world owners should be able hide group public instance
LoliGoddess
i have seen few times where big public instances either abusing mod powers or that world gets bugged and seeing people keep going to it the world owner should be able hide it from the list of public instances
Log In
Deantwo
I would argue that it isn't your job to moderate the instances of your published world. If an instance has abusive management, then hopefully people will leave it and it will become unpopular. Of course this assumes that the instance lists are working correctly and not showing old instance information.
Maybe we need a way to report or down-vote an instance, so problem instances can be deprioritized on the instance list. This would be useful for all VRChat worlds with many public instances. This would also put the responsibility in the hands of the community instead of relaying on the world's creator being a saint and having time to moderate stuff like this.
I am a firm believer that the world creator should not be responsible for moderating a published world. Leave moderating of instances to vote-kicking in Public instances and groups in Group Public instances.
kawashirov
Going back to original topic of this request, I believe and suggested already, world owner must not only be able to hide group publics, but also be able choose what other instance types are allowed at all. On some worlds, any public instances may ruin world experience: https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/ability-to-disable-public-instances-of-published-world-as-possible-solution-to-i
Deantwo
kawashirov: It would indeed be very nice to have more options for publishing than just "Private" (basically just unlisted) and "Public" that we have right now.
Some levels like:
- Public (same as current "public")
- Limited listed (world is listed but instances cannot be public or group public)
- Unlisted (same as current "private", anyone can make instances if they have the link)
- Group (only a specified group can create instances of the world)
- Private (only world creator can make instances of the world)
I discussed this a little in: https://feedback.vrchat.com/bug-reports/p/access-to-private-worlds
kawashirov
When you select world there always one public instance selected. Now
Group Public may be selected by default
.This is important, as a lot of ppl I know when want to hang out with random people, just clicking world and then "Join". Users just not expect to end in managed instances with specific set of rules, or just abusive. They assume the default "Join" button will send you to unbiased public space.
kawashirov
Other problems that contribute there:
Instance listing often
JUST DOES NOT WORK
.I just launched VRC and clicked popular public world to see instances... And there are
no instances
in list, but some random Group Public selected by default
. This time it's just innocent femboys group, next time it may be abusive group. Perfect trap for not so experienced ppl.
kawashirov
I would like to say that fundamental problem of why this abuse is possible -
most users just know nothing
about group instances and can't easily split apart
"free" instances and "managed" instances.First of all, group publics
looks almost the same
as normal publics.Group name looks the same as username, and no one checks usernames with no need.
Also, "3-dots" and "crown" icons
have no obvious meaning
. When groups just were introduced, all my friends who not watching development was "wtf is these 3 dots in main menu?" It's just not clear for users
who not familiar with how instances work. (This also related to "locked" and "unlocked" instances, a lot of users know nothing about this, but this is kind of different story.)
kawashirov
In instances list there is just no info about groups. "Group" instances just look like another type of public
giving no clue
it is may be managed by some strange group of ppl.
kawashirov
About semantics of "3 dots" icon: this is rare, not often used in software UIs, just google some examples.
kawashirov
However, this type is icon already used for "friends" tab (which is named "social" for some reason). But at the same time we already have second icon for friends.
So, we have 2 icons with same assumed semantics, but one of them actually have different semantic for most people, but that semantic represented by "3 dots" which makes no sense for most of users.
kawashirov
So first of all I suggest to replace icons, something like this.
kawashirov
aand representation of group public should be changed to something like this.
Pointing out the group itself at first
, in instance list. Replacing word "Group" by exact group name
.
kawashirov
This may be fixed by explicitly
separating list of instances
, putting groups down apart.