[PL] 2004 VOTE DISCUSSION

[John Fitzsimons]

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.

Well said.

(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.)

Exactly right. Nice post Roger.

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]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:36:25 -0500, Susan Bugher

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.

< snip >

If you are saying that there is a limit to what * you * are prepared
to do. Okay.

If not then I disagree. The majority of the work is now done. IMO
future additions/deletions will NOT be any more work than was done
this year.

How many "new" items were added this year ? 200 ? 300 ? Do you really
think the number will be any higher next year ? I doubt it. Additions/
deletions will probably result in little change to the overall
numbers.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

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.

Part of the problem is that some people have decided to re-define the
original intent from "best of the best" to "best of the best UNLESS we
end up with too much work/too many categories".

I suggest we stick with the former interpretation. If the latter is an
issue then that can/should be addressed separately.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

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.

Exactly. It might be "appropriate" to list more than one, or two,
choices in some categories while staying with only one in a different
category.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:50:15 GMT, Spacey Spade

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.

< snip >

The problem is keeping track of whether a program/utility has been
nominated before. One could have ten people, who don't read every post
in the newsgroup, make the identical nomination. Then have "complete
descriptions" ten times. Nine times too many IMO.

IMO the current process is fine. With only a minor change. Instead of
doing a list of anything nominated without a description. Do that BUT
point out that anything left without a description after " x " days
will be un-nominated.

Problem solved.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:58:44 GMT, Spacey Spade

Hi Spacey,

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.

Yet another excellent suggestion from you. Hopefully we will not need
to do the above BUT if needed it is an excellent idea.


A "Susan approved" PL list, and a PL list for "the rest of us". That
should just about keep everyone happy.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

|>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.

Same here.

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.

Exactly. One can have two programs in a category. One has option A, C,
E and the other has equally worthwhile options B, D, and F. Which
"one" should be listed ?

The answer of course depends on what features one wants. In this case
there is no real "best". It depends on what one wants. Both should be
listed.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]>:

[...]
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 ?

Good question. I * thought * the PL list was for everyone. Not just
for people who have proven themselves not to be lazy and/or who have
contributed "enough". Whatever that means.

When did contributing to the PL list become a prerequisite to input of
opinions ? I seem to have missed this change in procedures.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

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.

Nicely put....again, Roger.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

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.

< snip >

Agreed.

Regards, John.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I have uploaded a new set of PL pages and PL nominations pages. The PL
pages now have *only* the final selections (and Sisoftware Sandra - that
ballot is still open). The other programs that were on the ballot have
been moved to the Nominations page - with the exception of KaZaA Lite.
That program was judged unacceptable for Pricelessware. I have removed
it from the Nominations list.

It's time to revise subcategory names (if necessary) and move any
programs that were badly misplaced. (I have *some* notes on this and
will make those changes tomorrow.) Please look at the Nominations page
as well as the PL pages.

The Alphabetical list has a column for cross-references. I have added
some - please suggest additional info that would be useful. This is a
supplement to the Category index - the intent is to list capabilities
that are not obvious from the subcategory name.)

I still have quite a few PL2003 programs to update. I plan to do that
between now and the end of the year. I hope to have everything ready so
we can make the changeover to PL2004 on Jan. 1 or thereabouts.

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

 

[omega]

I have uploaded a new set of PL pages and PL nominations pages.

[...]

The sort by PW is handy. I sure like those columns. Now that I've learnt
how to use them.

 

[Onno]

PW programs are a popular type vote. If we agree that the cutoff point
for popular is 12, then those with less than 12 votes don't make it to
PW.

Niche programs are graded like this:

(Number of Votes) / (Number of Users) = Percentage Score

Example:

(7 votes for blahblah) / (10 users of blahblah type program) = 70%

Group decides 60% to be the cutoff point, thus blahblah makes the Niche
Programs page.

Good idea. I read your proposal before, now at last I understand it .

 

[jason]

Good idea. I read your proposal before, now at last I understand it

I like the idea too. With that kind of ballot (the one laid out in the
earlier post), it would be a *tad* more work to vote... I mean, you'd
actually have to think a bit ...but it would be well worth it. Not only
would it resolve the niche program issue in a very direct way, but it
would produce some excellent statistical data. Knowing how many people
actually use a certain category of program, makes the program votes all
the more meaningful. I think this proposal should be given serious
consideration.

 

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

Yet another excellent suggestion from you. Hopefully we will not
need to do the above BUT if needed it is an excellent idea.

I also hope it will not be deemed necessary. IMO it makes the
ballots themselves overly complicated to use. Voters must categorize
themselves ('I am a user of the apps which perform the following
functions') and have to specify which functions make an app Priceless
in their opinions. If it ever is implemented, I expect there to be
many confused ballots cast. I'd much prefer the simpler balloting of
the past, simply, 'Here are the apps I believe are the Best of the
Best.'

I'm unclear about how one aspect of the categorized voting system
would work. Suppose 10 people say they use FTP servers, and 5 of
them vote for Program A while 5 of them vote for Program B. Each has
50% of the vote among users in the FTP server subcategory. Spacey,
do you envision both of them being put on the list, or neither?

A "Susan approved" PL list, and a PL list for "the rest of us".
That should just about keep everyone happy.

Your continued implications that Susan is in charge of the list wear
thin, John.

 

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

The problem is keeping track of whether a program/utility has been
nominated before. One could have ten people, who don't read every
post in the newsgroup, make the identical nomination. Then have
"complete descriptions" ten times. Nine times too many IMO.

The descriptions submitted to date would be on a webpage, sortable by
using that nifty php script. Those nine people could easily reference
it before annoying you with extra submissions.

 

[Susan Bugher]

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.

Overall the plan looks good to me (exceptions are noted).

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.

I think this would work best as a *set* of web pages with the
subcategories etc. shown.

When the nomination phase is at hand, one may nominate any app that
already has its description, links, &c., on file.

Perhaps the person who prepared the description could be given a day or
two to nominate the program before the field is opened to all comers.

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.

I agree. I think someone seconding such a nomination should confirm that
the description is complete and correct. There will not be much time for
a general review by the group.

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.

I disagree. IMO allowing that kind of nomination would just clutter up
the list.

This year some people nominated many programs (I think the greatest
number in one post was 24). Some never furnished descriptions for their
*laundry lists*. There were *drive-by* nominations - the nomination post
was the last we heard of the OP. There were shareware nominations -
because the OP didn't bother to check. etc. etc. etc.

IMO nominations without a description should be rejected. If another
person wished to nominate the same program *with* a description they
could. The OP ccould second that nomination.


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

 

[jason]

»Q« wrote:

I agree. I think someone seconding such a nomination should confirm
that the description is complete and correct. There will not be much
time for a general review by the group.

Excellent. That continues to place the burden of responsibility on the
nominators, which is the correct emphasis IMO.

I disagree. IMO allowing that kind of nomination would just clutter up
the list.

I disagree too. Up to this point, we've been "coddling" people who
haven't followed through on their nominations. It's that very coddling
that leads to laziness and hence to the drive-by nominations.

The one thing wrong with this approach is if it discourages nominations
by "ordinary" people and encourages nominations by "authors". Authors
are the most motivated to go to the effort to provide complete
descriptions. But I think we've proved there are a lot of dedicated
"ordinary" people in this group, so I doubt the number of nominations
will fall, or be skewed, that much.

 

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

Overall the plan looks good to me (exceptions are noted).


I think this would work best as a *set* of web pages with the
subcategories etc. shown.

Makes sense to me. But there would also be a single aphabetical list
with links to the descriptions, right?

I disagree. IMO allowing that kind of nomination would just
clutter up the list.

Ok. In that case, perhaps whoever is tracking the noms should
followup such posts with "Nomination not accepted due to lack of
description" so that no one mistakenly believes the app should ve
successfully nominated. OTOH, I don't see any big problem with
simply ignoring noms without descriptions.

 

[Spacey Spade]

[snip]

...and have to specify which functions make an app Priceless
in their opinions.

For simplification, that part could be reduced, and categories would be
broader:

GraphicsProgram

instead of:

GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer

Ofcourse, you lose important details, but you gain simpler voting. I'd
be willing to let a third person make decisions in defining the
categories.

If it ever is implemented, I expect there to be
many confused ballots cast. I'd much prefer the simpler balloting of
the past, simply, 'Here are the apps I believe are the Best of the
Best.'

Guidance, if necessary, would come from any ACFer that saw mess-ups.
All the vote gatherer would do is mark the messups. If the voter didn't
correct the messup, then the voter didn't care much for the vote to
begin with and probably did not apply good judgement in his/her
selections.

Anyway, with so many correct votes to look at, a confused voter would
not stay confused for long (I hope). I think that is why there were no
errors in this years vote (I guess).

I'm unclear about how one aspect of the categorized voting system
would work. Suppose 10 people say they use FTP servers, and 5 of
them vote for Program A while 5 of them vote for Program B. Each has
50% of the vote among users in the FTP server subcategory. Spacey,
do you envision both of them being put on the list, or neither?

Neither. But it is also possible for a person to think both FTP servers
are exceptional. If two people voted for both, then both FTP servers
would have 6 votes a piece.
- The sweetness here is that not voting for a program in a category you
use is a silent vote against the program.
- Granted, not all, but some people will have tried both programs.
- Benefit: No matter how good a program might be, only programs that
have been extensively tested by the voters make it. For newcommers: if
you are good you'll make the "Niche Programs" next year when more people
will have tried you.
- Benefit: Less posts begging to have a program make the list. Less
politics.

Spacey