes were done. Didn't you get those messages?

The first message said:

Please do not enter URLs in the description. Use the related links section
instead.

The second message said:

Please do not change the descriptions if your changes are not adding
anything to clarify what the package does.

For the last changed I explained above:

For instance, if you say "It represents a database system with php classes." this is too vague.

If you are not sure what these explanations mean and what do you need to do to make your changes acceptable, just ask.

3. As I explained, if you feel the moderated descriptions are not accurate, you just need to propose better ones, but you must read and follow the comments that were made to not fully accept your descriptions.

For instance, if a description is too vague, you need to propose a more concrete description that the users do not have doubts about what the description does when they read the description.

4. I never said that any changes you make will always be accepted. What I am telling you once more is that you need to submit more acceptable changes considering the comments that are sent to you when the descriptions are reviewed.

5. In the PHP Classes site it is up to the moderator to assure that the content accomplishes its purpose. This means that all descriptions for packages are produced by the moderator. All the descriptions the authors submit are just proposals. It has been this way since 1999 when the site started. There is no reason to change this.

If you prefer your own descriptions, just put them in a README file. The site does not change package file contents.

I hope you understand and cooperate.