about pricelesswarehome program lists

[spoon2001]

I was a bit confused when Susan linked to a list of programs, specifically a
section of duplicate file finders. None of them were Pricelessware, and
none of them even seems to be nominated for Pricelessware! It seems to be a
strange omission. There ought to be a selection of one of these programs as
the best dupe finder. I guess no one nominated any of these programs???

I think I've finally figured out - the list that Susan linked to is simply a
list of programs that have been mentioned on ACF. This list of files is
different from the list of nominated programs.

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_FILEUTILITIES.php

Note the /acf/ in the URL - that means you're in the ACF section of the
website - not in the Pricesslessware section. If you were in the
Pricelessware section you'd see /2005/ (or /2004/ etc) in the URL.

The website is very well done.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have discussions on ACF comparing the
pros/cons of files in the same category/subcategory, e.g. dupe file finders.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I think I've finally figured out - the list that Susan linked to
is simply a list of programs that have been mentioned on ACF.
This list of files is different from the list of nominated
programs.

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_FILEUTILITIES.php
Yep.

Note the /acf/ in the URL - that means you're in the ACF section
of the website - not in the Pricesslessware section. If you were
in the Pricelessware section you'd see /2005/ (or /2004/ etc) in
the URL.

Yes. I do think there should be more visual clues, though. For
people who come from a Google search, e.g., unaware of how the PL or
the website is structured, it's not immediately clear whether what's
being viewed is Pricelessware or something else.

Also, there is no way to search the PL only -- the whole site has to
be searched, which turns up a lot of non-Pricelessware.

The website is very well done.

I agree. I'm using your post to make a couple of observations, but I
don't mean to dis the site at all.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Yes. I do think there should be more visual clues, though.

I agree - the user should not have to figure things out if there is a
way to avoid it. What do you think could be done to make the distinction
between the ACF and PL pages clearer?

I think the visual clues on the ACF pages need to be especially clear
because people tend to see what they *expect* to see. ISTM that some
people visit the site with an expectation that any program they see will
be a Pricelessware program.

For

people who come from a Google search, e.g., unaware of how the PL or
the website is structured, it's not immediately clear whether what's
being viewed is Pricelessware or something else.

IMO the difference is fairly clear on the Google search results page - say:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=f...esearch=www.pricelesswarehome.org&safe=images

Pricelessware pages are quite clearly identified as such in the search
results. ACF page identification is not uniform (yet) but it is different.

Also, there is no way to search the PL only -- the whole site has to
be searched, which turns up a lot of non-Pricelessware.

And references in archived PL lists, PL nomination pages, the treepad
and CSV files and. . .

It is a problem and it will get worse as more PL are archived. . .

I've been trying to grapple with it. . .

I've added notes to the PL2003 and PL2004 archives to tell people they
are not looking at the current PL:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2004/PL2004BUSINESS-HOME.php

"Pricelessware 2004 Archive"

"The acf Program Index
(http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_ProgramIndex.php) has links to
current web pages that contain information about these programs."

Some PL2003/04 programs are not on PL2005. The ACF program index page
points people to the most recent information (eventually). Not ideal but
the best solution I've come up with so far. . .

Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome. While I'm here. .
.. I've been thinking of adding a translation link to the web pages. Good
idea or not? I don't want to clutter the pages with links that aren't
useful. . .

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

Note the /acf/ in the URL - that means you're in the ACF section of the
website - not in the Pricesslessware section. If you were in the
Pricelessware section you'd see /2005/ (or /2004/ etc) in the URL.

or look at the top of the page - PL pages show the Pricelessware
logo/title, ACF pages say alt.comp.freeware. Something *really*
different at the top might work better - IOW - something more eye-catching.

The website is very well done.

TY.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have discussions on ACF comparing the
pros/cons of files in the same category/subcategory, e.g. dupe file finders.

Yes!

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Mel]

or look at the top of the page - PL pages show the Pricelessware
logo/title, ACF pages say alt.comp.freeware. Something *really*
different at the top might work better - IOW - something more eye-catching.

Something like: Elvis Has Left The Building! ;-)

 

[Susan Bugher]

Something like: Elvis Has Left The Building! ;-)

LOL - Old habits die hard. It used to be that the *only* content on a
Pricelessware site was the current Pricelessware List. Perhaps the ACF
pages need a full screen with "This is *NOT* a Pricelessware Page" in
the middle of the page. That *might* do it. . . and then again it might
not. . .

Year ago we reversed the way our storm door opened (because the wind
kept grabbing and breaking it). We knew it was reversed. The change was
visible if you looked. We still went to the wrong side for days. The cat
and dog did too.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Mel]

LOL - Old habits die hard. It used to be that the *only* content on a
Pricelessware site was the current Pricelessware List. Perhaps the ACF
pages need a full screen with "This is *NOT* a Pricelessware Page" in
the middle of the page. That *might* do it. . . and then again it might
not. . .

Maybe a mechanical hand to slap a user upalongside the head followed by
a voice saying "you are now on an alt-comp-freeware page". Most folks
probably don't have the mechanical hand, so maybe just the audio. ;-)

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I agree - the user should not have to figure things out if there
is a way to avoid it. What do you think could be done to make the
distinction between the ACF and PL pages clearer?

I think the visual clues on the ACF pages need to be especially
clear because people tend to see what they *expect* to see. ISTM
that some people visit the site with an expectation that any
program they see will be a Pricelessware program.

I wish I had good answers, but this is the kind of question I'm not good at
solving. The only suggestions I have are minor ones.

The backgrounds for the a.c.f and the PL pages could be two different colors; that
would mean nothing to someone who had not been there before, but regular visitors
would know where they were without reading a word. (The archived PLs of past years
already have different color schemes.))

On the a.c.f program info pages, the column headings could have title attributes,
which most browsers display as tooltips when the mouse hovers over them. The one
for the 'PW' column could be something like "Is it Pricelessware?", giving one more
small clue that the apps listed aren't necessarily on the PL. Also, for apps never
on a PL, instead of a '-' there could be a 'no' in that column. Maybe that PW
column could be given a fuller heading, but the table is already pretty wide, so I
dunno.

IMO the difference is fairly clear on the Google search results
page - say:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=folder&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+
Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as
_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.pricelesswarehome.org&safe=imag
es

Pricelessware pages are quite clearly identified as such in the
search results. ACF page identification is not uniform (yet) but
it is different.

That's very good!

And references in archived PL lists, PL nomination pages, the
treepad and CSV files and. . .

It is a problem and it will get worse as more PL are archived. . .

I've been trying to grapple with it. . .

If your hosting package allows subdomains, splitting the site into, e.g.,
pl.pricelesswarehome.org and acf.pricelesswarehome.org would make it possible to
Google the sections separately. I have no idea how much of a PiTA such a
reorganization would be; at the very least, it would mean changing links between
the two (or more) sets of pages.

I've added notes to the PL2003 and PL2004 archives to tell people
they are not looking at the current PL:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2004/PL2004BUSINESS-HOME.php

"Pricelessware 2004 Archive"

"The acf Program Index
(http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_ProgramIndex.php) has
links to current web pages that contain information about these
programs."

Some PL2003/04 programs are not on PL2005. The ACF program index
page points people to the most recent information (eventually).
Not ideal but the best solution I've come up with so far. . .

I can't think of anything better.

Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome.

I wish I had something more helpful to post -- I was waiting for some brilliant
idea to come before posting about this stuff, but it wasn't coming. Hopefully
someone else can kick in better ideas than mine.

 

[spoon2001]

I think the visual clues on the ACF pages need to be especially clear
because people tend to see what they *expect* to see. ISTM that some
people visit the site with an expectation that any program they see
will be a Pricelessware program.

I think you're right about seeing what one expects to see. I didn't realize
that the website had "Pricelessware" and "ACF" sections until I saw the list
of dupe file finders and wondered why none of them was pricelessware.

But once I DID understand the division, I went to the home page and THEN it
was immediately obvious. The contents of the Pricelessware section are
neatly set out in one column of the table, and the contents of the ACF
section are neatly set out in the other column.

The use of "pricelessware" in the URL does lead one to expect that it's
mainly a Pricelessware page. But that can be overcome. I do think it would
help to have more visual cues. There could be a statement on the homepage -
something like "This website has two main sections. One is the
Pricelessware section, and the other is the alt.comp.freeware section. The
alt.comp.freeware section deals with many different matters pertaining to
the alt.comp.freeware newsgroup, including freeware programs that have not
been selected as Pricelessware." You might want to consider having a very
simple home page - one with just two main links - one to the Priclessware
section, and one to the ACF section. That would make it crystal clear. But
it would also mean navigating through one more page to get where we want to
go.

I think a different color scheme for the two sections would be helpful too.

Both sections are great resources as far as I'm concerned. There's lots of
great freeware out there that doesn't get selected or even nominated for PW.
I think one of the best things is the categorization scheme. It's great to
be able to find a list of programs for a particular task, all in one place.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I think you're right about seeing what one expects to see. I didn't realize
that the website had "Pricelessware" and "ACF" sections until I saw the list
of dupe file finders and wondered why none of them was pricelessware.

Yup. Most of us see what we expect to see. Most of us focus on the thing
that interests us (and ignore its surroundings). That pattern of
behavior works pretty well - except when things change. Then we have to
be hit over the head before we realize things are different from our
expectations.

But once I DID understand the division, I went to the home page and THEN it
was immediately obvious. The contents of the Pricelessware section are
neatly set out in one column of the table, and the contents of the ACF
section are neatly set out in the other column.

Thanks for the feedback.

The use of "pricelessware" in the URL does lead one to expect that it's
mainly a Pricelessware page. But that can be overcome. I do think it would
help to have more visual cues. There could be a statement on the homepage -
something like "This website has two main sections. One is the
Pricelessware section, and the other is the alt.comp.freeware section. The
alt.comp.freeware section deals with many different matters pertaining to
the alt.comp.freeware newsgroup, including freeware programs that have not
been selected as Pricelessware." You might want to consider having a very
simple home page - one with just two main links - one to the Priclessware
section, and one to the ACF section. That would make it crystal clear. But
it would also mean navigating through one more page to get where we want to
go.

Wants/needs vary. Some people are newcomers to the site - others are
frequent visitors. The newcomer wants clarity at all costs - the
frequent visitor wants ease of access. The page has had several recent
revisions - IMO we have achieved a pretty good balance. IOW - I like it
the way it is.

I think a different color scheme for the two sections would be helpful too.
Yup.

Both sections are great resources as far as I'm concerned. There's lots of
great freeware out there that doesn't get selected or even nominated for PW.
I think one of the best things is the categorization scheme. It's great to
be able to find a list of programs for a particular task, all in one place.

TY.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I was a bit confused when Susan linked to a list of programs, specifically a
section of duplicate file finders. None of them were Pricelessware, and
none of them even seems to be nominated for Pricelessware!

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_FILEUTILITIES.php

I have been thinking along the same line for a while. Not that I get
confused my self, having been around for a while... But the tought
have struck me, when we in our replies pass on URLs like

<http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_FILEUTILITIES.php#3.10DuplicateFileChecker>

newcomers might conceive the list as a "pricelessware" list (best of
the best in Freeware) - and not just a simple list of (any) available
freeware (good and bad) previosly mentioned in a.c.f.

IMHO a separate domain for the "Program Information pages" might be a
good solution. Not sure if possible, but what if the pages could just
stay where they are, while one acquires a new domain name and
subscribe to a url-forwarding (web-forwarding) service which points to
the existing pages? (unless current web-server can handle two domains,
afaik a url-forwarding service is just one dummy web-server passing
calls). That is, given there is enough money left from the
donations/support collected so far (for a new domain, and maybe a fee
for the forwarding service - if not free) Susan would then have to use
the new domain-name in all local urls for said pages. While the old
urls would still work, the new urls would take you to the relevant
page via url-forwarding. Not sure I got the technicalities right here,
but anyway, the idea... a separate domain/name for the "Program
Information pages"

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Susan Bugher]

I wish I had good answers, but this is the kind of question I'm not good at
solving. The only suggestions I have are minor ones.

The backgrounds for the a.c.f and the PL pages could be two different colors; that
would mean nothing to someone who had not been there before, but regular visitors
would know where they were without reading a word. (The archived PLs of past years
already have different color schemes.))

Burnr and I discussed the ACF pages briefly when he was creating the new
look for PL2005. The plan (I use the word loosely) is to revamp the
look/color scheme on the ACF pages sometime this year. IOW - real soon
now.

On the a.c.f program info pages, the column headings could have title attributes,
which most browsers display as tooltips when the mouse hovers over them. The one
for the 'PW' column could be something like "Is it Pricelessware?", giving one more
small clue that the apps listed aren't necessarily on the PL. Also, for apps never
on a PL, instead of a '-' there could be a 'no' in that column. Maybe that PW
column could be given a fuller heading, but the table is already pretty wide, so I
dunno.

ISTM those changes could confuse visitors who don't know what
Pricelessware is. I think moving the "Programs that have been mentioned
in ACF" note back to the top would help.

Hmmm, just realized you mentioned apples and I responded with oranges -
I was thinking about this kind of search result:

http://www.google.com/search?q=tree...ome.org&num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&filter=0

Results 1 - 53 of 53 from www.pricelesswarehome.org for Treepad

At most the pages in the acf directory produce 3 hits for an app. The PL
pages/directories are a different story - especially for apps that have
been on the PL for several years.

If your hosting package allows subdomains, splitting the site into, e.g.,
pl.pricelesswarehome.org and acf.pricelesswarehome.org would make it possible to
Google the sections separately. I have no idea how much of a PiTA such a
reorganization would be; at the very least, it would mean changing links between
the two (or more) sets of pages.

IMO that's a solution that's looking for a problem. Wouldn't those
searches be made while on the PWH site? Wouldn't those searchers know
the difference between the ACF and PL pages.

ISTM visitors to the site fall into 3 groups - those who know about 1)
Pricelessware and the ACF pages. 2) Pricelessware. 3) neither. ISTM
you're focusing on group 2 exclusively and are concerned they may be
misled into thinking an app is Pricelessware when it's not. I agree the
distinction should be as clear as possible on the web pages. I don't see
a need for dividing the site in two - au contraire - as the ACF pages
show *all* Pricelessware programs - past and present.

I wish I had something more helpful to post -- I was waiting for some brilliant
idea to come before posting about this stuff, but it wasn't coming. Hopefully
someone else can kick in better ideas than mine.

I don't think there are any "magic bullet" solutions. People
perceive/use the site in different ways. Posts like yours and Spoon's
are great. This works/this is a problem/this would be better - that kind
of feedback is very helpful.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

spoon2001 wrote in <[email protected]>:


I have been thinking along the same line for a while. Not that I get
confused my self, having been around for a while... But the tought
have struck me, when we in our replies pass on URLs like

<http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_FILEUTILITIES.php#3.10DuplicateFileChecker>

newcomers might conceive the list as a "pricelessware" list (best of
the best in Freeware) - and not just a simple list of (any) available
freeware (good and bad) previosly mentioned in a.c.f.

IMHO a separate domain for the "Program Information pages" might be a
good solution.

<SNIP>

A URL to a pricelesswarehome.org web page tells you if it is to a PL
page or an ACF page *if* you read it (PL directories are named by year.
The ACF directory is named "acf"). I don't think very many people notice
the difference now - I don't think they'd notice two different domain
names.

References in posts tend to be a bit casual. . . "I couldn't find it
on Pricelessware". erm. . . which site? Maybe instead of "Program
Information pages" we should call those pages "The ACF List". IMO part
of the problem is we don't have a *good* name - one that's easy to use
in posts - so people tend to use Pricelessware for everything.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:

following up on my own post. . .

<SNIP> I think moving the "Programs that have been mentioned
in ACF" note back to the top would help.

I've made that change on the Program Info pages - for example:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_PROGRAMMING.php

Recently I had one of those doh! moments. The daily post gave URLs to
"Pricelessware information" without telling people what Pricelessware
was. That's been fixed.

Perhaps I should also add a note about the ACF program information pages
- to let newbies know that there are two different lists of programs.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

<SNIP>
A URL to a pricelesswarehome.org web page tells you if it is to a PL
page or an ACF page *if* you read it (PL directories are named by year.
The ACF directory is named "acf").

Yes *IF* you read it and *IF* you understand the meaning of /acf, or
at least that those pages does not contain the Pricelessware list(s).

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Susan Bugher]

<http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_FILEUTILITIES.php#3.10DuplicateFileChecker>

newcomers might conceive the list as a "pricelessware" list (best of
the best in Freeware) - and not just a simple list of (any) available
freeware (good and bad) previosly mentioned in a.c.f.

IMHO a separate domain for the "Program Information pages" might be a
good solution. Not sure if possible, but what if the pages could just
stay where they are, while one acquires a new domain name and
subscribe to a url-forwarding (web-forwarding) service which points to
the existing pages? (unless current web-server can handle two domains,
afaik a url-forwarding service is just one dummy web-server passing
calls). That is, given there is enough money left from the
donations/support collected so far (for a new domain, and maybe a fee
for the forwarding service - if not free) Susan would then have to use
the new domain-name in all local urls for said pages. While the old
urls would still work, the new urls would take you to the relevant
page via url-forwarding. Not sure I got the technicalities right here,
but anyway, the idea... a separate domain/name for the "Program
Information pages"

re the hosting package we have:

<q>
Subdomains 1 / unlimited
Parked Domains 0 / 0
Addon Domains 0 / 0
</q>

I think using two domains would be complicated. Domain names are cheap -
I'm not sure what other costs there would be. There's enough money on
hand to cover our current cost/year for several years. I'd guess that
the additional cost of using two domains could be funded from the
treasury for a while.

Q suggested subdomains - it seems we can create/use those at no
additional cost. but. . . I moved the acf pages into a separate
directory last summer. That took a fair amount of doing. ISTM changing
to subdomains might require a lot of work too.

re whether we should make that kind of change. . .

The Pricelessware List is *ACF's* Pricelessware List. ISTM it's
important to keep the connection between ACF and Pricelessware highly
visible - that's another area of confusion. IMO the distinction between
ACF's Pricelessware List and ACF's Program Information pages shouldn't
be done in a way that makes the connection between ACF and the
Pricelessware List *less* obvious. IOW - was shouldn't say: This is
"Pricelessware" and this is "ACF".

My thoughts on this - FWIW. . .

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

Yes *IF* you read it and *IF* you understand the meaning of /acf, or
at least that those pages does not contain the Pricelessware list(s).

ISTM the key point is: Do you understand that a page may *not* be a
Pricelessware page. IMO if you don't understand that you won't
understand /acf *or* any other hints provided by the URL.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Roger Johansson]

This is "Pricelessware" and this is "ACF".

A few ideas from me:

You could make it appear as two sites, even though the reside in the same
folder on the same server.

On every ACF page a link "Click here to go back to the Pricelessware
site."

On the PLW pages there could be a link that leads to the ACF "site".

Different layouts is also useful.

Maybe a marking/icon/symbol at the description of each PLW prog, like the
ducks at www.nonags.com

(checked it now and I don't see the old cute little ducks anymore, they
have replaced them with a rather ugly duck in sunglasses)

 

[Susan Bugher]

Please don't quote out of context. What I said was: "IOW - was
shouldn't say: This is "Pricelessware" and this is "ACF"."

(I meant to say: IOW - *we* shouldn't say: This is "Pricelessware" and
this is "ACF".)

A few ideas from me:

You could make it appear as two sites, even though the reside in the same
folder on the same server.

I think that would be a step in the wrong direction. IMO for every
person who is confused about Program Info pages and PL pages there is
another person who is *more* confused about the PL and alt.comp.freeware.

The Pricelessware List does not belong to the Pricelessware site. It
belongs to the alt.comp.freeware newsgroup. IMO that fact needs to be
emphasized rather than obscured.

On every ACF page a link "Click here to go back to the Pricelessware
site."

It's *ACF's* Pricelessware List. There's already a link to "PL2005" on
every page in the ACF and PL2005 directories.

On the PLW pages there could be a link that leads to the ACF "site".

There's already a link to "acf information" on every page in the ACF and
PL2005 directories.

Different layouts is also useful.

The layouts are quite different now.

Maybe a marking/icon/symbol at the description of each PLW prog, like the
ducks at www.nonags.com

(checked it now and I don't see the old cute little ducks anymore, they
have replaced them with a rather ugly duck in sunglasses)

There is a column devoted to PW now. Pricelessware programs are already
identified as such on the Program Info pages.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Roger Johansson]

The Pricelessware List does not belong to the Pricelessware site. It
belongs to the alt.comp.freeware newsgroup. IMO that fact needs to be
emphasized rather than obscured.

I thought the main problem is that there are two lists.

1: The PL2005 list of progs as selected by acf

2: The list of progs mentioned on acf

And if they look too similar there can be some confusion.