[PL] 2004 VOTE DISCUSSION
Susan Bugher
Programs are listed in alphabetical order.
SiSoftware Sandra was mistakenly omitted from the main ballot - voting
for that program (on a special ballot) will close on Dec. 15. I'll post
a follow-up with the *final* final vote counts when when voting is
closed on that ballot.
FotoAlbum is now shareware. It has been removed from nominations for the
PL.
-----------
The results of the acceptable-unacceptable ballots were:
40tude Dialog: yes - acceptable 28
40tude Dialog: no - unacceptable 13
Desktop Architect: yes - acceptable 14
Desktop Architect: no - unacceptable 7
ePrompter: yes - acceptable 16
ePrompter: no - unacceptable 10
KaZaA Lite: yes - acceptable 13
KaZaA Lite: no - unacceptable 29
Trillian: yes - acceptable 16
Trillian: no - unacceptable 10
Note: Objections to MyIE2 have been raised. This will be discussed in
the removals thread.
-----------
The program selections for PL2004 are shown in the category threads.
Some general commments:
The Pricelessware list is a list of the programs *favored* by
alt.comp.freeware participants - winners were determined primarily by
the vote count.
412 programs were on the ballot.
*All* programs with 12 or more votes were picked.
Programs with 8-11 votes were selected as needed to fill subcategories.
A few winners with 6-7 votes were picked when a special capability would
otherwise have been lost from the list.
IMO programs with fewer than 6 votes were not *favored* by enough people
to have earned a place on PL2004. None of the programs with fewer than 6
votes were selected.
Here is a tabulation of winners and losers by votes received:
12-87 votes won: 170 lost: 0 disqualified: 1
11 votes won: 14 lost: 10
10 votes won: 22 lost: 7
9 votes won: 18 lost: 11
8 votes won: 23 lost: 15
7 votes won: 7 lost: 23
6 votes won: 3 lost: 35
1-5 votes won: 0 lost: 52 not final: 1
total: won: 256
Some related programs were considered in pairs. One vote was counted for
each person who voted for one or both of the programs. The programs are:
25 Outlook-Quotefix
7 OE-Quotefix
25 combined vote
17 Super Gravity (related program)
14 Gravity (related program)
23 combined vote
18 TightVNC
9 VNC
20 combined vote
------------
Vote Results:
4 1-4a Rename
13 1by1
19 1st Page 2000
7 2Flyer Screensaver Builder
38 2xExplorer
14 40tude Dialog
27 7-Zip
4 @icon sushi
19 AbiWord
9 AceHTML 5 Freeware
8 ActivIcons
75 Ad-Aware
15 Add/Remove Pro
26 Agent Ransack
16 Agnitum Outpost Firewall (Free)
7 AGO Agent Group Order
12 AI RoboForm
46 Aida32
19 All-Purpose Spell Checker (APSC)
10 AllChars
29 AM-DeadLink
9 Amaya
5 Amphetadesk
10 Another Task Manager (ATM)
8 Ant Movie Catalog
19 AntiVir Personal Edition
8 AP Guitar tuner
7 ArsClip
18 Atlantis Nova
21 AtNotes
15 Atomic Clock Sync
8 AtomTime95
11 Attribute Changer
22 Audacity
20 AutoIt
7 AutoSizer
6 AVA FIND
14 Avant Browser
19 Avast!
40 AVG Anti-Virus System
6 AxCrypt
5 BASK
15 Batchrun
27 Belarc Advisor
6 BgInfo
6 Binary News Reader (BNR)
4 BitMorph
7 Blender
9 Bookmark Wizard
9 Burn to the Brim
11 Burnatonce
9 Buttonz! and Tilez!
14 Cacheman
9 Calc98
24 Calendar Magic
12 Calypso
11 Cartes du Ciel (Sky Charts)
10 Catfish
15 Cathy
14 CDCheck
35 CDex
5 CesarFTP
19 Chainsaw
9 ChangeIcon
9 ClickTray Calendar
7 Cobian Backup
3 ColorPic
9 Columbine Bookmark Merge (CBM)
15 ConText
20 Convert
8 Cookie Muncher
8 CookieWall
8 Cool Player
10 Cool Ruler
15 CopyURL
11 Crazy Browser
20 Crimson Editor
19 Crypt Edit
5 Currency Converter 2
14 CutePDF Printer
5 CyberKit
11 Cygwin
17 DAEMON Tools
6 Dave's Quick Search Taskbar Toolbar Deskbar
8 DCOMbobulator
4 DDTitle
8 Debian
6 DeKnop
22 Dependency Walker
7 Desktop Architect
13 Dia
5 Diagram Designer
11 Dimension 4
16 Dir2HTML
12 Directory Lister
14 Dirhtml
8 DirKey
19 DLExpert
16 DLL Archive
10 DownloadExpress
12 Drive Rescue
12 e-Sword
7 Easy Gallery Generator (EGG)
6 Easy MD5 Creator
4 Easy SFV Creator
32 EasyCleaner
8 eCleaner
22 EditPad Lite
11 EDXOR
3 Email Encoder
6 Embellish
13 Emergency Recovery Utility NT (ERUNT)
14 Empty Temp Folders
7 eMule
10 Encryption for the Masses (E4M)
11 ePrompter
29 Eraser
11 ESBCalc
11 Ethereal
12 EVE
28 Exact Audio Copy (EAC)
22 ExamDiff
8 Explore2fs
12 Extended Character Map
11 ExtractNow
6 EyeDropper
34 F-Prot Antivirus for DOS
15 Filemon
12 FileTargets
21 FileZilla
9 FilZip
7 Flexible Renamer
11 Font Magic
7 Foobar2000
19 FoxMail
6 Fractal Explorer
20 Free Agent
10 Free Digital Camera Enhancer
4 Free Pascal
7 FreeBSD
6 FreeZip
10 Frhed
5 FSRaid
5 FTP Wanderer
21 GhostScript and GhostView
9 GoldenSectionNotes
26 Google Toolbar
8 GrabIt
15 Graph Paper Printer
14 Gravity
5 GRIDS
11 GSpot
20 Hamster
3 HarddiskOGG
4 Hook99
12 Hosts File
11 Hosts Toggle
7 Hotkeys
8 HTML Calender Generator 4
4 HTML E-Mail Address Encrypter
18 HTML-Kit
6 HTMLDOC
21 HTTRACK (WinHTTrack)
5 IceChat
10 Icon Snatcher
8 IconShop
6 ID-Blaster Plus
11 IE 5 Power Tweaks Web Accessories
10 IE 5 Web Accessories
14 IEradicator
20 Info-Rapid Search & Replace
15 Inno Setup
4 IntelliTamper
5 InterCover
87 Irfanview
16 IZArc
12 JAlbum
6 Jedit
9 JPEG Cleaner
33 jv16 Powertools
14 K-meleon
14 K9
12 Karen's Replicator
19 KaZaA Lite
34 Kerio Personal Firewall
31 KeyNote
7 Kookie Jar
6 Korrnews
21 LAME
17 LeechFTP
12 LeechGet
9 LFN-Tools (Long FileNames in DOS)
6 Lister
11 Lupas Rename (Lupas 2000)
10 Magic Mail Monitor
20 Mailwasher
5 MakePDF
1 Matizha Sublime
6 MAX's HTML Beauty++ 2004
22 Media Player Classic
8 MemLoad
5 MemoKeys
8 Memtest86
5 Mercury Editor
28 MetaPad
7 Micro Egg Timer
10 Miranda IM
14 MotherBoard Monitor (MBM)
9 MouseImp
26 Mozilla
41 Mozilla Firebird (was Phoenix)
8 MP3 Book Helper
17 MP3Gain
14 Mp3tag
10 MPEG Audio Collection (MAC)
13 MultiRes
6 MuRa's Filters
24 MWSnap
10 My Own Backup (MOB)
9 MyAlbum
21 MyIE2
4 MyRun
9 NetLaunch
9 NetStat Live
16 Neutron
6 nnCron LITE
24 NoteTab Light
6 Noworyta News Reader
6 nPOP
5 Octopus
25 OE-Quotefix
20 OffByOne
6 OleClean
14 OpenExpert
45 OpenOffice.org
4 Optimoz
11 Oscar's File Renamer
13 Oubliette
19 Outlook Express
7 Outlook-Quotefix
5 Pablo Commander
5 Pan
8 Pardon
12 Password Safe
13 Path Copy (PathCopy)
13 PC Inspector File Recovery
6 PDF2TXT
11 PDFCreator
23 Pegasus Mail
8 picture-shark
14 Pimmy
10 PINs
17 Pixia
11 PolderBackup
12 POP Peeper
15 PopCorn
13 POPFile
11 PopTray
6 Popup Manager
9 PopupStopper
20 PowerArchiver
21 PowerDesk
5 PowerGrab 2002
11 PowerPro
8 PRCView
15 Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
7 PrintKey 2000
6 Privoxy
16 Process Explorer
15 Programmer's File Editor (PFE)
10 Properties Plus
3 Proxy+
11 PSPad
4 Psycle
7 PTB Sync
7 Push That Freakin' Button (PTFB)
10 Putty
13 Python
5 Quick 'n Easy FTP Server
8 Quick Folders
8 Quick Resource
8 QuickPar
5 QuickSFV
6 QuickSilver
10 Quintessential Player (QCD)
9 Ragtime Solo
9 Rain
7 RAMpage
16 Ranish Partition Manager
6 ReadPlease
5 RecycleNOW
30 RegCleaner
6 RegEditX
11 Registrar Lite
5 RegMagik
13 RegMon
28 RegSeeker
5 RegShot
13 ReplaceEm (was BK ReplaceEm)
23 Resource Hacker
8 Restoration
10 Revelation
7 rjhExtensions
5 Rname-it
7 RUNit
18 Sam Spade
10 Savepart
6 Scanner
14 SciTE
8 Screen Calipers
7 Scribe
8 Script Defender
6 Script Sentry
7 ScripTrap
16 SetBrowser
9 Shareaza
8 SimpleOCR
1* SiSoftware Sandra (*not final)
3 Slide Show Movie Maker (SSMM)
10 SlimBrowser
9 SlowView
10 SmartFTP
8 SnIco Edit
10 SoftCAT
9 SpaceMonger
9 SpamPal
7 Speakonia
9 Sphygmic Spreadsheet
15 Spider
5 Splitz!
69 Spybot Search & Destroy
30 SpywareBlaster
17 Star Downloader
7 StarCalc
14 Start-Up Monitor
22 Startup Control Panel
6 Stone's WebWriter
4 StrokeIt
5 Sun Clock
17 Super Gravity
8 SuperFormat
8 Sylpheed
9 TClock
26 TClockEx
7 TCP Optimizer (TCP/IP Optimizer)
4 Terragen
8 Text2Web
20 The Font Thing
28 The Gimp
6 The GodFather
43 The Proxomitron
13 THE Rename
18 TightVNC
8 tinySpell
17 TMPGEnc
6 TortoiseCVS
30 Total Uninstall
12 TrackerV3
5 Transparent
4 Traybar
8 TreeCopy
17 Treepad Lite and Treepad Asia
8 TreeSize
16 Trillian
8 Turbo Navigator
41 TWEAK UI
10 TweakAll
10 TypeItIn
10 Ulead Gif Animator
7 URL2BMP
4 UrlRun
4 UUDWin
7 VanBasco's Karaoke Player
6 vim
22 VirtualDub
8 Visit URL
8 Visual CD
10 Visual Thought
9 VNC
9 WAssociate
10 Weather Watcher
7 Web2Text
7 WebMon
9 Webreaper
12 Webwasher
6 Whisper
38 WinAmp Classic
13 WinDriversBackup Personal Edition
6 WinKey
19 WinMX
10 WinPatrol
25 WordWeb
12 World Time
23 WS_FTP LE
18 X-Fonter
28 Xenu's Link Sleuth
44 Xnews
25 XnView
9 XOSL
38 Xteq X-Setup
24 XXCopy
11 YahooPOPs!
22 Yankee Clipper III
5 Zinf
6 Zip Peeker
4 ZipCentral
16 ZipGenius
5 ZipInstaller
6 ZipScan
40 Zone Alarm
12 Zoner Draw 3
13 ZoomPlayer
-------------------
Susan
Susan Bugher
> Below is a list of the PL2004 voting results (final with one exception).
A *big* thank you to Spacey for checking the vote count. :) :) :)
and agreeing with it . . . ;)
Susan
Spacey Spade
Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
Yes, she is a very good vote counter.
Spacey
Susan Bugher
counts (Sisoftware Sandra ballot is still open):
http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004AlphabeticalList.php
Total votes for programs: 5345
*Exactly* 100 people voted on PL2004 programs - very handy for
calculating percentages.
The TOP vote getters were:
Irfanview 87
Ad-Aware 75
Spybot Search & Destroy 69
Sort the Alphabetical List on the vote column (12_10) to see the vote
order for all programs . . .
WHEW! time for a break . . . ;)
Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
Susan Bugher
Spoon2001 made the following suggestion - I think it's a good one.
<q>
Different programs, even in the same category, have different strengths.
Just for example, Irfanview beat Xnview 87-25, but I use both, and
definitely prefer Xnview for some tasks. It would be very unfortunate
if visitors to the page weren't even informed about Xnview. Perhaps it
would be a good idea to have one "Winner" and several "Honorable Mentions".
</q>
IMO all programs that were in the top 30 to 40 percent should be *shown*
on the PL (I used 12 votes for the selection criteria).
Using a runner-up designation would allow us to select PW picks *and*
show all the top vote getters.
Irfanview and XnView have a 62 vote spread:
Irfanview (Viewer; Convert-Edit-Rename) 87 (won)
XnView (Viewer; Convert-Edit-Rename) 25 (won)
*BUT* 1 out of 4 voters liked XnView enough to vote for it. XnView's 25
votes put it in the top 9 percent. IMO it deserves a place on PL2004.
The PL2004 vote distribution looks like this.
A program that received:
25 votes is in the top 9 percent.
24 votes is in the top 9-10 percent.
23 votes is in the top 10-11 percent.
22 votes is in the top 11-13 percent.
21 votes is in the top 13-15 percent.
20 votes is in the top 15-17 percent.
19 votes is in the top 17-20 percent.
18 votes is in the top 20-21 percent.
17 votes is in the top 21-23 percent.
16 votes is in the top 23-25 percent.
15 votes is in the top 26-29 percent.
14 votes is in the top 29-33 percent.
13 votes is in the top 33-36 percent.
12 votes is in the top 36-41 percent.
11 votes is in the top 41-46 percent.
10 votes is in the top 47-53 percent.
FYI - selections in these subcategories have been criticized as
*Too-many-winners*.
2xExplorer (File Manager) 38 (won)
PowerDesk (File Manager) 21 (won)
TrackerV3 (File Manager) 12 (won)
7-Zip (Archives: Zip-Unzip) 27 (won)
PowerArchiver (Archives: Zip-Unzip) 20 (won)
ZipGenius (Archives: Zip-Unzip) 16 (won)
IZArc (Archives: Zip-Unzip) 16 (won)
The Proxomitron (Content Filter) 43 (won)
Webwasher (Content Filter) 12 (won)
Hosts File (Content Filter) 12 (won)
Pegasus Mail (Email Client) 23 (won)
FoxMail (Email Client) 19 (won)
Calypso (Email Client) 12 (won)
Xnews (Newsreader) 44 (won)
Free Agent (Newsreader) 20 (won)
Super Gravity (Newsreader) 17 (won (23 comb))
Gravity (Newsreader) 14 (won (23 comb))
40tude Dialog (Newsreader) 14 (won)
Dir2HTML (Cataloger) 16 (won)
Cathy (Cataloger) 15 (won)
Directory Lister (Cataloger) 12 (won)
Catfish (Cataloger) 10 (won)
AVG Anti-Virus System (Anti-Virus) 40 (won)
F-Prot Antivirus for DOS (Anti-Virus) 34 (won)
Avast! (Anti-Virus) 19 (won)
AntiVir Personal Edition (Anti-Virus) 19 (won)
IMO omitting high vote getters in popular categories is a case of
throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think an Honorable Mention
designation would be useful for such cases.
Comments?
REMbr...@inu.net
> Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>IMO omitting high vote getters in popular categories is a case of
>throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think an Honorable Mention
>designation would be useful for such cases.
I fully agree.
Are you ready for a slow cruise somewhere yet? <G>
You are a dynamo!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Onno
news:vthlb1l...@corp.supernews.com:
> IMO omitting high vote getters in popular categories is a case of
> throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think an Honorable Mention
> designation would be useful for such cases.
>
> Comments?
>
>
Excellent idea.
--
Onno
Jim Scott
says...
would just leave those we are arguing over as they are.
There are more reasons for leaving them than just familiarity or quality.
For instance in the last section AVG does not work with the
Mozilla/Netscape (well not without a certain amount of expertise) and
such skills are probably necessary for the average user to use F-prot,
but some here would only have those two left.
I'm sure there are other similar examples elsewhere in the lists.
I am _not_ sure Pricelessware is meant to be solely for the use of
experts?
--
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address
Visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
»Q«
> Trillian: yes - acceptable 16
> Trillian: no - unacceptable 10
IMO, this is a real shame, as it sets a very bad precedent to allow
nagware on the PL. I'd like to at least have a note added to the
description, something like "Trillian occasionally pops up a window
nagging the user to buy the payware version; the nag window must be
clicked to be dismissed."
--
»Q« Quote me as saying I was misquoted.
-- Groucho Marx
Susan Bugher
> Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote in
> <news:vtev5td...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>Trillian: yes - acceptable 16
>>Trillian: no - unacceptable 10
>
> IMO, this is a real shame, as it sets a very bad precedent to allow
> nagware on the PL. I'd like to at least have a note added to the
> description, something like "Trillian occasionally pops up a window
> nagging the user to buy the payware version; the nag window must be
> clicked to be dismissed."
Yup - info will be added . . .
My impression is that it may not start nagging until the program has
been used for a fairly long time. That may have affected the vote . . .
I think the screen shot you posted showed the number of hours it had
been used. Does the number of hours change each time you see the nag? If
not, the usage time before the nag starts could be noted.
»Q«
>>>Trillian: yes - acceptable 16
>>>Trillian: no - unacceptable 10
>>
>> IMO, this is a real shame, as it sets a very bad precedent to
>> allow nagware on the PL. I'd like to at least have a note added
>> to the description, something like "Trillian occasionally pops up
>> a window nagging the user to buy the payware version; the nag
>> window must be clicked to be dismissed."
>
> Yup - info will be added . . .
>
> My impression is that it may not start nagging until the program
> has been used for a fairly long time. That may have affected the
> vote . . .
>
> I think the screen shot you posted showed the number of hours it
> had been used. Does the number of hours change each time you see
> the nag? If not, the usage time before the nag starts could be
> noted.
Yes, the number changes. The nag did not appear until after 1000
hours of use; after the initial discussion I started over with a
fresh install to verify. Also, it only appears when new windows are
opened (and not always then), so people who do not open many chat
windows may not see it.
Susan Bugher
Thanks much. Will update the program description (when I get back to
doing updates).
Susan Bugher
>>Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>
>>IMO omitting high vote getters in popular categories is a case of
>>throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think an Honorable Mention
>>designation would be useful for such cases.
>
> I fully agree.
No opposition - but not much support either. I won't use Honorable
Mention designations.
> Are you ready for a slow cruise somewhere yet? <G>
Tough decision . . . I'm gazing at a pile of snow. . . . *YES* ;)
»Q«
thread, because my post will mention apps in many categories. Sorry
for any confusion this causes - I couldn't come up with a better way to
'break' the threading.
Anonymous <Bigapple...@Optonline.Net> wrote in
<news:93NFPIX837967.7549768519@anonymous>:
> Susan Bugher wrote:
>
> |Kookie Jar (Email Tool) 7 (out)
> |
> |is also a unique tool and has more votes than Quicksilver
> |
> |QuickSilver (Email Tool) 6 (out)
> |
> |IMO it's a case of: close but no cigar. . .
> |
> |Kookie Jar (Email Tool) 7 (out)
> |
> |is also a unique tool and has more votes than Quicksilver
I believe here Susan meant unique among the nominations.
> |QuickSilver (Email Tool) 6 (out)
> |
> |IMO it's a case of: close but no cigar. . .
>
> There are heaps of freeware sig programs out there.
And none of them got very many votes.
> There are only a few remailer programs.
And none of them got very many votes.
IMO he 2004 PL should not have any sig manager or remailer because
none of those types of apps got enough votes. (BTW, I am the one who
nominated KookieJar.)
But, Susan, you wrote, "A few winners with 6-7 votes were picked when a
special capability would otherwise have been lost from the list." They
are:
6 EyeDropper
6 Fractal Explorer
6 nnCron Lite
6 2Flyer Screensaver Builder
7 AutoSizer
7 Blender
7 Push That Freakin' Button
7 RUNit
7 Speakonia
7 VanBasco's Karaoke Player
7 Web2Text
I'm not clear on what makes these with capabilities that would be lost
from the list different from KookieJar and QuickSilver. I'd deselect
all of them from the list.
In particular, I've seen the case that nnCron Lite belongs for some
reasons I'll take one at a time.
It's not been nominated before this year. I don't see why this should
matter at all.
The mentions of it in a.c.f have been favorable. I don't see how this
distinguishes it from most other apps with 6-7 votes.
It has unique capabilities. I guess there is enough about unique
cababilities above that I don't need to type more about them. ;)
Its user base is growing. IMO this should not be a consideration. If
program's vote total, which is directly related to the size of its user
base, is not high enough by the time voting ends, it should not make
the list. If an app gains in popularity in a.c.f, it can be added to
the list in the spring.
--
Spacey Spade
Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
>REMbr...@inu.net wrote:
>
>>>Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>>
>>>IMO omitting high vote getters in popular categories is a case of
>>>throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think an Honorable Mention
>>>designation would be useful for such cases.
>>
>> I fully agree.
>
>No opposition - but not much support either. I won't use Honorable
>Mention designations.
I didn't think it was a good idea cause it means more work in keeping up
the site.
Spacey Spade
»Q« box...@gmx.net wrote...
[snip]
>But, Susan, you wrote, "A few winners with 6-7 votes were picked when a
>special capability would otherwise have been lost from the list." They
>are:
>
>6 EyeDropper
>6 Fractal Explorer
>6 nnCron Lite
>6 2Flyer Screensaver Builder
>7 AutoSizer
>7 Blender
>7 Push That Freakin' Button
>7 RUNit
>7 Speakonia
>7 VanBasco's Karaoke Player
>7 Web2Text
>
>I'm not clear on what makes these with capabilities that would be lost
>from the list different from KookieJar and QuickSilver. I'd deselect
>all of them from the list.
Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the best of
the best, they do not have a large user base because only a minority of
people use such programs. For example an FTP server.
What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
voting:
LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.
ArchiveUtility(zip-rar-etc.)
GraphicsViewer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
EmailClient
NewsReader
...
LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
1-4aRename
1by1
1stPage2000
2FlyerScreensaverBuilder
2xExplorer
...
So now we can grade votes on percentages, which would be a lot more
meaningful. Of the people who use GraphicsConverters, what percentage
find Irfanview to be the best (or among the best in case they vote for
more than one GC).
<Aside>
The reason I am putting words together is because I used TextStat to
count votes. In Microplanet Gravity I selected the voter's posts, then
File | Save As, then strip everything but the votes and save as another
file, then run TextStat. I compared it with the word counts with the
vote results Susan gave me and she was right on! Would be super easy if
every program was a single word.
</Aside>
Spacey
»Q«
<news:MPG.1a442edea...@news.east.earthlink.net>:
> Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the
> best of the best, they do not have a large user base because only
> a minority of people use such programs. For example an FTP
> server.
True, but there must be a cutoff somewhere, a vote threshold for
considering an app with specialized features to be Pricelessware.
Susan put that threshold at 6 votes this time around, and I certainly
would not argue that is should be lower. If anything, I'd have made it
higher.
> What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
> voting:
I don't think we should do that. As Genna pointed out, we vote for
apps, not categories, and the goal should not be to fill categories.
The categories are in place so that people visiting pricelessware.org
have an easier time finding what they are looking for. IIRC the
programs are categorized before voting only because categorization is a
PiTA and would be an awful awful PiTA if we waited until after voting
to sort them all.
Spacey Spade
»Q« box...@gmx.net wrote...
>Spacey Spade <rEmOvEspa...@hotpop.com> wrote in
><news:MPG.1a442edea...@news.east.earthlink.net>:
>
>> Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the
>> best of the best, they do not have a large user base because only
>> a minority of people use such programs. For example an FTP
>> server.
>
>True, but there must be a cutoff somewhere, a vote threshold for
>considering an app with specialized features to be Pricelessware.
>Susan put that threshold at 6 votes this time around, and I certainly
>would not argue that is should be lower. If anything, I'd have made it
>higher.
>
>> What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
>> voting:
>
>I don't think we should do that. As Genna pointed out, we vote for
>apps, not categories, and the goal should not be to fill categories.
If an app gets nominated, then it gets nominated along with its category
or categories. If no app gets nominated for a particular category, then
we won't be including the category in the "I use this type of program"
list. So in essence, we would be voting on programs, not categories.
Anonymous
>>Q<< wrote:
<snip>
Thank you. This is the part I was not understanding. If a program
with only 6 or 7 votes was accepted because they filled a catagory,
then I think all such programs like that should be accepted. If it is
done by votes {12 or more from the looks of it) and nothing but votes
then I don't have a problem if QuickSilver goes, as long as all other
program that didn't meet the required number of votes go.
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Spacey Spade
Anonymous Bigapple...@Optonline.Net wrote...
[snip]
>Thank you. This is the part I was not understanding. If a program
>with only 6 or 7 votes was accepted because they filled a catagory,
>then I think all such programs like that should be accepted. If it is
>done by votes {12 or more from the looks of it) and nothing but votes
>then I don't have a problem if QuickSilver goes, as long as all other
>program that didn't meet the required number of votes go.
What about this:
news: MPG.1a442edea...@news.east.earthlink.net
Spacey Spade
Spacey Spade rEmOvEspa...@hotpop.com wrote...
[snip]
>[snip]
>
>Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the best of
>the best, they do not have a large user base because only a minority of
>people use such programs. For example an FTP server.
>
>What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
>voting:
>
>LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
>Remove all software categories that you do not use.
>
>GraphicsViewer
>GraphicsConverter
>GraphicsEditor
>EmailClient
>NewsReader
>...
>
>LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
>Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
>
>----------------------
>
>1-4aRename
>1by1
>1stPage2000
>2FlyerScreensaverBuilder
>2xExplorer
>...
>
>So now we can grade votes on percentages, which would be a lot more
>meaningful. Of the people who use GraphicsConverters, what percentage
>find Irfanview to be the best (or among the best in case they vote for
>more than one GC).
An example vote:
LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.
----------------------
FtpServer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer
LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer
Spacey Spade
>In article <MPG.1a442edea...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
>Spacey Spade rEmOvEspa...@hotpop.com wrote...
[snip]
>>meaningful. Of the people who use GraphicsConverters, what percentage
>>find Irfanview to be the best (or among the best in case they vote for
>>more than one GC).
>[snip]
>
>An example vote:
>
>LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
>Remove all software categories that you do not use.
>----------------------
>FtpServer
>GraphicsConverter
>GraphicsEditor
>GraphicsViewer
>
>LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
>Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
>----------------------
>CesarFTP
>XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
>IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
>IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
>IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer
Added bonus:
Those people who vote for 300+ programs are going to have to put a
little work into figuring out the program categories they use. If the
votes don't match the categories, then they get the reply:
<reply>
Subject: Re: [PL] 2004 VOTE - Programs - Disqualified, Please Fix
Please fix your categories to represent your votes and post as a reply
to this post. Failure to do so will nullify all your votes.
</reply>
Susan Bugher
> IMO he 2004 PL should not have any sig manager or remailer because
> none of those types of apps got enough votes. (BTW, I am the one who
> nominated KookieJar.)
>
> But, Susan, you wrote, "A few winners with 6-7 votes were picked when a
> special capability would otherwise have been lost from the list." They
> are:
>
> 6 EyeDropper
> 6 Fractal Explorer
> 6 nnCron Lite
> 6 2Flyer Screensaver Builder
> 7 AutoSizer
> 7 Blender
> 7 Push That Freakin' Button
> 7 RUNit
> 7 Speakonia
> 7 VanBasco's Karaoke Player
> 7 Web2Text
the selection process I used:
I included *all* programs that received at least 12 votes. That filled
many subcategories without (IMO) overwhelming any - AFAIK the maximum
number of selections in a subcategory is 4.
I added programs in the 8-11 vote range - primarily to fill additional
subcategories - occasionally for close votes.
That left about 30 subcategories with no PW pick. The 11 *unique*
subcategories you noted were judgement calls to keep a subcategory. 5
*unique* subcategories were eliminated. The subcategories that were
eliminated (and the reason for the elimination) are:
BUSINESS:
Converter:Currency 1-5v (vote count)
CDCoverAndLabelsCreator 1-5v (vote count)
DESKTOP:
** DesktopShortcuts 1-7v [now a PW pick]
KeyboardShortcuts 2-7v,6v
MouseShortcuts 2-4v,4v
SystemTrayShortcuts 1-4v
(the above are overlapping subcategories)
Desktop:Icons 1-5v (vote count)
Desktop:Themes 1-7v (overlapping)
RecycleBinUtility 1-5v (vote count)
FILE UTILITIES:
SearchArchivedFiles 2-6v,6v (overlapping)
GRAPHICS:
Editor:LandscapeGenerator 1-4v (vote count)
Editor:Morph 1-4v (vote count)
* Plug-InFilter 1-6v (judgement call)
INTERNET:
* EmailTool 2-7v,6v (judgement call)
* NewsreaderTool 1-7v (judgement call)
FTPServer 2-5v,5v (vote count)
ProxyServer 1,3v (vote count)
Spider 1-4v (vote count)
ORGANIZERS:
Reminders 1-7v (overlapping)
Reminders;Scheduler 1-6v (overlapping)
ClockCustomizer;Reminders 1-9v (overlapping)
PROGRAMMING:
Programming:Compiler 1-4v (vote count)
SECURITY:
* Anti-Tracking 1-6v (judgement call)
WEB DESIGN
EmailAddressEncoder 2-4v,3v (vote count)
ImageDicer 1-5v (vote count)
ButtonMaker 1-6v (overlapping)
> I'm not clear on what makes these with capabilities that would be lost
> from the list different from KookieJar and QuickSilver. I'd deselect
> all of them from the list.
>
> In particular, I've seen the case that nnCron Lite belongs for some
> reasons I'll take one at a time.
>
> It's not been nominated before this year. I don't see why this should
> matter at all.
It would have been more accurate to say that I judged carryover programs
more harshly than newcomers.
The 6-8 vote picks were my wiffle-waffle categories. I'm *not* prepared
to defend my decisions to the death . . . ;)
Comments *please* - should all the 6-7 vote programs go? Should some
that were elimiated be added?
Spacey Spade
Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
[snip]
>Comments *please* - should all the 6-7 vote programs go? Should some
>that were elimiated be added?
8 of the 100 people who voted use a blahblah type program. Of those 8,
7 voted for program B. That gives program B a percentage score of 88%.
The cut-off point has been decided by the group to be 60%, therefore,
program B stays!
Susan Bugher
> Susan Bugher wrote:
>
>>»Q« wrote:
>>
>>>But, Susan, you wrote, "A few winners with 6-7 votes were picked when
>>>special capability would otherwise have been lost from the list." >>
>>>They are:
>>>
>>>6 EyeDropper
>>>6 Fractal Explorer
>>>6 nnCron Lite
>>>6 2Flyer Screensaver Builder
>>>7 AutoSizer
>>>7 Blender
>>>7 Push That Freakin' Button
>>>7 RUNit
>>>7 Speakonia
>>>7 VanBasco's Karaoke Player
>>>7 Web2Text
>>
>>the selection process I used:
>>
>>I included *all* programs that received at least 12 votes. That filled
>>many subcategories without (IMO) overwhelming any - AFAIK the maximum
>>number of selections in a subcategory is 4.
>
> I have no problems with that number (the 12), but I'm curious how it was
> picked. Was it a judgement call after seeing the vote spread, or is it
> an absolute number that you'd use next time around?
It was a trial and error procedure . . .
I wanted to use votes counts as the criteria for selection to the
greatest extent possible. This year 12 seemed to work pretty well - not
too different from 13 or 14 in the *high* vote subcategories and more
subcategories were filled initially using 12 as the magic number. (At 11
votes the high vote categories had too many programs.)
>>Comments *please* - should all the 6-7 vote programs go? Should some
>>that were elimiated be added?
>
> No. Not all the 6-7 vote programs should go. The rationale for some of
> inclusions have already been discussed, and the rationale for some of the
> others are obvious, at least to me. But it would help if the rationales
> were listed next to each program, so everyone could see for themselves.
I added the rationale to the subcategories I eliminated - the
subcategories I kept were all *judgement* (or lack thereof) calls . . . ;)
Bjorn Simonsen
<MPG.1a4428e6d...@news.east.earthlink.net>:
>>No opposition - but not much support either. I won't use Honorable
>>Mention designations.
>[snip]
>
>I didn't think it was a good idea cause it means more work in keeping up
>the site.
My immediate respons when reading this: I do not agree with our
conclusion, I think it is a great idea. I don't think it will mean
much more work for Susan - since with such a distinction she will
probably have to spend less time on figuring where to "draw the line"
between winners and "looser's" in each category. Of course a new line
will have to be drawn between "Honorable Mention" and "not worthy at
all", but I think it will be a more relaxed one (easier to make) than
that between winners and looser's.
All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
DC
>>>>Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>>> I fully agree.
Fully agree, but for the simple reason that it would dilute the PL list
to the point where it would become just one more freeware site.
"I've included blabla.exe on the PL list, not because it is all that
widely used -- my babysitter's mom used it, once -- but don't you just
*love* the cute little chipmunk icon?"
Bah! };O)
--
DC
Can lactose intolerance eventually lead to lactose-related hate crimes?
DC
> Thanks Susan. For your own sake, I was hoping it boiled down to a
> percentage or something, to make it easier for next year ...[snip]
Yes, Susan. *Next year*. I'll bet you can hardly wait! };O)
Spacey Spade
Susan Bugher
> the selection process I used:
>
> I included *all* programs that received at least 12 votes. That filled
> many subcategories without (IMO) overwhelming any - AFAIK the maximum
> number of selections in a subcategory is 4.
>
> I added programs in the 8-11 vote range - primarily to fill additional
> subcategories - occasionally for close votes.
a bit more about that:
In previous years subcategories were the *primary* criteria for
selection as PW. Many PL2003 subcategories have more than one low vote
pick because the votes were close. PL2003 has 54 PW picks that received
only 2 votes.
This year I used vote count as the *primary* selection criteria and
subcategories as the *secondary* criteria. Most of the subcategories
were retained but there are fewer low vote PW picks.
I've done a breakdown of PL picks in the 6-11 vote range:
11 votes - added 15 programs - filled 8 subcategories
10 votes - added 22 programs - filled 12 subcategories
9 votes - added 18 programs - filled 17 subcategories
8 votes - added 26 programs - filled 20 subcategories
7 votes - added 9 programs - filled 8 subcategories
6 votes - added 3 programs - gained 3 subcategories
totals - added 93 programs - filled 68 subcategories
IMO we should give even *more* weight to the vote count. This year some
programs that received 10 or 11 votes were eliminated while programs
that received 6 votes were selected. That doesn't make a whole lot of
sense to me. . .
IMO lower vote programs do not belong on the PL - but good programs -
especially good *niche* programs - *should* have a place on the
Pricelessware site. The PL2004 Nominations List will be that place for
now (ISTM there may be a better way).
Susan Bugher
>>>No opposition - but not much support either. I won't use Honorable
>>>Mention designations.
> Of course a new line
> will have to be drawn between "Honorable Mention" and "not worthy at
> all", but I think it will be a more relaxed one (easier to make) than
> that between winners and looser's.
FWIW - the Honorable Mention line *would* have been drawn between "da
winner" and "also very very very very very popular".
»Q«
[about Spacey's proposed system, details in
<news:MPG.1a442edea...@news.east.earthlink.net> and
<news:MPG.1a444e7c...@news.east.earthlink.net>]
> 8 of the 100 people who voted use a blahblah type program. Of
> those 8, 7 voted for program B. That gives program B a percentage
> score of 88%.
87.5% ;)
> The cut-off point has been decided by the group to
> be 60%, therefore, program B stays!
I think I understand your proposal better now - sorry I replied some
earlier before it sunk into my thick skull.
But I'd still say a total of 7 votes is not enough, and that it
should not matter that the program B is the clear choice amongst
users of that subcategory of apps. Today, Susan has written a good
deal here about overall vote totals being of primary importance, and
I agree with her completely about that.
In any case, it should be fun to hash all this out between now and
the 2005 process. <beg>
»Q«
Thanks for all the explanation you have given in this thread. I'm a
lot clearer on things now. :)
And I'm sorry to have been one to spur you to have to type all that
out, especially this late in the discussion period. Thanks for
bearing with us.
> IMO we should give even *more* weight to the vote count. This year
> some programs that received 10 or 11 votes were eliminated while
> programs that received 6 votes were selected. That doesn't make a
> whole lot of sense to me. . .
>
> IMO lower vote programs do not belong on the PL - but good
> programs - especially good *niche* programs - *should* have a
> place on the Pricelessware site. The PL2004 Nominations List will
> be that place for now (ISTM there may be a better way).
I agree completely.
Going back to specifics raised here, I now see that KookieJar and
QuickSilver are indeed niche programs whose 'markets' are relatively
small. nnCron Lite, OTOH, is a scheduler, not at all a niche
program. That's IMO a perfectly good criterion for including nnCron
Lite and excluding the other two, and I can certainly be happy with
the decisions that have been made. (I don't have the time to
thoroughly review all the apps with 6-7 votes, but I doubt I'd find
anything to write about - ISTM that the group, and Susan in
particular, have done a very nice job across the board.)
Susan Bugher
> Anonymous Bigapple...@Optonline.Net wrote...
> [snip]
>
>>Thank you. This is the part I was not understanding. If a program
>>with only 6 or 7 votes was accepted because they filled a catagory,
>>then I think all such programs like that should be accepted. If it is
>>done by votes {12 or more from the looks of it) and nothing but votes
>>then I don't have a problem if QuickSilver goes, as long as all other
>>program that didn't meet the required number of votes go.
IMO any PL2004 pick that received less that 11 votes can be called an
unfair pick. Programs with more votes were eliminated and it was chosen.
Some subcategories overlap with others, some contain very different
programs - fairness is subjective. The Internet page is the largest.
Many programs on that page received high votes. I took this into
consideration when I made the PL picks and set the bar a little higher.
FYI - I have a problem. I almost never see your posts on my news server.
I had to go to another server to find your ballot for PL2004. That was
the *only* ballot that did not show up. I don't know if the QuickSilver
plays any part in this . . .
Susan Bugher
> Susan Bugher wrote:
>
>>I added the rationale to the subcategories I eliminated - the
>>subcategories I kept were all *judgement* (or lack thereof) calls . .
>>. ;)
>
>
> No problem with that. :) This is mostly a democratic process, but your
> own judgement has to come in at some point. It's up to us to give you the
> input, and if we fail, you have to rely on your own instincts. It's too
> bad though that there are so few people participating in the discussions.
> Sometimes it feels more like an oligarchy than a democracy in determining
> the fate of these programs. Maybe we need a few threads with titles like
> "We're going to delete such and such a program unless you speak up!!"
LOL - but. . . IMO an oligarchy is what's needed in the vote
discussion period. That's when the specialists with detailed knowledge
of all the programs in a category or subcategory should speak up. The
*votes* narrow down the field - close calls should be decided by the
experts. I'm very grateful to those who took the time to tell me which
app was the most valuable and should be picked in addition to the
*clear* winners.
Susan Bugher
> jason wrote in <Xns9450238...@130.133.1.4>:
>
>>Thanks Susan. For your own sake, I was hoping it boiled down to a
>>percentage or something, to make it easier for next year ...[snip]
>
> Yes, Susan. *Next year*. I'll bet you can hardly wait! };O)
You bet! I can hardly wait (sigh). . .
I'm looking hard for ways to improve the process . . .
and looking even harder fot ways to make it a lot easier. ;)
Genna Reeney
>
> IMO omitting high vote getters in popular categories is a case of
> throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think an Honorable
> Mention designation would be useful for such cases.
The original PL had 100 programs on it only.
How many programs were voted in this time?
I ask this because it was never the purpose of the PL to be a comprehensive
collection of the best available freeware, but rather to serve as a
repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for X?" As such, I
think we do a disservice by giving out too many choices and diluting the
purpose of the list. Quite frankly, it cheapens it.
I strongly oppose any breakdown that includes Honorable Mentions.
--
Cheers,
Genna
Genna Reeney
>
> In previous years subcategories were the *primary* criteria for
> selection as PW. Many PL2003 subcategories have more than one low vote
> pick because the votes were close. PL2003 has 54 PW picks that
> received only 2 votes.
This is incorrect.
We have always picked programs. The number of votes required to make the
list is what has changed.
--
Cheers,
Genna
Susan Bugher
> Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote in
> <news:vtmmkg4...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
> Thanks for all the explanation you have given in this thread. I'm a
> lot clearer on things now. :)
>
> And I'm sorry to have been one to spur you to have to type all that
> out, especially this late in the discussion period. Thanks for
> bearing with us.
I'm glad you brought it up. This year I stayed *fairly* close to the
selection process used in previous years. Next year I'd like to give
more weight to the vote count and less to the subcategories. That kind
of change needs to be discussed thoroughly and now may be the best time
to do it.
>>IMO we should give even *more* weight to the vote count. This year
>>some programs that received 10 or 11 votes were eliminated while
>>programs that received 6 votes were selected. That doesn't make a
>>whole lot of sense to me. . .
>>
>>IMO lower vote programs do not belong on the PL - but good
>>programs - especially good *niche* programs - *should* have a
>>place on the Pricelessware site. The PL2004 Nominations List will
>>be that place for now (ISTM there may be a better way).
>
>
> I agree completely.
:)
Anonymous
My Name wrote:
|> FYI - I have a problem. I almost never see your posts on my
|> news server. I had to go to another server to find your
|> ballot for PL2004. That was the *only* ballot that did not
|> show up. I don't know if the QuickSilver plays any part in
|> this . . .
|
|I think it's SN.
|Your vote result posts never showed on SN, or NH, Waa
I think you're right. I think SN is the problem. I pull from a few
news servers and all my posts show up. Some news servers are hard on
anonymous posts because of abuse. I could try a another remailer see
if that works. I like bigapple because of the low latency.
omega
[...]
> "I've included blabla.exe on the PL list, not because it is all that
> widely used -- my babysitter's mom used it, once -- but don't you just
> *love* the cute little chipmunk icon?"
What a tease. All this, without even giving me a download link!
--
Karen S.
DC
> DC <dcm...@myrealbox.com>:
Hehe. Here, more than you can shake a stick at. };O)
omega
> "Genna Reeney" wrote:
>
> > Susan Bugher wrote:
> >>
> >> IMO omitting high vote getters in popular categories is a case of
> >> throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think an Honorable
> >> Mention designation would be useful for such cases.
> >
> > The original PL had 100 programs on it only.
> > How many programs were voted in this time?
> >
> > I ask this because it was never the purpose of the PL to be a
> > comprehensive collection of the best available freeware, but rather to
> > serve as a repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for
> > X?"
>
> I think someone...maybe Karen...suggested that low-vote programs should
> be included in the list if they offered a unique capability AND that the
> capability was widely sought after. What are your feelings on that? It
> has resulted in some programs being added despite a relatively low vote,
> yet questions about those program-types are asked fairly frequently in
> the group...admittedly a very subjective observation. IOW, how much
> weight do we give to the actual vote vs discussions that have transpired
> in the group?
And someone else (sorry, forgot who) mentioned that we might consider that
ACF'ers, and their tastes, are far more geeky than normal. That the many
passersby, who ask for a type of program, they often want types of things
that are more basic (eg URL2BMP).
So, Geena's end of emphasis, it has aesthetic attraction to me. Yet at the
same time, don't we also feel a need for the PL to serve as sort of the A's
of a FAQ?
. . .
(For my part, I'm voting both ways, again. (cite law: woman's perogative))
--
Karen S.
omega
> omega wrote in <p94ntvgqkb6n92vsv...@4ax.com>:
> > DC <dcm...@myrealbox.com>:
>
> > [...]
> >> "I've included blabla.exe on the PL list, not because it is all that
> >> widely used -- my babysitter's mom used it, once -- but don't you just
> >> *love* the cute little chipmunk icon?"
>
> > What a tease. All this, without even giving me a download link!
>
> Hehe. Here, more than you can shake a stick at. };O)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/z44c
Chipmunks into infinity! Those first few, what were they called, "Alvin
and the Chipmunks"? If one of their horrid sound tracks had launched from
there, I'd have freaked from pain, and never forgiven you... <g>
--
Karen S.
DC
> DC <dcm...@myrealbox.com>:
Now, now. It's Christmas time. You know, the time forgiving. };O)
omega
> omega wrote in <u85ntvg91m041tob9...@4ax.com>:
> > DC <dcm...@myrealbox.com>:
>>>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/z44c
>
> > Chipmunks into infinity! Those first few, what were they called, "Alvin
> > and the Chipmunks"? If one of their horrid sound tracks had launched from
> > there, I'd have freaked from pain, and never forgiven you... <g>
>
> Now, now. It's Christmas time. You know, the time forgiving. };O)
Well, if you go start singing Christmas time songs at 78 rpm, forgiving will
become impossible!
--
Karen S.
Susan Bugher
> Susan Bugher wrote:
>
> How many programs were voted in this time?
> I ask this because it was never the purpose of the PL to be a comprehensive
> collection of the best available freeware, but rather to serve as a
> repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for X?" As such, I
> think we do a disservice by giving out too many choices and diluting the
> purpose of the list. Quite frankly, it cheapens it.
262 programs - the breakdown of PL picks per subcategory is:
0 PL picks - 30 subcategories
1 PL pick - 107 subcategories
2 PL picks - 37 subcategories
3 PL picks - 14 subcategories
4 PL picks - 6 subcategories
5 PL picks - 3 subcategories
total - 197 subcategories
Spacey Spade
»Q« box...@gmx.net wrote...
If under some number of votes (like 12), we could apply some uncertainty
analysis (statistics).
Here's one simplified idea:
If 12 votes is the cutoff point, then we could subtract 8% (1/12
rounded) for every vote lacking, thus:
11 votes: max score is 92%
10 votes: max score is 84%
9 votes: max score is 76%
8 votes: max score is 68%
7 votes: not included in pricelessware
Thus, in the example above, 7 out of 8 votes would earn the program a
score = 7 divided by 8 times 0.68 = 0.595%, which is short of the 60%.
So the minimums to be included in pricelessware are 8 out of 9 votes or
8 out of 8 votes.
Spacey Spade
Anonymous Bigapple...@Optonline.Net wrote...
>
>Susan Bugher wrote:
>
>|IMO any PL2004 pick that received less that 11 votes can be called an
>|unfair pick. Programs with more votes were eliminated and it was chosen.
>|
>|Some subcategories overlap with others, some contain very different
>|programs - fairness is subjective. The Internet page is the largest.
>|Many programs on that page received high votes. I took this into
>|consideration when I made the PL picks and set the bar a little higher.
>
>QuickSliver was recommended by me. I do think though that in the
>future if programs are required to meet a specific number of votes
>that it should apply to all programs. BTW, I think you have a done a
>splendid job.
Me too
John Fitzsimons
>Susan Bugher wrote:
I dislike the term "honourable mentions" BUT IMO sometimes more than
two "best" apply. It depends on what one is wanting.
In text editors for example ;
Which is "best" for opening quickly ?
Which is "best" for stripping html ?
Which is best for programmers ?
Which is "best" for rtf ?
Which is "best" for macros/scripts ?
etc. etc.
I know reducing the above to eg. two choices saves work BUT if neither
of the two choices does what one wants then it is a waste of time one
looking at those two.
The PL list becomes MORE useful with *more* categories, not less, IMO.
Regards, John.
--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.aspects.org.au/index.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/
John Fitzsimons
< snip >
>But, Susan, you wrote, "A few winners with 6-7 votes were picked when a
>special capability would otherwise have been lost from the list."
< snip >
Which obviously didn't apply to AGO. Now, what other programs
have the "special capability" to re-order the newsgroup list in Free
Agent ? To change newsgroups to folders ? To display/print the
numbers/names of Agent/Free Agent newsgroups etc ?
Regards, John.
John Fitzsimons
>Spacey Spade <rEmOvEspa...@hotpop.com> wrote in
><news:MPG.1a442edea...@news.east.earthlink.net>:
>> Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the
>> best of the best, they do not have a large user base because only
>> a minority of people use such programs. For example an FTP
>> server.
>True, but there must be a cutoff somewhere,
Sure, but the cutoff figure doesn't need to be the same for every
category. Unless robots have taken over and we can no longer deal with
"case by case" issues.
>a vote threshold for
>considering an app with specialized features to be Pricelessware.
>Susan put that threshold at 6 votes this time around, and I certainly
>would not argue that is should be lower. If anything, I'd have made it
>higher.
The number should NOT be set IMO. In one year where few vote we could
have most of the nominations fail due to the majority having <6 votes.
In a "busy" voting year we could end up with rubbish due to everything
having >6 votes.
>> What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
>> voting:
>I don't think we should do that. As Genna pointed out, we vote for
>apps, not categories, and the goal should not be to fill categories.
>The categories are in place so that people visiting pricelessware.org
>have an easier time finding what they are looking for. IIRC the
>programs are categorized before voting only because categorization is a
>PiTA and would be an awful awful PiTA if we waited until after voting
>to sort them all.
Why one or the other ? Why not both ? Some programs compete against
everything. Others are "special interest" and can be "best of the
best" even though getting very few votes. Something like PTFB comes
to mind here.
John Fitzsimons
<whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
< snip >
>should all the 6-7 vote programs go?
Nope.
>Should some that were elimiated be added?
Yep.
John Fitzsimons
<rEmOvEspa...@hotpop.com> wrote:
< snip >
>Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the best of
>the best, they do not have a large user base because only a minority of
>people use such programs. For example an FTP server.
< snip >
When PL was "best of the best" that didn't matter. Now that PL is
instead "highest votes" such programs/utilities are likely to vanish.
The way of AGO etc.
Regards, John.
Susan Bugher
> Anonymous Bigapple...@Optonline.Net wrote...
>
>>Susan Bugher wrote:
>>
>>|IMO any PL2004 pick that received less that 11 votes can be called an
>>|unfair pick. Programs with more votes were eliminated and it was chosen.
>>Whatver the group decides is fine by me. I am little biased because
>>QuickSliver was recommended by me. I do think though that in the
>>future if programs are required to meet a specific number of votes
>>that it should apply to all programs.
I just recommended something close to that - it will be interesting to
see what others have to say about the selection process.
>> BTW, I think you have a done a splendid job.
Thank you very much. :)
»Q«
<news:qn4ntv032561l3np6...@4ax.com>:
>>True, but there must be a cutoff somewhere,
>
> Sure, but the cutoff figure doesn't need to be the same for every
> category. Unless robots have taken over and we can no longer deal
> with "case by case" issues.
It will never be the same for every subcategory. E.g., in the
newsreader category, the cutoff was at 12. (12 was the lowest cutoff
in any category.) In many other categories the cutoffs were lower.
There has to be a lowest cutoff somewhere. As has been pointed out,
some years it was as low as 2 votes, and I hope it will never be that
low again.
>>a vote threshold for considering an app with specialized features
>>to be Pricelessware. Susan put that threshold at 6 votes this time
>>around, and I certainly would not argue that is should be lower.
>>If anything, I'd have made it higher.
>
> The number should NOT be set IMO. In one year where few vote we
> could have most of the nominations fail due to the majority having
> <6 votes. In a "busy" voting year we could end up with rubbish due
> to everything having >6 votes.
That's not a danger. The lowest allowed vote count for an app to make
the list, this year 6, was set /after/ the "busy" level was known.
>>> What can be done in the future is to add program categories to
>>> the voting:
>
>>I don't think we should do that. As Genna pointed out, we vote
>>for apps, not categories, and the goal should not be to fill
>>categories. The categories are in place so that people visiting
>>pricelessware.org have an easier time finding what they are
>>looking for. IIRC the programs are categorized before voting only
>>because categorization is a PiTA and would be an awful awful PiTA
>>if we waited until after voting to sort them all.
>
> Why one or the other ? Why not both ?
You lost me. Why not both what? If you mean dicussion of categories
both before and after the vote, we still do that when needed.
> Some programs compete against everything. Others are "special
> interest" and can be "best of the best" even though getting very
> few votes. Something like PTFB comes to mind here.
And PTFB is on the 2004 PL despite getting very few votes.
--
»Q« Life is a bitch, but some of the puppies are cute.
Roger Johansson
>it was never the purpose of the PL to be a comprehensive
>collection of the best available freeware, but rather to serve as a
>repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for X?" As such, I
>think we do a disservice by giving out too many choices and diluting the
>purpose of the list. Quite frankly, it cheapens it.
Think about who we are doing this for, the people who are looking for
priceless freeware programs.
Imagine somebody searching for a certain kind of program, in the
pricelessware list, and give him/her the best service possible.
I think there should be programs in as many categories as possible,
with good cross referencing and search possibilities.
And good descriptions of each program, so the user does not have to
download, install and try it out for himself.
In categories which are important, like web browsers, text editors,
file managers, there should be more than one program to choose from.
I see no value in choosing a sole winner, it is better for the user to
have more than one program to choose from.
So I wouldn't mind if there were more than one program in all
categories actually. Maybe reporting the number of votes for each to
give the user an indication of what alternative he should try first.
The limit should be the number of categories and programs which is
practical to handle for the organizers, and the number of really good
programs available.
(Some people seem to see this more as a sports competition, and it is
very important to them to find a sole winner than to think about the
needs of the people who can use the list to find what they are looking
for.)
--
Roger J.
(My email address is a spam trap, don't use it)
omega
> "Genna Reeney" <willowbr...@WATERworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >it was never the purpose of the PL to be a comprehensive
> >collection of the best available freeware, but rather to serve as a
> >repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for X?" As such, I
> >think we do a disservice by giving out too many choices and diluting the
> >purpose of the list. Quite frankly, it cheapens it.
>
> Think about who we are doing this for, the people who are looking for
> priceless freeware programs.
Are we? Is that the defining agenda of the PL? To serve as a FAQ for
passersby?
> Imagine somebody searching for a certain kind of program, in the
> pricelessware list, and give him/her the best service possible.
Or even, is the PL to serve as a FAQ + InFAQ, covering all categories?
How I hear the original sense: Best of the best, to honor the very
finest freeware programs, and their authors, for really standing out,
bright lights.
I think we'd want to try to work with the two goals at once.
If serve only the goal of a full FAQ, which then includes programs
which really are not so outstanding, with an overlarge load of progs
of the same type - that is compromising the one thing for the other.
And reverse the same, as well: One still feels strongly inclined to
fulfill some of the more common "what are the best programs for X"
Q's, in the PL, even when the best of type is neither brilliant, nor
a high vote-getter.
[...]
> So I wouldn't mind if there were more than one program in all
> categories actually. Maybe reporting the number of votes for each to
> give the user an indication of what alternative he should try first.
If I read you right, you might be headed here towards the road of extreme.
Where it would be towards rendering the PL into a software directory. A
TuCows, a WebAttack, etc.
. . .
I hesitate about sending this post, feeling it a bit useless in the way
only abstractions are floated, no specific cases. Yet the way Roger put
forth /the purpose of the PL/, that was provocative enough to make me
want to try, in turn, to provoke additional comment about that.
--
Karen S.
omega
> omega wrote:
>
> > I hesitate about sending this post, feeling it a bit useless in the
> > way only abstractions are floated, no specific cases. Yet the way
> > Roger put forth /the purpose of the PL/, that was provocative enough
> > to make me want to try, in turn, to provoke additional comment about
> > that.
> >
> I don't feel Roger's post was provocative.
Where's my OED? I meant provocative in the sense of "provoking thought" or
"provoking discussion," not as a negative comment. I'd hoped which sense
would be clear when I called my own motive, "to provoke..." (At least your
post gives me the chance to clarify the intended meaning with that word
choice.)
> In fact, agree with his goal of wanting to help people get really good
> freeware in a LOT of categories, including the tiniest of niche categories.
> There really is no site that does that. Web Attack and the others include
> junk along with the good stuff.
If it were ever chosen to put together the finest competitor for a very good
freeware directory site, it would be ACF who would be best qualified.
> BUT...and that's a big "but"....that is not the goal of PW as it's been
> laid out to us many times. So, fundamentally...it appears some people
> just don't agree with the goals of Pricelessware, and that's fine. It is
> worth noting that many new people have come onboard since the concept of
> Pricelessware was first debated. If the discussions were held all over
> again, would they opt for the same definition we're using today?...or
> would they opt for something more inclusive? Who's to say...?
It's interesting for me to read the commentary on this. By both newer
participants, as well as those who have been involved in PL since its
first year.
> I personally think Pricelessware has worked well, and we're always going
> to have disagreement on the borderline cases. I just wish it were
> easier...
You'll have noticed how it's looking to be more than issues with borderline
cases, but also about larger, vaguer things, involving end-goals...
--
Karen S.
Roger Johansson
Maybe we should vote on the purpose and policy of the Pricelessware
list?
First we could formulate the alternatives:
1:
>the purpose of the PL to be a comprehensive
>> >collection of the best available freeware,
2:
>>but rather to serve as a
>> >repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for X?"
3:
>> Think about who we are doing this for, the people who are looking for
>> priceless freeware programs.
4:
>Are we? Is that the defining agenda of the PL? To serve as a FAQ for
>passersby?
Now you think only of the people who find this list by participating
in this newsgroup. I want to add the people who find it by searching
the web. By choosing suitable search words and include them in the web
site we can make it easier to find via google search etc.
The PL list could become more known and be a place where people
search, a better place than many other sites where ads and shareware
litter the lists of freeware.
>> Imagine somebody searching for a certain kind of program, in the
>> pricelessware list, and give him/her the best service possible.
>
>Or even, is the PL to serve as a FAQ + InFAQ, covering all categories?
5:
>How I hear the original sense: Best of the best, to honor the very
>finest freeware programs, and their authors, for really standing out,
>bright lights.
I would not vote for this alternative. Honoring authors is a too small
goal, they can read the newsgroup if they want to boost their
self-confidence. I think it is much more worthy to work for the users
of freeware, all the people in the world who want to find the best
programs available, and which are freely available.
(To me, a very good program has to be freeware, and preferrable open
source too, that guarantees a continued development where all
interested people can participate. A commercial program is too
restricted too a few users who have paid for it, and the ownership by
a company restricts its development very much.)
6:
>I think we'd want to try to work with the two goals at once.
>If serve only the goal of a full FAQ, which then includes programs
>which really are not so outstanding, with an overlarge load of progs
>of the same type - that is compromising the one thing for the other.
>And reverse the same, as well: One still feels strongly inclined to
>fulfill some of the more common "what are the best programs for X"
>Q's, in the PL, even when the best of type is neither brilliant, nor
>a high vote-getter.
My numbering above is just to suggest that we could set up a number of
alternative goals and vote for them.
But I can see some basic alternatives:
1: We are doing this for the users of programs
2: or for the authors of programs
The PL list exists for
1: the participators of this newsgroup, or
2: for all the people who use internet.
Spacey Spade
Roger Johansson no-e...@home.se wrote...
[snip]
>1: We are doing this for the users of programs
>2: or for the authors of programs
We are doing this for the users of programs (that's what the authors
would want)
>The PL list exists for
>1: the participators of this newsgroup, or
>2: for all the people who use internet.
I think it ends up being both, but I prefer 2.
Spacey Spade
jason m...@privacy.net wrote...
>omega wrote:
>
>> I hesitate about sending this post, feeling it a bit useless in the
>> way only abstractions are floated, no specific cases. Yet the way
>> Roger put forth /the purpose of the PL/, that was provocative enough
>> to make me want to try, in turn, to provoke additional comment about
>> that.
>>
>categories, including the tiniest of niche categories. There really is
>no site that does that. Web Attack and the others include junk along
>with the good stuff.
>
>laid out to us many times. So, fundamentally...it appears some people
>just don't agree with the goals of Pricelessware, and that's fine. It is
>worth noting that many new people have come onboard since the concept of
>Pricelessware was first debated. If the discussions were held all over
>again, would they opt for the same definition we're using today?...or
>would they opt for something more inclusive? Who's to say...?
>
>to have disagreement on the borderline cases. I just wish it were
>easier...
Here's where I put my foot in my mouth (Spacey trademark):
Have you and omega and Roger volunteered your services? I honestly
don't know. I don't think Susan should have to take on the whole thing
by herself. Better would be that the Pricelessware site was a group
effort.
I personally don't feel I deserve to say what should be of the
Pricelessware site because I only take a small part, while Susan does
all the work. However, if it was a group effort, I could see having
nominations and voting on the goals of the Pricelessware site. Is this
the right word:
char·ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chärtr)
n.
A document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority,
creating a public or private corporation, such as a city, college, or
bank, and defining its privileges and purposes.
The legislature would be ACF, ofcourse.
Spacey
--
Are we to become politicians? Let us pray.
Roger Johansson
>jason m...@privacy.net wrote...
>>I don't feel Roger's post was provocative. In fact, agree with his goal
>>of wanting to help people get really good freeware in a LOT of
>>categories, including the tiniest of niche categories. There really is
>>no site that does that. Web Attack and the others include junk along
>>with the good stuff.
>Here's where I put my foot in my mouth (Spacey trademark):
>Have you and omega and Roger volunteered your services? I honestly
>don't know. I don't think Susan should have to take on the whole thing
>by herself. Better would be that the Pricelessware site was a group
>effort.
We all contribute in one way or another, more or less, but do you
think the policy of Pricelessware list should be decided by only the
one, or the few, who has put most work in it?
>I personally don't feel I deserve to say what should be of the
>Pricelessware site because I only take a small part, while Susan does
>all the work. However, if it was a group effort,
It is done in the name of the participators of this newsgroup, so I
think it is fair that the participators are allowed to contribute to
the direction, the policy, of this group effort, even if a few
individuals put more work into it.
>The legislature would be ACF, ofcourse.
Yes.
Susan Bugher
> omega <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe we should vote on the purpose and policy of the Pricelessware
> list?
>
> First we could formulate the alternatives:
Let's examine the *present* purpose and policy before we do that.
http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
<q>
The best of the best in Windows © Freeware,
as determined by the readers of alt.comp.freeware
The Pricelessware List reflects the programs favored by participants in
the alt.comp.freeware newsgroup ; it is not an exhaustive list of the
best available Freeware.
</q>
KEY POINTS IN THE ABOVE:
1. The best of the best
2. the programs favored by participant in alt.comp.freeware
3. it is not an exhaustive list
We determine *favored* programs by a vote. We determine the *best of the
best* in the selection process that follows the vote. That is also when
we determine how *exhaustive* the list will be.
Genna said that originally the PL had 100 programs.
IMO it should just be the top 10 programs . . . ;)
Seriously, IMO a target of 200-300 programs is about right. I favor the
low end of that range. PL2004 would be much less *exhaustive* if it
contained only 100 programs. (This year we voted on 412 programs in 197
subcategories and selected 262 programs in 167 subcategories.)
Irfanview (87 votes) is the the *most* favored and best of the best of
all programs on the list. XnView (25 votes) has been voted one of the
most favored and one of the best of the best (in the top 10 percent).
Clearly the best of the best and the most favored program goals are
contradictory *if* we apply them within subcategories. I favor using the
vote as the primary means of determining the best of the best.
Now let's look at your alternatives:
> 1:
>
>>the purpose of the PL to be a comprehensive
>>
>>>>collection of the best available freeware,
>
That is not a goal at this time. IMO it shouldn't be.
> 2:
>
>>>but rather to serve as a
>>>
>>>>repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for X?"
to a certain extent - it is not intended to be an exhaustive list
> 3:
>
>>>Think about who we are doing this for, the people who are looking for
>>>priceless freeware programs.
>
>
> 4:
>
>>Are we? Is that the defining agenda of the PL? To serve as a FAQ for
>>passersby?
>
> Now you think only of the people who find this list by participating
> in this newsgroup. I want to add the people who find it by searching
> the web. By choosing suitable search words and include them in the web
> site we can make it easier to find via google search etc.
> The PL list could become more known and be a place where people
> search, a better place than many other sites where ads and shareware
> litter the lists of freeware.
>
>
>>>Imagine somebody searching for a certain kind of program, in the
>>>pricelessware list, and give him/her the best service possible.
>>
>>Or even, is the PL to serve as a FAQ + InFAQ, covering all categories?
again, that is not a goal at this time.
IMO it exists for all those things.
Jim Scott
rEmOvEspa...@hotpop.com says...
|>The PL list exists for
|>1: the participators of this newsgroup, or
|>2: for all the people who use internet.
|
|I think it ends up being both, but I prefer 2.
|
I certainly prefer 2.
As the discussion continues I feel more and more alienated towards the
group.
I came to the group some years ago looking for freeware and was directed
to pricelessware. There I found several newsreaders or file managers or
whatever. I tried this one and discarded it, so I tried that one, until I
found the one that suited my needs.
The discussion running at the moment is heading towards a 'cup winner' in
each catagory, which if this had been the case in the past I would never
have tried half the programs that I now use.
--
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address
Visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Bugher
> Here's where I put my foot in my mouth (Spacey trademark):
> Have you and omega and Roger volunteered your services? I honestly
> don't know. I don't think Susan should have to take on the whole thing
> by herself. Better would be that the Pricelessware site was a group
> effort.
I agree. :)
In all seriousness, the workload needs to be shared to ensure the future
of the Pricelessware List.
If preparing the Pricelessware List becomes a matter of several days
effort I think the group can count on some sucker . . . erm . . . make
that *noble volunteer* being willing to take on the task each year.
The greatest part of the work is preparing the PL program descriptions.
That part of the work can and IMO *should* be done by others. This year
we made a start - at the last minute - next year I think we can do
better . . .
> I personally don't feel I deserve to say what should be of the
> Pricelessware site because I only take a small part, while Susan does
> all the work.
I strongly disagree. IMO decisions about the Pricelessware site should
be made by the group. OTOH I reserve the right to decide if I am willing
to do additional work to *implement* a decision.
It's a case of put your money where your mouth is - don't make or agree
to a suggestion if you are not willing to put forth some effort.
However, if it was a group effort, I could see having
> nominations and voting on the goals of the Pricelessware site.
Good idea . . . :)
I have already asked for comments on the PL selection process. Speak up
everybody.
Roger Johansson
>Let's examine the *present* purpose and policy before we do that.
I think it is better to first think about what we want, and then
compare it to the old rules formulated earlier.
If we start off from the old rules we might tend to conserve rules we
actually should change, and would like to change, if we took a fresh
look at the problem.
Roger Johansson
>|>The PL list exists for
>|>1: the participators of this newsgroup, or
>|>2: for all the people who use internet.
>|
>|I think it ends up being both, but I prefer 2.
>|
>I certainly prefer 2.
>
>As the discussion continues I feel more and more alienated towards the
>group.
>I came to the group some years ago looking for freeware and was directed
>to pricelessware. There I found several newsreaders or file managers or
>whatever. I tried this one and discarded it, so I tried that one, until I
>found the one that suited my needs.
>The discussion running at the moment is heading towards a 'cup winner' in
>each catagory, which if this had been the case in the past I would never
>have tried half the programs that I now use.
I agree.
When I use the Pricelessware list I am in the same situation as
anybody who finds it and uses it.
I would like to get the best advice possible for the needs I have at
the moment.
If I am looking for a newsreader I want to see descriptions of the
best freeware newsreaders available, plus links to download them, the
size, and links to the home pages of the programs if available.
I have no interest in seeing only one sole winner. It is better to
have a choice of the best newsreaders. If there are 3, 4 or 5 choices
I can download the two which, from the descriptions, seem to fill my
needs best.
I also get to know something about the others without having to try
them myself.
Susan Bugher
> In article <MPG.1a46352ec...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> rEmOvEspa...@hotpop.com says...
>
> |>The PL list exists for
> |>1: the participators of this newsgroup, or
> |>2: for all the people who use internet.
> |
> |I think it ends up being both, but I prefer 2.
> |
> I certainly prefer 2.
>
> As the discussion continues I feel more and more alienated towards the
> group.
> I came to the group some years ago looking for freeware and was directed
> to pricelessware. There I found several newsreaders or file managers or
> whatever. I tried this one and discarded it, so I tried that one, until I
> found the one that suited my needs.
> The discussion running at the moment is heading towards a 'cup winner' in
> each catagory, which if this had been the case in the past I would never
> have tried half the programs that I now use.
Cup winner is certainly not the position I'm advocating - and IMO it's
not the way the discussion is headed. IMO there are two issues:
What weight should be given to the total number of votes a program receives?
How exhaustive should the PL be - how many programs should it have?
IMO our primary criteria for selection should be the vote count. In
general that would mean that the most popular subcategories would have
the greatest selection of programs.
There is a *practical* limit to the number of programs we can have on
the PL if the web pages are prepared and maintained by a volunteer.
We can't be all things to all people - IMO we should limit the list to
the most popular programs and subcategories with a *limited* number of
additional programs to broaden the program selection.
Spacey Spade
[snip]
>But I'd still say a total of 7 votes is not enough, and that it
>should not matter that the program B is the clear choice amongst
>users of that subcategory of apps.
Ok, I'm happy we are clear
>Today, Susan has written a good
>deal here about overall vote totals being of primary importance, and
>I agree with her completely about that.
>In any case, it should be fun to hash all this out between now and
>the 2005 process. <beg>
That's ok, I'm used to being misunderstood. I'll still be here, unless
I find something more productive!
Spacey
Spacey Spade
Roger Johansson no-e...@home.se wrote...
>Spacey Spade <rEmOvEspa...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>jason m...@privacy.net wrote...
>
>>>I don't feel Roger's post was provocative. In fact, agree with his goal
>>>of wanting to help people get really good freeware in a LOT of
>>>categories, including the tiniest of niche categories. There really is
>>>no site that does that. Web Attack and the others include junk along
>>>with the good stuff.
>
>>Here's where I put my foot in my mouth (Spacey trademark):
>>Have you and omega and Roger volunteered your services? I honestly
>>don't know. I don't think Susan should have to take on the whole thing
>>by herself. Better would be that the Pricelessware site was a group
>>effort.
>
>We all contribute in one way or another, more or less, but do you
>think the policy of Pricelessware list should be decided by only the
>one, or the few, who has put most work in it?
I would prefer ACF make choices as a group, and having a vote on
issues seems to be the way to do this. I don't think I have the Luxury
of having a choice in this decision, because I believe that if Susan
does not like the end result, she will no longer do the site. I
certainly wouldn't want her to do something she doesn't like. I would
be willing to help if the effort was split up, but not to take on the
whole as she has done.
Spacey
Spacey Spade
Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
[snip]
>Susan
Perhaps we could have the best of both worlds:
Site 1: Pricelessware - the site of the most popular programs
Site 2: To Be Named - the site of the best programs for categories not
included in the Pricelessware site.
Voting details:
OR
Nominate a few charters and weed them until 2 are left, then have a vote
on the charter of the Pricelessware site.
Spacey
--
char·ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chärtr)
n.
A document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority,
creating a public or private corporation, such as a city, college, or
bank, and defining its privileges and purposes.
The legislature would be ACF, ofcourse.
omega
> > Have you and omega and Roger volunteered your services?
I haven't tracked Roger's posts, but Jason and I have both participated
very actively in the discussions. Are you saying that if I don't eg
dial into my 15k connection to track web links, that I should leave off
posting to PL threads?
[...]
> The greatest part of the work is preparing the PL program descriptions.
> That part of the work can and IMO *should* be done by others.
The first real weight should fall upon the nominator. To have a bunch of
people just lazily say, "I like program X and I nominate it," then leave
all the responsibility for the nomination to others is irresponsible. Is
there a mechanism that might work? A "preliminary nominations" page vs a
"completed nominations" page? Where those who have interest in a candidate
program, especially its nominator, they must take the initiative to supply
the necessary information. Required to get something moved to the completed
nominations page. And their failure to do that will just leave it only on
the "preliminary nominations" page, not eligible for voting.
[...]
> It's a case of put your money where your mouth is - don't make or agree
> to a suggestion if you are not willing to put forth some effort.
[...]
> I have already asked for comments on the PL selection process. Speak up
> everybody.
Do these two excerpts work together?
I know I've snipped a lot, but this thread turn has left me confused.
I am not to ask questions about nature of PL goals, nor express any opinions
about procedures, unless I put forth ________ (undefined) effort ?
. . .
Sorry to come off all thin-skinned today, but really, I'd appreciate some
clarification. I can leave off the discussion, just as easily.
--
Karen S.
Susan Bugher
> Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net>:
>
>>>Have you and omega and Roger volunteered your services?
>
> I haven't tracked Roger's posts, but Jason and I have both participated
> very actively in the discussions. Are you saying that if I don't eg
> dial into my 15k connection to track web links, that I should leave off
> posting to PL threads?
Hey, I didn't say that - that was Spacey on one of his guilt trips -
*he* didn't feel entitled to comment because etc. . . .
>>The greatest part of the work is preparing the PL program descriptions.
>>That part of the work can and IMO *should* be done by others.
>
> The first real weight should fall upon the nominator. To have a bunch of
> people just lazily say, "I like program X and I nominate it," then leave
> all the responsibility for the nomination to others is irresponsible. Is
> there a mechanism that might work? A "preliminary nominations" page vs a
> "completed nominations" page? Where those who have interest in a candidate
> program, especially its nominator, they must take the initiative to supply
> the necessary information. Required to get something moved to the completed
> nominations page. And their failure to do that will just leave it only on
> the "preliminary nominations" page, not eligible for voting.
IMO it would help to have the program descriptions submitted before
nominations open. We could shorten the time between the start of
nominations and the program discussion period - maybe even start both at
the same time. . .
ISTM there should be a way to do this - have been thinking about it . . .
>>It's a case of put your money where your mouth is - don't make or agree
>>to a suggestion if you are not willing to put forth some effort.
>>I have already asked for comments on the PL selection process. Speak up
>>everybody.
>
> Do these two excerpts work together?
NO!!!
The first comment was about suggestions for the site that involve more
*WORK*: please add these 6 additional kinds of cross index pages to the
PL programs etc. etc. - I say phooey to that - I ain't got time - *you*
add them if you think they're such a wonderful idea . . . :)
The second comment is about plans and goals - those are group decisions
- the more discussion the better.
> Sorry to come off all thin-skinned today, but really, I'd appreciate some
> clarification. I can leave off the discussion, just as easily.
*Please* don't do that.
Spacey Spade
Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
[snip]
>In all seriousness, the workload needs to be shared to ensure the future
>of the Pricelessware List.
>> I personally don't feel I deserve to say what should be of the
>> Pricelessware site because I only take a small part, while Susan does
>> all the work.
>
>I strongly disagree. IMO decisions about the Pricelessware site should
>be made by the group. OTOH I reserve the right to decide if I am willing
>to do additional work to *implement* a decision.
>
>It's a case of put your money where your mouth is - don't make or agree
>to a suggestion if you are not willing to put forth some effort.
I would be willing to make some web pages for "the best freeware in
niche categories", or something to that extent.
The voting details would be as I've described:
<quote summary>
Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the best of
the best at their task, they do not have a large user base because only
a minority of people use such program categories. For example an FTP
server as opposed to an email client, which most everyone uses. For
example all the small single purpose apps.
What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
voting:
LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.
...
LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
...
So now we can grade votes on percentages, which would be a lot more
meaningful when it comes to grading programs in "niche categories".
This would answer the questions:
- Of the people who use GraphicsConverters, what percentage find
Irfanview to be the best (or among the best in case they vote for more
than one GC).
- Of the people who use a custom ProgramLauncher, what percentage use
RUNit?
*********An example vote:*********
LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.
----------------------
FtpServer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer
LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer
**********************************
</quote summary>
Spacey
Spacey Spade
Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
>omega wrote:
>
>> Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net>:
>>
>>>>Have you and omega and Roger volunteered your services?
>>
>> I haven't tracked Roger's posts, but Jason and I have both participated
>> very actively in the discussions. Are you saying that if I don't eg
>> dial into my 15k connection to track web links, that I should leave off
>> posting to PL threads?
>
>Hey, I didn't say that - that was Spacey on one of his guilt trips -
>*he* didn't feel entitled to comment because etc. . . .
The "guilt" was a facade for my own sense of morality. I do not require
others to share my morality, but would like them to respect it.
I strive to love everyone. My sense of humor may be a bit wicked
sometimes...
--
I'm Yoda, I'm a soldja!
I'll mold ya, then fold ya!
I THOUGHT I TOLD YA!
From the Star Wars Gangsta Rap:
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/atom_1403
Susan Bugher
> In article <vtp60qs...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
> I would be willing to make some web pages for "the best freeware in
> niche categories", or something to that extent.
Good idea. IMO something in addition to the PL is needed.
but . . .
The 2004 nomination pages are the second set of 2004 pages on the
Pricelessware site. Karen just suggested having pre-nomination pages for
PL2005 - that seems like a good idea too.
IMO three sets is plenty . . .
Maybe combine your idea and hers - then the *third* set of pages could
be sort of a farm club for the Pricelessware pages - a place to list
niche programs and runners-up on PL2004 - add new programs during the
year if there is support for them - that could prequalify them for
PL2005 nomination (which would get rid of shareware nominations etc.).
and . . .
The descriptions for PL2005 nominations would be done *before*
nominations start. I like it. :) :) :)
omega
> omega wrote:
> > Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net>:
> >
> >>The greatest part of the work is preparing the PL program descriptions.
> >>That part of the work can and IMO *should* be done by others.
> >
> > The first real weight should fall upon the nominator. To have a bunch of
> > people just lazily say, "I like program X and I nominate it," then leave
> > all the responsibility for the nomination to others is irresponsible. Is
> > there a mechanism that might work?
> >
[snipping a suggested mechanism which would be messy as compared with
the following]
>
> IMO it would help to have the program descriptions submitted before
> nominations open.
Submitting a completed application first, that's how nearly everything
in the real world works. Eek, try to visualize it otherwise. Chaos.
If one applies for a job and skips putting in job history, it doesn't
befall the hiring committee to do that. Or if you want to enter your
pooch into a dog pageant, it's up to you to put in the pedigree and
other information they want. Or if a sw author submits his/her program
to a site, and puts not homepage links nor description...
> We could shorten the time between the start of nominations and the
> program discussion period - maybe even start both at the same time. . .
It was relatively quiet during nominations, and it would be fruitful to
get more discussion time in at that earlier stage.
>
> ISTM there should be a way to do this - have been thinking about it . . .
[later in thread, <vtpf72h...@corp.supernews.com>]
> The descriptions for PL2005 nominations would be done *before*
> nominations start. I like it. :) :) :)
Me too!
For those who don't bother to supply a program description that is
complete, then, well, it's like with submitting applications in the
real world. It means that no one sincerely cared enough to get that
puppy into the pageant.
--
Karen S.
Spacey Spade
>Spacey Spade wrote:
>
>> In article <vtp60qs...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
>
>> I would be willing to make some web pages for "the best freeware in
>> niche categories", or something to that extent.
>
>Good idea. IMO something in addition to the PL is needed.
>
>but . . .
>
>The 2004 nomination pages are the second set of 2004 pages on the
>Pricelessware site. Karen just suggested having pre-nomination pages for
>PL2005 - that seems like a good idea too.
>
>IMO three sets is plenty . . .
>
>Maybe combine your idea and hers - then the *third* set of pages could
>be sort of a farm club for the Pricelessware pages - a place to list
>niche programs and runners-up on PL2004
The pages I would put forth would have only those programs that made the
cut according to the voting procedures I described:
...
...
*********An example vote:*********
</quote summary>
>- add new programs during the
>year if there is support for them - that could prequalify them for
>PL2005 nomination (which would get rid of shareware nominations etc.).
>
>and . . .
>
>The descriptions for PL2005 nominations would be done *before*
>nominations start. I like it. :) :) :)
The descriptions could easily grow into 1000+ programs, so I don't think
this is a good idea, just because of the workload involved. I think
current procedures are fine, with the few changes in the voting.
>Susan
Spacey Spade
omega m...@privacy.net wrote...
>Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net>:
[snip]
>[...]
>> The greatest part of the work is preparing the PL program descriptions.
>> That part of the work can and IMO *should* be done by others.
>
>The first real weight should fall upon the nominator. To have a bunch of
>people just lazily say, "I like program X and I nominate it," then leave
>all the responsibility for the nomination to others is irresponsible. Is
>there a mechanism that might work? A "preliminary nominations" page vs a
>"completed nominations" page? Where those who have interest in a candidate
>program, especially its nominator, they must take the initiative to supply
>the necessary information. Required to get something moved to the completed
>nominations page. And their failure to do that will just leave it only on
>the "preliminary nominations" page, not eligible for voting.
I think that during the nominations, the instructions posted to have
complete descriptions will be clear. The responsibility to post
complete and accurate descriptions should be up to the nominators. The
hand holding or guidance to correct nominations lacking information
should come from the altruism of other A.C.F.ers. Correcting
information in the descriptions should also be the responsibility of all
ACF-ers. The person(s) putting stuff on the site already have their
hands full. This is why I don't like the "preliminary nominations" part
of your idea. The rest is good.
Spacey
ps.
I know you'd like to help, I would never question that. Only you can
decide how (and in my case, determine if the help is wanted).
omega
[....]
Spacey, I'm having a daydream, based on this, but then off to a rather
different track. That ACF also works on - separate from PL (the most
priceless programs) - a "FAQ."
Some of the best sources of information on certain subjects are many times
a large newsgroup FAQ - a compilation of the knowledge of that newsgroup.
To begin the project primarily within the group, until forms take shape.
Make it a later stage to figure out how to resolve the web presence (and
administrative labor) for such a FAQ.
And that working towards such a FAQ, we do go towards the more
comprehensive. What is the best freeware FTP server? What are the top
seven most favored email clients? What are the best /three/ registry
editors? (*g*) A FAQ which would be very structured...and fairly full.
One thing I like about the daydream, is that it would give ACF something
to do when PL discussions are over. A way to continue focusing on freeware,
in a non-repetitious way. And ideally, with the end result of compiling our
collective experiences into a worthy informational document. (A dynamic
document, regularly updated, due to the nature of the subject, but all the
better.)
Start out by use of discussion threads, each share a same header, and be
individually branched off, by some level of category of the software type.
(Imitating that method which works well for the PL.) Start talking about
which programs in each category...head towards placing ones votes and them
being tallied in that manner you've been outlining...
I'm only presenting something very vague, I know, but if only...
--
Karen S.
»Q«
<news:MPG.1a469fd03...@news.individual.net>:
> As the discussion continues I feel more and more alienated towards
> the group.
> I came to the group some years ago looking for freeware and was
> directed to pricelessware. There I found several newsreaders or
> file managers or whatever. I tried this one and discarded it, so I
> tried that one, until I found the one that suited my needs.
> The discussion running at the moment is heading towards a 'cup
> winner' in each catagory, which if this had been the case in the
> past I would never have tried half the programs that I now use.
I'm surprised you feel alienated. One bitter poster has strongly
implied that Susan is going to do what she wants with the PL no
matter what we think, but all her statements and actions give clear
evidence that nothing could be further from the truth. And there are
currently cases being made on both 'sides' of the issue, with quite a
few suggestions that are in between the extremes of an exhaustive
list of freeware and a list of 'cup winners' in each category.
Even if the 2005 PL somehow had only a single listing in each
category (which I think is rather unlikely to happen), the
nominations page will still be available. Someone like you who did
not want only to see the best of the best but also a longer list of
apps considered very good by members of a.c.f would likely try the PL
entry first. But if it did not suit, the others would also be
available, with descriptions and links. The "try several and discard
the ones that don't suit you" method would still be pretty easy to
use by looking at pricelessware.org, no matter how all this shakes
out.
--
»Q« Life is a bitch, but some of the puppies are cute.
Spacey Spade
jason m...@privacy.net wrote...
>Spacey Spade wrote:
>
>> The pages I would put forth would have only those programs that made the
>> cut according to the voting procedures I described:
>>
>> <quote summary>
>> Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the best of
>> the best at their task, they do not have a large user base because only
>> a minority of people use such program categories. For example an FTP
>> server as opposed to an email client, which most everyone uses. For
>> example all the small single purpose apps.
>
>you talk of specialized, i.e. niche, programs, but in your examples, you
>give major programs like graphics converters. So I'm unsure if you're
>trying to supplement the PW vote or compete with it. I'm sure you've
>explained this somewhere, but I must've missed it.
The vote for the PL would be the same as the vote for the "Niche
Pricelessware". People only respond to one thread to vote for both
processes. The popular vote (tallying based on number of votes only)
would only use this info:
LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer
So for the popular vote, you read off 1 vote for CesarFTP, 1 vote for
XnView, and 1 vote for IrfanView.
Could you present another example for me?
Spacey
Spacey Spade
omega m...@privacy.net wrote...
[snip voting details]
>Spacey, I'm having a daydream, based on this, but then off to a rather
>different track. That ACF also works on - separate from PL (the most
>priceless programs) - a "FAQ."
I would mainly like to see this vote count, and supply the knowledge
derived from it. The vote would happen concurrently with the vote for
the PL so that voters need only make one vote post.
>Some of the best sources of information on certain subjects are many times
>a large newsgroup FAQ - a compilation of the knowledge of that newsgroup.
Like cdrfaq.org
>To begin the project primarily within the group, until forms take shape.
>Make it a later stage to figure out how to resolve the web presence (and
>administrative labor) for such a FAQ.
I love automation too much for that! I can already see people
contributing their own FAQs, with a person organizing the FAQs in a
Directory. I still prefer handling the Voting procedure above to create
the "Niche Pricelessware" pages.
>And that working towards such a FAQ, we do go towards the more
>comprehensive. What is the best freeware FTP server? What are the top
>seven most favored email clients? What are the best /three/ registry
>editors? (*g*)
You have a pretty smile.
>A FAQ which would be very structured...and fairly full.
>
>One thing I like about the daydream, is that it would give ACF something
>to do when PL discussions are over. A way to continue focusing on freeware,
>in a non-repetitious way. And ideally, with the end result of compiling our
>collective experiences into a worthy informational document. (A dynamic
>document, regularly updated, due to the nature of the subject, but all the
>better.)
Go for it!
>Start out by use of discussion threads, each share a same header, and be
>individually branched off, by some level of category of the software type.
>(Imitating that method which works well for the PL.) Start talking about
>which programs in each category...head towards placing ones votes and them
>being tallied in that manner you've been outlining...
With the nature of an FAQ being so comprehensive, I doubt you would have
people read through everything all the way to the voting part. An
orderly vote once a year is good for voter turn-out (except for DC, poor
thing), and you need as much turn-out as possible to get good results.
>I'm only presenting something very vague, I know, but if only...
If you like what you think of, and would have fun turning it into
reality, then go for it.
Spacey
Susan Bugher
> Spacey Spade wrote:-
> Susan's frustration at having to constantly crack the whip
> to get people to respond was palpable. (Okay, here's where Susan comes in
> and says I was NOT frustrated!! But I *dare* her to say that with a
> straight face. :-))
I won't even try. ;)
OTOH it was a last minute change - and that didn't help (no proper
description of what was needed etc.)
I thought Genna was going to be the point person and I would be sitting
quietly in a corner doing the web pages - when Genna found she was too
overloaded to get involved this year ISTM there I had two choices- I
could ask for a lot of help from a few people (the way I did last year)
or I could ask for a little help from a lot of people - which is what I
did. (Genna did it all - she's superwoman - I'm not).
Having survived that phase of the PL2004 selection process I'm convinced
that descriptions should be submitted before the start of nominations.
If we do that it that way next year I won't have to get the whip out. ;)
Spacey Spade
>
>This year, we had separate voting threads for Graphics, File Utilities,
>etc.
>
>Next year, you're proposing one "megathread" where all categories are
>combined?
The voting for PL 2004 did have all the categories combined... were
there not progams from all categories placed in the same vote?
>During the vote, you remove all programs you don't wish to vote for.
>
>The only reason you have CesarFTP listed without a category assigned is
>because people didn't agree to have an FTP server category??? No
>category = niche program???
Let's say that the nominator nominated CesarFTP and gave the category
FTP Server for it. So we only have one category for CesarFTP. The
category was in the example I posted: the reason you don't see it is
because you snipped the other part. The other part had the category
"FtpServer". The other part, the categories, would be in the same post
as the voting for the programs.
Some programs fulfill more than one category because they are
multipurpose... the nominator for XnView, for example, may nominate
XnView as a Graphics Viewer and Graphics Converter. During the vote, a
voter could vote for XnView as a graphics converter (they use XnView's
nConvert... ok, lousy example, but let's proceed), but not as a Graphics
Viewer. Thus parts of this voters vote would read:
<snip>
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer
<snip>
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
<snip>
This tells me that this person does not use XnView as a Graphics Editor
or as a Graphics Viewer. Other people may vote for it as a Graphics
Viewer and Editor, but not this person. Lets say that of the 100 people
who voted, 87 use a GraphicsViewer. Lets say that 24 people voted for
XnViewAsGraphicsViewer. Survey Says: 24 out of 87 people who use a
graphics viewer think that XnView is the best graphics viewer. With a
percentage score of 24/87 = 28%, XnViewAsGraphicsViewer does not make
the cut into the Niche Pricelessware, but it DOES make it into the
popular vote and Pricelessware page.
>After the vote, the programs with categories asssigned are analyzed for
>inclusion in the main PW list. The programs that don't have a category
>assigned are analyzed for inclusion in a separate Niche page?? The
>criteria would be more generous for the niche programs...fewer votes
>required to keep them in.
If 8 people vote that they use an FtpServer, and of those 8, 6 voted for
CesarFTP, then CesarFTP has a score of 75%. Let's say the group decides
on a cutoff point of 60%. CesarFTP didn't make the popular vote, but it
did make the Niche Pricelessware page.
>Is that what you're trying to say, or am I way off? :)
I'm not sure.
Spacey Spade
Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
>jason wrote:
>> Spacey Spade wrote:-
>
>> Susan's frustration at having to constantly crack the whip
>> to get people to respond was palpable. (Okay, here's where Susan comes in
>> and says I was NOT frustrated!! But I *dare* her to say that with a
>> straight face. :-))
>
>I won't even try. ;)
>
>OTOH it was a last minute change - and that didn't help (no proper
>description of what was needed etc.)
>
>I thought Genna was going to be the point person and I would be sitting
>quietly in a corner doing the web pages - when Genna found she was too
>overloaded to get involved this year ISTM there I had two choices- I
>could ask for a lot of help from a few people (the way I did last year)
>or I could ask for a little help from a lot of people - which is what I
>did. (Genna did it all - she's superwoman - I'm not).
>
>Having survived that phase of the PL2004 selection process I'm convinced
>that descriptions should be submitted before the start of nominations.
>If we do that it that way next year I won't have to get the whip out. ;)
>
>Susan
Getting people to supply descriptions for their nominations was
excellent (thumbs up). And if you say that incomplete descriptions
don't make it to the vote, and enforce it, you shouldn't have any probs.
Spacey
Susan Bugher
> I know you'd like to help, I would never question that. Only you can
> decide how (and in my case, determine if the help is wanted).
Help is always wanted! Just trying to think about the best way to split
the work up - also doing a few chores - junk mail: life is too short to
do housework - I thought: maybe I could use that as my excuse for the
dust, dirty dishes etc. etc. ;)
Thought more about additional web pages. I think we could do it with two
sets of web pages. Call the existing second set of web pages the Best of
the Rest (suggested in another thread). Keep all the programs that were
nominated *and* seconded for PL2004 - omit descriptions (if any) of
programs that didn't get a second for PL2004. Add new programs
throughout the year.
What I would like to do is split the work this way:
You be point person - do the discussion-selection of new programs etc.
etc. part of the process.
I'll finish preparing the initial web pages and update them as new
programs are selected. Does that sounds anything like a plan to you?
Spacey Spade
jason m...@privacy.net wrote...
>Susan Bugher wrote:
>
>> I thought Genna was going to be the point person and I would be
>> sitting quietly in a corner doing the web pages - when Genna found she
>> was too overloaded to get involved this year ISTM there I had two
>> choices- I could ask for a lot of help from a few people (the way I
>> did last year) or I could ask for a little help from a lot of people -
>> which is what I did. (Genna did it all - she's superwoman - I'm not).
>>
>> Having survived that phase of the PL2004 selection process I'm
>> convinced that descriptions should be submitted before the start of
>> nominations. If we do that it that way next year I won't have to get
>> the whip out. ;)
>
>or so before the election, people start sending in descriptions of their
>favorite programs...the ones they want on the ballot? You keep the group
>informed of what those programs are... When election time approaches, any
>program with a description is considered a formal nomination, and people
>then second the programs they want on the ballot. This way, we avoid all
>the begging for descriptions *after* a program has been nominated and
>seconded? Is that pretty much how you envision it?
>
>I think it was Spacey who mentioned it might involve too many programs
>(not sure of the exact wording). Not sure what he meant by that...
>Spacey?
I meant if it occured all year round, and if a page was kept up for
nominations as omega described in another post. I just responded to
Susan with my suggestion. Spacey
omega
> Susan Bugher wrote:
>
> > Having survived that phase of the PL2004 selection process I'm
> > convinced that descriptions should be submitted before the start of
> > nominations. If we do that it that way next year I won't have to get
> > the whip out. ;)
>
> I'm all for whatever eases the load on you. So you're saying that a month
> or so before the election, people start sending in descriptions of their
> favorite programs...the ones they want on the ballot?
I picture'd it as posting those descriptions, at the pre-nomination phase.
Only completed descriptions are eligible for nom-second-voting.
What would help a lot would be a (txt) template for the applications. As
in, Name______ Ware Type _______ Homepage _______ Description ______ etc
So that people know right at that time what constitutes completeness. And
no one is just saying, "Put Program Y in there, and you can find it at
Simtel," leaving others to do the work from there.
With the description applications posted in full, then any errors, such a
dead links, or wrong ware type, etc - then others can read and correct the
information as needed.
At least that's my picture of how this could work....
> When election time approaches, any program with a description is considered
> a formal nomination, and people then second the programs they want on the
> ballot. his way, we avoid all the begging for descriptions *after* a program
> has been nominated and seconded? Is that pretty much how you envision it?
. . .
Plus one added benefit: the whimisical, insincere nominations, low-quality
programs being thrown in, without care, those don't crowd up the later stage,
to waste people's time.
--
Karen S.
Genna Reeney
>
> The PL list becomes MORE useful with *more* categories, not less, IMO.
I agree.
That is why we always voted for programs, NOT categories.
Once we had the programs, we could decide where they fit best. In subsequent
years, it was simpler to list like programs together during the nomination
process, but again that was to help during the selection process, NOT to
determine the specificity of each program.
--
Cheers,
Genna
Genna Reeney
>
> I personally don't feel I deserve to say what should be of the
> Pricelessware site because I only take a small part, while Susan does
> nominations and voting on the goals of the Pricelessware site.
But the PL is and always has been the product of the contributions of all
acf posters. While the behind-the-scenes has only been handled by a few
people, the actual list is "determined by the readers of alt.comp.freeware."
No one person has more or less power than any other.
--
Cheers,
Genna
Genna Reeney
>
> Having survived that phase of the PL2004 selection process I'm
> convinced that descriptions should be submitted before the start of
> nominations.
I agree.
Actually, what I have wanted to do for a while, but have not had time to
implement is move the whole lot to a database. Once created, it would make
everything so much simpler to run, from submissions to listings.
Anyone familiar with php and willing to help sometime in the first quarter
of 2004, should contact Susan or me.
--
Cheers,
Genna
Spacey Spade
Spacey Spade rEmOvEspa...@hotpop.com wrote...
[snip]
The reason I am putting words together is because I used TextStat to
count votes. In Microplanet Gravity I selected the voter's posts, then
File | Save As, then strip everything but the votes and save as another
file, then run TextStat. Would be super easy if every program and
category was a single word.
Genna Reeney
> Below is a list of the PL2004 voting results (final with one
> exception). Programs are listed in alphabetical order.
As the title of the thread indicates, this is a discussion about the 2004
list.
Lesssons learned from this round will be useful for next year, but there is
enough to be done now without worrying about something that is months away.
Susan has managed an incredible load. Let's just make sure we get to the
finish line on this one.
--
Cheers,
Genna
Spacey Spade
jason m...@privacy.net wrote...
>omega <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> I picture'd it as posting those descriptions, at the pre-nomination
>> phase. Only completed descriptions are eligible for nom-second-voting.
>
>their descriptions complete. The nomination phase proceeds on the
>assumption that the descriptions *are* complete.
>
>> What would help a lot would be a (txt) template for the applications.
>> As in, Name______ Ware Type _______ Homepage _______ Description
>> ______ etc
>>
>> So that people know right at that time what constitutes completeness.
>
Thirded
But what if people start seconding when they see the prenomination
description?
»Q«
<news:MPG.1a46a95dc...@news.east.earthlink.net>:
>>Having survived that phase of the PL2004 selection process I'm
>>convinced that descriptions should be submitted before the start
>>of nominations. If we do that it that way next year I won't have
>>to get the whip out. ;)
>
> Getting people to supply descriptions for their nominations was
> excellent (thumbs up). And if you say that incomplete
> descriptions don't make it to the vote, and enforce it, you
> shouldn't have any probs.
I agree. Here's how I think it should work, in some detail, working
mostly from others' ideas but maybe tossing in a couple of my own
thoughts as well.
Prior to the nominations phase, we submit descriptions of programs we
might nominate (with links and all that good stuff) so that they will
already be 'on file.' A webpage is maintained with all these
descriptions.
When the nomination phase is at hand, one may nominate any app that
already has its description, links, &c., on file.
No doubt there will be some nominations for apps which do not have
pre-filed descriptions, and it should be permissible to give the
description at the time of nomination.
Unfortunately, it's likely there will also be some attempted
nominations of programs without descriptions. Rather than
disregarding them completely, I think they should go up on a
temporary 'incomplete nominations' page or even on the main
nominations page with a note, "attempted nomination without
discription." If, before the nomination phase is over, someone sees
fit to provide the necessary description, these nominations count.
If not, they are simply discarded at the end of the nominations
period. No whip-cracking necessary.
Spacey Spade
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Genna Reeney willowbr...@WATERworldnet.att.net wrote...
Like Susan said, it would be up to her to decide if she wants to
implement changes in procedures or the web site, since she is doing the
work (which I agree with completely, especially if it calls for
additional work). It would be another matter if the work was split up
among more persons. Even further, volunteers should have no obligation
to do work if they disagree with the end goal.
No one seems to understand my method for adding categories inline with
the main vote, but if you want to know how I want to contribute, go to
this post:
Spacey Spade
Ok, I didn't include *every* program, but pretend that below is a list
of all the programs for the 2005 PL vote. Also pretend that at the time
people turned in descriptions for the programs they wish to nominate,
they also gave the TYPE of program (aka category) they wanted the
program included in. We could have a listing of pre-defined program
types/categories to smooth out the naming.
Some logistics:
- If you vote for an HTML Editor, but don't leave the Program Type "Html
Editor", your entire vote is thrown out unless you fix it.
- If you use a Newsreader (thus, you leave the Program Type
"Newsreader"), and you don't vote for any newsreader in the list, then
that is perfectly ok, as the newsreader you consider the best was not in
the list.
LEAVE ONLY THE PROGRAM TYPES THAT YOU USE.
Remove all program types that you do not use.
----------------------
FileRenamer
HtmlEditor
FileBrowser
Newsreader
ArchiveUtility
WordProcessor
HtmlEditor
FileSearchUtility
FormFiller
FtpServer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer
LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
1-4aRename-FileRenamer
1stPage2000-HtmlEditor
2xExplorer-FileBrowser
40tudeDialog-NewsReader
7-Zip-ArchiveUtility
AbiWord-WordProcessor
AceHTML5Freeware-HtmlEditor
AgentRansack-FileSearchUtility
AIRoboForm-FormFiller
CesarFTP-FTPServer
IrfanView-GraphicsConverter
IrfanView-GraphicsEditor
IrfanView-GraphicsViewer
XnView-GraphicsConverter
XnView-GraphicsEditor
XnView-GraphicsViewer
QuicknEasyFTPServer-FTPServer
Spacey Spade
Susan Bugher whoise...@kvi.net wrote...
>Spacey Spade wrote:
>
>> I know you'd like to help, I would never question that. Only you can
>> decide how (and in my case, determine if the help is wanted).
>
>Help is always wanted! Just trying to think about the best way to split
>the work up - also doing a few chores - junk mail: life is too short to
>do housework - I thought: maybe I could use that as my excuse for the
>dust, dirty dishes etc. etc. ;)
>
>Thought more about additional web pages. I think we could do it with two
>sets of web pages. Call the existing second set of web pages the Best of
>the Rest (suggested in another thread). Keep all the programs that were
>nominated *and* seconded for PL2004 - omit descriptions (if any) of
>programs that didn't get a second for PL2004. Add new programs
>throughout the year.
>
>What I would like to do is split the work this way:
>
>You be point person - do the discussion-selection of new programs etc.
>etc. part of the process.
>
>I'll finish preparing the initial web pages and update them as new
>programs are selected. Does that sounds anything like a plan to you?
>
>Susan
My view on freedom to decide how to contribute:
news:MPG.1a46b8d17...@news.east.earthlink.net
What I had in mind, the work I want to do, is here:
news:MPG.1a466ede7...@news.east.earthlink.net
It's up to you to alter the voting format to allow me to contribute what
I want to contribute.