Public Forums 71,145 posts

[oavs Friend oavsJoin date: June 2008Posts: 12Downloads:0Uploads:0 Thanks: 3]

#265019

Hi

Yes I am getting the same message with all JA templates. How do you install ‘Quick start’ ?

[oavs Friend oavsJoin date: June 2008Posts: 12Downloads:0Uploads:0 Thanks: 3]

#265022

What does the quick Start ‘ look like? I am new to this . And not all files have ‘Quick Start’ I can only see only one names ‘JA Archenar v1.2 for Joomla 1.5.x’ and this one installed fine

[markb1439 Friend markb1439Join date: August 2008Posts: 124Downloads:0Uploads:1 Thanks: 14 Thanked: 34 times in 11 posts]

#265024

Instructions are included.

The QuickStart is a complete Joomla installation with the template and demo content. Start over (new installation) and upload the contents of the QuickStart package to your web directory, then go through the Joomla install process. Make sure to use the “Install Sample Data” option.

I have to go to sleep, so please forgive me if you don’t hear back.

[Menalto Friend MenaltoJoin date: May 2007Posts: 4736Downloads:0Uploads:43 Thanks: 2 Thanked: 531 times in 361 posts]

#265028

Keep this post on its subject, if you have problems with a template use the forum board for the specific template, not here.

[tanisha Friend tanishaJoin date: July 2007Posts: 30Downloads:0Uploads:0 Thanks: 32 Thanked: 4 times in 1 posts]

#265039

tcraw1010;73033You didn’t “pay for” two templates a month, you paid for membership into the JA Template Club so you can have access to the JA Template library. Changes are, you – like the vast majority of us – joined because you saw one particular template that you wanted to use. Being treated to two template releases per month is an added bonus – especially considering that the price to join the JA Template Club is comparable (and in some cases less) to all other Template Clubs who all produce one template per month.

So, your “compensation” is another full year of 2 templates per month – afterwhich you can make the conscious decision whether quantity is more important to you than quality.

You are jumping to conclusions here. 1. Getting 2 templates per month is NOT an “added bonus“, JA made the decision themselves when they started that they would release 2 templates per month, no one forced them. I joined this club knowing that I would have a choice of 2 templates per month to choose from when creating a site, not because I saw one I liked, unlike you.

“Quality over quantity”… why didn’t JA think of this earlier,.. they don’t have the ability to release 2 quality templates in one month??

I expect to be compensated as my membership lasts till August 2012, and I paid for 2 templates per month, which means I expected to have access to TWO products (templates) per month.. and I won’t be getting that.

Cheerio

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#265053

<em>@markb1439 73079 wrote:</em><blockquote>
Will JA die if it goes forward with only one template per month? No. But will more people be likely to buy if they offer two high-quality templates? Absolutely. Why is that so hard to understand?[/quote]
Why is it so hard for YOU to understand that JA has been offering two templates a month for three years, and they keep getting complaint after complaint, rant after rant about “repackaged” this and “repackaged” that?

Why is it so hard for YOU to understand that this issue has been debated MULTIPLE TIMES here on the Community Forum – each time with the MAJORITY CONSENSUS being that JA should switch to one template a month toward the goal of increasing overall quality in both templates and support?

Why is it do hard for YOU to understand that your self-serving “plain and simple” conclusion is not as “plain and simple” as you seem to so naively believe …. if it were, do you not think such would have been implemented by now?

markb You think JA’s quality alone is enough to give it an advantage over competitors, but many people don’t share that view. [/quote]
Judging by most of the comments within THIS thread, it seems that many people DO share this view.

markbBy the way, you keep talking about how the vote was overwhelmingly to cut the number of templates. That’s because people were only given two options:
– Get two templates of questionable quality per month; or
– Get one template of good quality.[/quote]

That created a dilemma and basically told users that the only way they could get acceptable quality was to choose the second option. I would have chosen that option two, with only those options available. But I’m saying that there should have been a third option:

– Get two templates of good quality, just like I thought I was supposed to be getting all along.

There was a whole lot more to the discussions than that – including discussion as to JA hiring more Support/Development Staff. It was ALL discussed, Mark. I’m sorry you chose not to participate.

TomC wrote:

Not according to many people. I like lots of the JA stuff, but lots of people complain about the lack of versatility. Other services offer templates and extensions comparable to many JA templates.

HENCE THE DECISION TO FOCUS ON SUPPORT AND QUALITY.

Thank you for so aptly answering your own question as to WHY JoomlArt has decided to switch to one template per month beginning August 2009.

TomC wrote:

I can’t win with you. I could say that I think the sky is blue. You would probably tell me I was wrong, tell me I’m a pessimist because I called the sky “blue,” tell me I don’t understand the intricacies of color, and tell me I’m lying when I say I’m qualified to assess the color.</blockquote>
You’re correct on all accounts – outside of your opinions being YOUR opinions, nothing more. Conversely, my position and arguments are based upon MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS on the issue that I have participated in over the last two years – with the majority consensus among those members who took the time to participate being that JA should move to one template release per month toward focusing on higher quality templates and overall support.

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#265054

<em>@tanisha 73135 wrote:</em><blockquote>
“Quality over quantity”… why didn’t JA think of this earlier,.. they don’t have the ability to release 2 quality templates in one month??[/quote]
They have the ability – but I think you don’t understand (or want to understand) the time and effort it takes to create new quality and innovative template offerings that people won’t rant and rave are “repackages” of former templates.

tanishaI expect to be compensated as my membership lasts till August 2012, and I paid for 2 templates per month, which means I expected to have access to TWO products (templates) per month.. and I won’t be getting that.

You are simply complaining because you are going to be getting one less toy a month from Santa than you are used to – as if you would actually USE the additional templates in the first place. Have you created 58 sites from each and every one of the JA templates? (doubtful). Are you creating a site from the latest release, Nagaya? Did you create a site from Mesolite?

You simply want more more more more more – even though, chances are, you wouldn’t be using them anyway. It’s the classic quality over quantity gluttony.

You didn’t pay for “two templates a month” … you paid for membership into a Club based on one or several template(s) you saw within the JA library that you thought you could use in building a website. You’ve never had any intention of building a site from each and every single template release – which is the only rational argument as to why you would so passionately insist upon maintaining the two-template a month schedule.

[terp Friend terpJoin date: May 2008Posts: 40Downloads:161Uploads:0 Thanks: 2 Thanked: 1 times in 1 posts]

#265081

JA should Craw on the staff; he could have repackaged 4-5 templates in the time he’s spent quoting and debating everyone. 🙂

…wonder what crawled up his craw?

[tanisha Friend tanishaJoin date: July 2007Posts: 30Downloads:0Uploads:0 Thanks: 32 Thanked: 4 times in 1 posts]

#265086

tcraw1010;73156They have the ability – but I think you don’t understand (or want to understand) the time and effort it takes to create new quality and innovative template offerings that people won’t rant and rave are “repackages” of former templates.

You are simply complaining because you are going to be getting one less toy a month from Santa than you are used to – as if you would actually USE the additional templates in the first place. Have you created 58 sites from each and every one of the JA templates? (doubtful). Are you creating a site from the latest release, Nagaya? Did you create a site from Mesolite?

You simply want more more more more more – even though, chances are, you wouldn’t be using them anyway. It’s the classic quality over quantity gluttony.

You didn’t pay for “two templates a month” … you paid for membership into a Club based on one or several template(s) you saw within the JA library that you thought you could use in building a website. You’ve never had any intention of building a site from each and every single template release – which is the only rational argument as to why you would so passionately insist upon maintaining the two-template a month schedule.

Was you sat beside me when I purchased my membership, reading my intentions? I already told you why I purchased my membership, so that’s the end of that.

You like to assume that ALL I want is more, more, more, more and more. I do not expect more or less from JoomlArt, I simply demand what I signed up for.. that is..

TWO **QUALITY** templates, PER MONTH!!

Doesn’t matter if I use them or not, this is what JoomlArt is advertising. Will you be using every single one of JoomlArt’s templates once they do switch to 1 templates per month? If not, why not suggest they release a template every 2 or 3 or even 5 months, depending on how often you develop a website, so that the template can be of a better quality than it will be 1 per month????

No matter what, JoomlArt will always have happy and unhappy customers, so some people will still regard their templates post August 2009 as ‘not creative enough’, or whatever.

1 user says Thank You to tanisha for this useful post

1. VisiGod

[cgc0202 Friend cgc0202Join date: August 2007Posts: 2244Downloads:0Uploads:3 Thanks: 206 Thanked: 262 times in 1 posts]

#265088

<em>@terp 73186 wrote:</em><blockquote>JA should Craw on the staff; he could have repackaged 4-5 templates in the time he’s spent quoting and debating everyone. 🙂

…wonder what crawled up his craw?</blockquote>

Hi terp,

I am not a staff member of Joomlart.

This thread is about the Pros and Cons of the change from two templates to one template per month. If you have anything more to say about the merits or lack thereof of the change then state so.

Your comment above, does not address the issue. Moreover, both sides in the discourse are guilty of what you accused one party of. As such, your comment is considered a personal attack — a clear violation of the forum rules..

This has nothing to do with censorship or freedom of speech.

Cornelio

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#265089

tanishaYou like to assume that ALL I want is more, more, more, more and more. I do not expect more or less from JoomlArt, I simply demand what I signed up for.. that is..[/quote]
You signed up to become a member of the JoomlArt Tempalte Club so you could have access to the templates that caught your eye, as well as future releaes pursuant to Club Terms and Conditions – which are subject to change.

tanishaWill you be using every single one of JoomlArt’s templates once they do switch to 1 templates per month?

No … but then again, I am not the one who is arguing quantity over quality. I agree with JA’s decision because I believe it will take some of the pressure off of the Developers to not only concentrate on the quality of the product, but to be able to devtote more time toward Member/Template Support.

TomC wrote:

If not, why not suggest they release a template every 2 or 3 or even 5 months, depending on how often you develop a website, so that the template can be of a better quality than it will be 1 per month????

Unreasonable and exaggerated argument.

TomC wrote:

No matter what, JoomlArt will always have happy and unhappy customers, so some people will still regard their templates post August 2009 as ‘not creative enough’, or whatever.</blockquote>
True – some people will complain no matter what. Nevertheless, this is an issue that has been discussed many times – with the majority consensus of those who chose to participate being that JA should switch to a one-a-month release schedule. JA has listened and has implemented such change – albeit not for another year.

end of story

[cgc0202 Friend cgc0202Join date: August 2007Posts: 2244Downloads:0Uploads:3 Thanks: 206 Thanked: 262 times in 1 posts]

#265097

Hi Tanisha,

My suggestion is that you create a separate thread (and a ticket as well as PM to Hung) that will address your situation, considering these factors and issues:

1. When you signed up for a five (5) year ??? you were promised two templates per month
2. The plan to change to 1 template per month violates your original contract with Joomlart

You expect compensation, if Joomlart will not be able to provide you with two templates per month. Outline clearly how you want to be compensated:

1. Void the contract now and get your full money back.

I consider this unreasonable but if it is what you want to happen, state so. And, if you want your full money back, you are expected not to use any of the Joomlart templates. in any of your sites. Violation would be subject to copyright infringement.

2. Void the contract and get the difference of your membership when the change to 1 template per month takes effect on 1 September 2009.

This is a more reasonable settlement for both parties. It assumes that your membership will cease also when a settlement is reached.

3. Or, state whatever you consider is a fair compensation

There are only a total of 171 members who signed up for a 5-year membership. If I were Joomlart, I would just pay off those who are not satisfied with the new policy. But, that is a decision that will be made by Hung or whoever owns Joomlart.

Please do not expect that Joomlart should maintain a two template per month indefinitely. That would be selfish because the option to go to one template per month is not a unilateral decision by Joomlart — it was a demand that has been suggested from a number of the members..

We hope to lead to better template, literature and support. It remains to be seen whether that will happen. If not, then what I will do is just leave Joomlart. I will not waste my time trying to change what would not want to change.

Cornelio

<em>@tanisha 73194 wrote:</em><blockquote>Was you sat beside me when I purchased my membership, reading my intentions? I already told you why I purchased my membership, so that’s the end of that.

You like to assume that ALL I want is more, more, more, more and more. I do not expect more or less from JoomlArt, I simply demand what I signed up for.. that is..

TWO **QUALITY** templates, PER MONTH!!

Doesn’t matter if I use them or not, this is what JoomlArt is advertising. Will you be using every single one of JoomlArt’s templates once they do switch to 1 templates per month? If not, why not suggest they release a template every 2 or 3 or even 5 months, depending on how often you develop a website, so that the template can be of a better quality than it will be 1 per month????

No matter what, JoomlArt will always have happy and unhappy customers, so some people will still regard their templates post August 2009 as ‘not creative enough’, or whatever.</blockquote>

2 users say Thank You to cgc0202 for this useful post

1. jwellman
2. VisiGod

[markb1439 Friend markb1439Join date: August 2008Posts: 124Downloads:0Uploads:1 Thanks: 14 Thanked: 34 times in 11 posts]

#265102

<blockquote>You didn’t pay for “two templates a month” </blockquote>

You keep saying this, but an attorney would certainly differ. In the case of someone whose membership extends into the time when quantity will be cut in half, those people would legally be entitled to compensation, at least under U.S. law. If a purchase is made based on the advertised claim that the membership includes two templates a month, that is what the client can legally expect.

I agree that JA handled the transition very well, giving a one-year notice. But for those people who will still get fewer templates than they thought they would, JA has a moral and legal obligation to compensate them. It doesn’t matter whether they can use all of the templates. The whole idea is to have a larger pool of templates to choose from.

Again I ask, if quantity was not important, why is is still at the top of the list of membership features? The first thing they list (not once but twice in the blurb on the front page) is how many templates you’ll be getting. Actually, I think it already qualifies as false advertising. It promises 24 templates in the “Next 12 Months”, but won’t there actually be 23? And the top of the blurb (first bullet point) promises “24 more every year. 2 templates released every month.” But of course the rate of two per month only continues for less than a year, and certainly doesn’t apply “every year”. These claims are prominently advertised on JA’s front page. The “Important Changes” link is much less prominent, and it is certainly conceivable that people may subscribe without following that link. The promotional blurb itself should clearly lay out the changes instead of incorrectly listing the number of templates available in the next 12 months, and stating that there will be two templates a month “every year”.

BTW, since you think I don’t understand the intricacies of running a business, let me tell you more about my background. I have experience that mirrors this situation. Years ago I started a record company providing dance remixes to club DJs. It was a subscription-based service with monthly releases, each containing 8-10 songs. It was a challenge to edit and/or mix that many songs per month and keep quality up, so my company and others in this niche explored various options such as cutting back the frequency of releases, or keeping a monthly schedule but cutting the number of songs.

Various companies surveyed their clients and chose different options. Some cut back, and others did whatever it took to keep quality up. And the only companies that survived were the ones that kept the quantity and quality up.

Your opinion may be right, or mine may be right. Or the truth may lie somewhere between our two viewpoints. But the difference is that when someone doesn’t agree with you, you resort to personal attacks (such as questioning my business experience and integrity when you know nothing about me). I assure you that I have the business experience to voice an opinion on this topic — not that it should matter. This discussion is open to everyone, so I’m not sure why you think I should have a certain level of business knowledge to voice my opinion. Maybe people shouldn’t be allowed to post in this thread until you review their resumes, verify their credentials, and make sure they meet your qualifications to voice an opinion here.

I’m glad that you participated in two years of discussions on this issue. Congratulations. But that doesn’t mean you can insult and make accusations against anyone who doesn’t share your opinion.

2 users say Thank You to markb1439 for this useful post

1. tanisha
2. VisiGod

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#265108

<em>@markb1439 73212 wrote:</em><blockquote>You keep saying this, but an attorney would certainly differ.
In the case of someone whose membership extends into the time when quantity will be cut in half, those people would legally be entitled to compensation, at least under U.S. law. If a purchase is made based on the advertised claim that the membership includes two templates a month, that is what the client can legally expect.[/quote]
What if the Terms and Conditions indicate that they are subject to change – with or without notice?
What if there was no explicit promise of two-template a month as a contingency for the membership fee?

markbI agree that JA handled the transition very well, giving a one-year notice. But for those people who will still get fewer templates than they thought they would, JA has a moral and legal obligation to compensate them.

They do not have a legal obligation to compensate them. First of all, JA is not based within the United States. Second of all, even if they were, members are subject to the Terms and Conditions established at the time of their making the conscious choice to join the Club. You can review them HERE

Some of the more pertinent sections . . .

II. JA CLUB MEMBERSHIP & DEVELOPER MEMBERSHIP LICENSE
JoomlArt.com grants you a nonexclusive limited license to use the JoomlArt templates and other products sold through our web site by independent contract providers (the “products”) in accordance with these Section I and III of these Terms & Conditions (the “license”) issued by our company.

Nowhere there is there a contractual oblgation or explicit promise for JA to provide two tempaltes per month.

8. REFUND POLICY: Since JoomlArt is offering non-tangible irrevocable goods we do not issue refunds after the membership is made, which you are responsible for understanding upon purchasing membership at our site. All license fees are non-refundable.

It clearly states that membership license fees are non-refundable.
Hence, JA is under no legal obligation to “compensate” anyone for a non-contractual dispute.

[markb1439 Friend markb1439Join date: August 2008Posts: 124Downloads:0Uploads:1 Thanks: 14 Thanked: 34 times in 11 posts]

#265109

There have been many cases in which contracts were found to be null and void because they were not fair and equitable. Many contracts have been thrown out because judges ruled that it wasn’t fair to collect money by advertising something and changing it later, even if the membership terms allowed “change without notice.”

Bottom line is, JA is still taking money on the promise of two templates a month “every year.” That is what they are still advertising prominently. Whether or not you think they could slip out through legal loopholes or hide behind the fact that they are not U.S.-based, there is still the issue of representing something and delivering something less. People who signed up under the premise of two high-quality templates per month should be entitled to expect that (or compensation) if their membership runs into the time when quantity is reduced. Whether or not JA is legally obligated to do that, they should do it because it’s the right thing to do. Two templates a month is still listed as the main selling point, so it could be viewed as misrepresentation not to compensate people (monetarily or with extended subscriptions) who signed up under that guise with memberships that run longer than the one-year warning period.

Again, if quantity is not important, why is it the most prominently featured selling point? It may not be important to you, but it’s important enough that JA is still advertising it prominently.

I don’t think JA had any sinister intentions when making this change. But there are people who feel shortchanged by it (rightfully so), and part of implementing a change like this should include taking care of those clients who supported JA by signing up for long-term memberships.

It’s clear to me that you are the one with no business sense. It doesn’t take much of a brain to see that someone would be upset if they signed up for a five-year membership at two templates per month…only to find out they’re getting much less than that. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You might not mind getting less than what you thought you were paying for, but some people do mind. They have every right to that opinion, and their opinion is supported by numerous legal precedents (not to mention ethics). You are really looking like an ass when you bash people for simply expecting to get what was listed twice as the most prominent selling point (and is still listed as such).

You are entitled to your opinion. But you shouldn’t bash other people who have a perfectly valid opinion too.

2 users say Thank You to markb1439 for this useful post

1. tanisha
2. VisiGod

[Author]

Posts