[PL] 2004 General Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Susan Bugher
  • Start date Start date
S

Susan Bugher

Nominations are now open for the the 2004 Pricelessware list.

This thread is for general discussion.

The Nominations page is here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php

The election schedule and procedures are here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004proceduresPL.htm

and are repeated below.

Susan

-----------

This is the timetable for the 2004 vote.

NOMINATIONS (2 weeks): November 3 - November 16, 2003
DISCUSSION (2 weeks): November 17 - November 30, 2003
VOTING (1 week): December 1 - December 7, 2003
POST-VOTE DISCUSSION (1 week): December 8 - December 14, 2003
FINAL LISTED POSTED: December 15, 2003


NOMINATIONS

The Pricelessware List is the compilation of the favorite Freeware
programs of the readers of alt.comp.freeware. The programs picked are
not meant to be an exhaustive list of the best available Freeware, but
rather an answer to the often asked "which _____ is best?"

We are selecting the best of the best in Windows programs.

Pricelessware programs may not contain adware or spyware. The program
should be one of the best Freeware programs available.

Sub-categories are provided for ease of reference, but it is NOT the
goal of the Pricelessware vote to come up with a program to fit every
category.

If a program is nominated in more than one category the most appropriate
category will be determined during the discussion period. Programs will
be listed only once on the ballot.

note: Please nominate programs in an existing category and sub-category.
(A new sub-category may be suggested if all the existing sub-categories
seem inappropriate.)

The preceding year's Pricelessware programs are nominated automatically.
All nominations must have a second to be placed on the ballot. (Two
nominations of the same program are considered a nomination and a second.)

In addition, each program must have a complete description and
description review. The description *should* be prepared by the person
who nominates the program and reviewed by the person who seconds a
nomination. Someone else *may* prepare the description and/or review in
order to qualify the program for a place on the ballot.

VOTING

Vote *only* for the programs that you feel merit inclusion on the list.
If you want to vote for 3 different e-mail programs because you believe
all 3 deserve to be on the list, then vote for those 3. Conversely, if
in your opinion none of the programs listed merit inclusion, do not cast
a vote.

FINAL SELECTION

A program must receive at least 2 votes to qualify for inclusion on the PL.

In categories where several programs received enough votes to qualify,
only the top vote getters will be picked.

If you find that there is a glaring omission, please post it in the
appropriate thread. If there is support for inclusion, an overlooked
program will be added to the list.

If you feel that a program selected for the PL is not a good choice,
please post:

Program Name
Category
Objections

If there is support for removal, a program which has been voted in will
be removed from the list.


--
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
 
snip<
In categories where several programs received enough votes to qualify,
only the top vote getters will be picked.
snip<
Click to expand...

what it the number of programs allowed in each
category before the rest get dropped?

Regards
stan
 
I see that someone is using an anonymous remailer to attempt to
nominate and second programs. In the case of carryover programs from
the 2003 PL, I think that's fine, since any second means there is one
person who wants it on the ballot, which is all that is needed. But in
the case of new nominations and seconds of them, such anonymous posts
should not be counted.

I really hope this kind of thing does not arise during the actual
voting.
 
I see that someone is using an anonymous remailer to attempt to
nominate and second programs. In the case of carryover programs
from the 2003 PL, I think that's fine, since any second means
there is one person who wants it on the ballot, which is all that
is needed. But in the case of new nominations and seconds of
them, such anonymous posts should not be counted.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
»Q« said:
I see that someone is using an anonymous remailer to attempt to
nominate and second programs. In the case of carryover programs from
the 2003 PL, I think that's fine, since any second means there is one
person who wants it on the ballot, which is all that is needed. But in
the case of new nominations and seconds of them, such anonymous posts
should not be counted.

I really hope this kind of thing does not arise during the actual
voting.
Click to expand...

Hi Q,

My inclination is to include these nominations and seconds for now and
wait for the discussion period to decide which posts/ programs should be
thrown out. I think it would be good idea for everyone to keep a list of
any suspect posts.

Just my initial thoughts - comments are welcome.

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 said:
The Nominations page is here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php

The election schedule and procedures are here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004proceduresPL.htm
Click to expand...

A brief progress report. The Nominations page was just updated - seconds
to existing programs reflect the latest information. Updating for new
nominations and seconds to new nominations is going more slowly - please
bear with me . . .

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
 
»Q« wrote on Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:41:40 GMT:
I see that someone is using an anonymous remailer to attempt to
nominate and second programs. In the case of carryover programs from
the 2003 PL, I think that's fine, since any second means there is one
person who wants it on the ballot, which is all that is needed. But in
the case of new nominations and seconds of them, such anonymous posts
should not be counted.
Click to expand...
I really hope this kind of thing does not arise during the actual
voting.
Click to expand...

Was this enacted in previous nominations? If not, I don't see why we should
start now as any artificial inflation of a program would be fairly obvious.
Afterall, unless a program only gets a couple of votes, or the top five
contenders are within one or two votes of each other, then artificial
inflation is a moot point.
 
My inclination is to include these nominations and seconds for now
and wait for the discussion period to decide which posts/ programs
should be thrown out. I think it would be good idea for everyone
to keep a list of any suspect posts.

Just my initial thoughts - comments are welcome.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to respond to this other than to ask why you think
anonymous nominations should be tentatively accepted.
 
»Q« said:
I don't know how to respond to this other than to ask why you think
anonymous nominations should be tentatively accepted.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that I'm not too bright about this kind of thing.

Aren't there other ways to try to wreak havoc with the selection process
- sock puppets etc.

Advice is most appreciated.

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
 
Was this enacted in previous nominations? If not, I don't see why
we should start now as any artificial inflation of a program would
be fairly obvious.
Click to expand...

Allowing people very easily to second their own nominations essentially
removes the requirement for seconds. AFAIK the requirement that
nominations be seconded is only to keep the ballot from becoming
overloaded with too many apps; it makes voting, counting, and
reviewing the vote are less cumbersome tasks. I agree with you that it
will be all sorted out during the post-vote discussion period, but
it'll make that review process a bit more complicated.
 
Nominations are now open for the the 2004 Pricelessware list.
Click to expand...

<mode control-freak-moderator-wannabe>

Discussions are taking place in the nominations threads. Let's try
hard not to let that happen, so that Susan, Genna, and whoever else
wants to will have an easier time keeping up with the nomination
process.

</mode>
 
Bear in mind that I'm not too bright about this kind of thing.

Aren't there other ways to try to wreak havoc with the selection
process - sock puppets etc.

Advice is most appreciated.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are other ways, including sock puppets. You'll forgive me
if I don't go into details on how to screw up the process. ;)

Most of the other ways leave some clues, whereas anonymous remailers
don't. The voting itself is where tampering could do real harm; if
it's attempted then, we have got to sniff it out, and the clues would
include clues posted during nominations. One of the effects of
allowing anonymous nominations is to pretty much remove the possibility
of clues being posted before voting starts.
 
»Q« said:
<mode control-freak-moderator-wannabe>

Discussions are taking place in the nominations threads. Let's try
hard not to let that happen, so that Susan, Genna, and whoever else
wants to will have an easier time keeping up with the nomination
process.

</mode>
Click to expand...

a small voice from deep down in the salt mines was heard to reply:

Thank you! ;)

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
 
»Q« said:
I see that someone is using an anonymous remailer to attempt to
nominate and second programs. In the case of carryover programs
from the 2003 PL, I think that's fine, since any second means
there is one person who wants it on the ballot, which is all
that is needed. But in the case of new nominations and seconds
of them, such anonymous posts should not be counted.

I really hope this kind of thing does not arise during the
actual voting.
Click to expand...


Agreed!!
 
»Q« wrote on Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:06:46 GMT:
<news:[email protected]>:
Click to expand...

??>> Was this enacted in previous nominations? If not, I don't see why
??>> we should start now as any artificial inflation of a program would
??>> be fairly obvious.
Allowing people very easily to second their own nominations essentially
removes the requirement for seconds.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a program is not going to get chosen on one nomination and one
second unless it happens to be the only candidate in its class and that's
highly unlikely.
AFAIK the requirement that nominations be seconded is only to keep the
ballot from becoming overloaded with too many apps; it makes voting,
counting, and reviewing the vote are less cumbersome tasks.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but IMO a nomination MUST be seconded (or nominated by other ppl)
for it to become a valid entry else the list would be overloaded as you say.
I agree with you that it will be all sorted out during the post-vote
discussion period, but it'll make that review process a bit more
complicated.
Click to expand...

Very true, but I guess my point is that an "anonymous remailer" is easier to
discriminate in the review process than say a sock puppet (somebody with a
dynamic address who simply changes their name and email address). I know
sock puppetting is a very easy and quick thing to do with OE as it is with
other clients I am sure, hence, I my point about anonymous remailers being
OK. In fact, I would say that if someone wanted to artificially inflate
their nomination, sock puppetting is the way to go as the reviewer couldn't
say for sure (unless they happen to contact the ISP) that it was truely a
sock puppet they were looking at. How do you suggest the review process
protects itself against this type of artificial inflation? For my part, I
tend to trust the posters in this group not to artificially inflate votes as
it serves no real purpose. Then again, I could just be naive in this
assumption :-)
 
For my
part, I tend to trust the posters in this group not to artificially
inflate votes as it serves no real purpose. Then again, I could just
be naive in this assumption :-)
Click to expand...

You are naive in your assumption. :-)

There are LOTS of reasons why a developer may have a vested interest for
his/her program to win.

In fact, there was a problem a few years ago with inflated votes. It was
strongly suspected...though never definitively proved...that friends of a
developer stuffed the ballot box for his program.
 
Susan said:
Hi Q,

My inclination is to include these nominations and seconds for now and
wait for the discussion period to decide which posts/ programs should be
thrown out. I think it would be good idea for everyone to keep a list of
any suspect posts.

Just my initial thoughts - comments are welcome.
Click to expand...

I think all posts from anonymous remailers should be invalid as votes,
nominations and seconds. However, perhaps a page could be set up to
list programs that were suggested via anon remailers and then others
could nominate the program if they thought that they merited it.

How are you going to deal with sock puppets though?
 
In case anyone is wondering why many new nominations have no category . . .

I am entering the program name, nomination and seconding info *first* -
I'll go back and add the other data when time permits.

In some cases the *official* name of the program is different from the
name used to nominate it. I'll start using the cross-ref. column to note
the *nomination* name/names when I make a change. (I have only checked a
small number of names to date.)

A game was nominated. Games are not a permitted category on the PL. Our
sister newsgroup - alt.comp.freeware.games - has a *best* list:

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze25yrg/ACFGR/ACFGR.html

NOTE: Removal of other inappropriate nominations will be discussed
during the discussion period.

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
 
John Corliss said:
I think all posts from anonymous remailers should be invalid as votes,
nominations and seconds.
Click to expand...

That's your personal pinion again, right?
However, perhaps a page could be set up to list programs that were
suggested via anon remailers and then others could nominate the program
if they thought that they merited it.
Click to expand...

More control- freakery.
How are you going to deal with sock puppets though?
Click to expand...

How did you deal with them in the "votes" (sic) which you held?
 
Back
Top