J
John Fitzsimons
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:45:47 -0500, Susan Bugher
Yep.
Yep.
J
John Fitzsimons
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:01:11 GMT, Spacey Spade
< 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.
< 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.
S
Susan Bugher
I just recommended something close to that - it will be interesting to
see what others have to say about the selection process.
Thank you very much.
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
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
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.
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.
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.
And PTFB is on the 2004 PL despite getting very few votes.
R
Roger Johansson
Genna Reeney said:
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.)
O
omega
Roger Johansson said:
Are we? Is that the defining agenda of the PL? To serve as a FAQ for
passersby?
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.
[...]
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.
J
jason
I don't feel Roger's post was provocative. In fact, agree with his goalomega said:
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.
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...?
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...
O
omega
jason said:
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.)
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.
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.
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...
J
jason
omega said:
Ooops sorry. I see so much conflict on the Net, I instantly thought of
provoke = attack.
Absolutely. While I've been a lurker-participant for several years now,
I'm still a bit fuzzy on the goals of PW. Genna earlier mentioned how PW
is supposed to answer frequently-asked questions like "What is the best
program for doing X", yet a quick look at the Pricelessware 2002 List
includes some pretty esoteric programs...that I recall few, if any,
people ever asking about.
R
Roger Johansson
Maybe we should vote on the purpose and policy of the Pricelessware
list?
First we could formulate the alternatives:
1:
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.
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:
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.
list?
First we could formulate the alternatives:
1:
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.
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:
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.
S
Spacey Spade
[snip]
We are doing this for the users of programs (that's what the authors
would want)
I think it ends up being both, but I prefer 2.
We are doing this for the users of programs (that's what the authors
would want)
I think it ends up being both, but I prefer 2.
S
Spacey Spade
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
R
Roger Johansson
Spacey Spade said:
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?
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.
Yes.
S
Susan Bugher
Roger said:
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:
That is not a goal at this time. IMO it shouldn't be.
to a certain extent - it is not intended to be an exhaustive list
again, that is not a goal at this time.
IMO it exists for all those things.
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
J
Jim Scott
|>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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|>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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
S
Susan Bugher
Spacey said:
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 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
Good idea . . .
I have already asked for comments on the PL selection process. Speak up
everybody.
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
R
Roger Johansson
Susan Bugher said:
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.
R
Roger Johansson
Jim Scott said:
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.
S
Susan Bugher
Jim said:
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.
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
S
Spacey Spade
Ok, I'm happy we are clear
That's ok, I'm used to being misunderstood. I'll still be here, unless
I find something more productive!
Spacey