Sorry, but me as a user would prefer to search for released games and mods, whether it is Steam, Gamefront or any other site, not for games and mods judged as "active" by a minority. One could question your motives, are you so jealous and do you hate popular games so much that you would like to label them as unwanted and inappropriate just because they are finished (complete) and there is no longer need for them to be in development?
The only problem is profiles hosting only outdated releases (not working in any way) or profiles marked as released but never released to the public. Not sure what you (Rackhim and RealApprentice) are really hinting at (which really sounds like "we can't win in a popularity contest, so let's at least block and hide popular released games and mods so they get out of our way")?
I don't think it's fair to accuse people of something that isn't the case when only a suggestion of a level of criteria is being put on the table. No matter where you go on the internet, people will always face a certain level of criteria. Those levels will be different when you visit ModDB, CNN or even the New York Times but none the less, they will be there. For ModDB, all uploads have a file, preview image, name and summary to begin with in order to be accepted. For CNN and the New York Times, all their articles must meet their respective journalistic criteria in order to be published.
In essence, this suggestion doesn't differ much from the criteria you are using for dead mods, as seen in the following quote (one of your posts from 2014):
feillyne wrote: Removed, to note you don't have to report old dead mods updated 4-8 years ago as those can be progressively and easily caught & handled by the staff.
feillyne wrote: So please report only new 1-24 months old (or last updated) TBD mods that have no media (screenshots, etc) any longer on their profiles - mods canned by developers themselves that were never archived or removed off the site.
feillyne wrote: That also includes recently "released" mods whose downloads and pictures were deleted and are not available anywhere or original developers do not wish them released here (so "released" mods that became "unreleased").
In here, you lay out several criteria for (dead) mods that need to be met in order to be deleted from ModDB. It's a stretch but one can assume when you don't see what you want to see, you'll get them "out of your way". Our suggestion really has nothing to do with a "popularity contest" as you are bringing it. Returning to the earlier mentioned Filesnetwork example: if you look at one of their pages, you'll see on the right two listings, Game Portals and The Archives. The first were the sites for the games they considered active, the latter were those that they didn't see as active anymore and for that, they had their own levels of criteria.
In no way do I say that those files/games need to be deleted, they just have to be flagged differently to prevent the system from clogging up. Their content will remain there but people will have to make a little more effort in order have them found, which won't be much of a problem because if I look for stuff that is at least twenty years old, I don't expect to find it through regular channels.
The level of criteria I propose for games and mods to be flagged 'active' or 'archived' on ModDB are:
- 1) Is the developer/publisher still supporting the game by releasing patches for the multiplayer part or keeping the masterservers running?
- 2) Does the game has an active modding community that periodical released new maps, skins and other stuff?
- 3) Do people still play the game?
I'm quite convinced that whenever a developer doesn't update their game anymore, the publisher pulled the plug on the masterservers, no new maps are released and only four people are playing the game over the course of the year, everyone will agree that that particular game should be considered flagged 'archived'.