{PL] Small suggestions for Pricelessware.Org

[Garrett]

Just as I suspected! Everyone is against me!

I'm against me too! ;-)

-Garrett

 

[BillR]

LOL! This is close to what I had in mind when I responded, but I was
suffering from a tact attack at the time.

"Priceless" juxtaposition. (Note, Mark used same sig in the referenced response.)

-- .
BillR
Physician, heal thyself. (A not at all random selection.)
- Luke IV 23

 

[Ben Cooper]

(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in


<http://news.individual.net/> offers a very very good free Usenet
account; their server carries only text groups and has great
completion.

I finally decided to sign-up with Individual.Net. Got my account
yesterday.
Already it's better than Qwest's news service.

Maybe the threads I read when I'm in my office will make more sense now.
Nah... probably not.

 

[Garrett]

Ben Cooper wrote:

[snip]

I finally decided to sign-up with Individual.Net. Got my account
yesterday.
Already it's better than Qwest's news service.

Maybe the threads I read when I'm in my office will make more sense
now. Nah... probably not.

But at least they'll be complete incoherent threads instead of broken
cryptic threads

-Garrett

 

[BillR]

I'll take the sun and the moon now, the stars tomorrow. ;-)

An interesting and different approach to presenting Pricelessware
information.

A few small suggestions to polish an already quite well-done site:

----------
MultiRes
Home / System Utilities / Monitor Tool
MultiRes is a 32-bit alternative to QuickRes, which adds refresh rate
and multi-monitor support, as well as optional timed confirmation
prompts.
----------

Is there a better subcategory name?
Does this belong under Desktop?
Should the description be updated?

I find calling this category "Monitor Tool" within System Utilities
confusing. "Monitor" is also used as a verb in the Process Monitor
subcategories within System Utilities.

As a starting point I propose "Display Property Tool" or "Display
Adjustment".
I hope someone will propose a more apt name.

I can understand why some prefer having MultiRes under System Tools as
it is more traditional: many of us think of adjusting the display
settings as a basic system property. On the other hand, it is just
one more adjustment to the desktop, especially since MultiRes makes it
easy to change.

Whichever category is eventually chosen, this problem illustrates both
the need for ready searching within the site and for a good index or
cross-references. I hope that ACF and the site administrators will
work on this for 2005.

Pricelessware.Org put MultiRes in System Utilities;
PricelesswareHome.Org, in Desktop. For at least 2004 I hope that this
part of the content can be consistent.

Finally, I propose that the description of MultiRes be expanded. The
current description is:
MultiRes is a 32-bit alternative to Microsoft's QuickRes, which
adds refresh rate and multi-monitor support, as well as optional timed
confirmation prompts.

I found this both overly brief and slightly confusing ("timed
confirmation prompts"?). The following pastiche is derived from the
EnTech site:
MultiRes is a small, free, 32-bit alternative to QuickRes, with
refresh rate and multi-monitor support. Supported resolution and
refresh rates are accessible from the command-line or from a simple
menu that pops up from the system tray. An optional timed confirmation
prompt ensures that any changes you make can be reversed safely,
without fuss.

My primary goal is to correct minor flaws in the current
Pricelessware.Org and PricelesswareHome.Org sites. I do not seek to
start a major discussion of 2005 categories nor -- especially -- to
resurrect recent discord. Discussion of 2005 categories should be a
completely different thread. Any effort toward the latter will result
in instant incineration.

In summary, I propose clarifying the subcategory name, moving MultiRes
to Desktop (thereby making both Pricelessware sites consistent), and
improving the description. MultiRes illustrates the desirability of
additional indexing or some sort. Please limit this thread to these
topics.

BillR

 

[Susan Bugher]

MultiRes

Finally, I propose that the description of MultiRes be expanded. The
current description is:

My primary goal is to correct minor flaws in the current
Pricelessware.Org and PricelesswareHome.Org sites. I do not seek to
start a major discussion of 2005 categories nor -- especially -- to
resurrect recent discord. Discussion of 2005 categories should be a
completely different thread.

In summary, I propose clarifying the subcategory name, moving MultiRes
to Desktop (thereby making both Pricelessware sites consistent), and
improving the description. MultiRes illustrates the desirability of
additional indexing or some sort. Please limit this thread to these
topics.

Hi BillR,

The categories and subcategories (and the programs that should be in
them) are subject to discussion and revision on the *PL2005* list. The
PL2004 categories are a done deal. They were discussed and decided as
part of the PL2004 selection process. At that time MultiRes was placed
in: DESKTOP: Monitor Tool.

I will update the MultiRes description to read:

MultiRes is a small, 32-bit alternative to QuickRes, with refresh rate
and multi-monitor support for up to nine display devices. Supported
resolution and refresh rates are accessible from the command-line or
from a simple menu that pops up from the system tray. An optional timed
confirmation prompt – enabled by default in the program About box –
ensures that any changes you make can be reversed safely, without fuss.
While MultiRes does not allow you to define new display settings, it
does give you quick and easy access to the ones the driver makes available.

Susan

 

[Ben Cooper]

Ben Cooper wrote:

[snip]

I finally decided to sign-up with Individual.Net. Got my account
yesterday.
Already it's better than Qwest's news service.

Maybe the threads I read when I'm in my office will make more sense
now. Nah... probably not.

But at least they'll be complete incoherent threads instead of broken
cryptic threads

Ha! After reading some of the complete threads I may go back to the
cryptic ones. They were more fun!

 

[Garrett]

BillR wrote:

Personally, I have no problem with discussing possible changes like
this for the current list at pricelessware.org. In fact, when I
redesigned the site, I could not help myself from moving some programs
that were obviously in wrong categories and subcategories to more
obvious and logical locations. My opinion is that if there are
corrections needed, regardless if the vote process is long over, the
corrections should still be made when found. If MultiRes is in an
incorrect location or being classified wrong, then it should be
corrected now and not next year. Keep in mind, I only speak for the
site that I am currently maintaining and no other site.


[snip]

In summary, I propose clarifying the subcategory name, moving MultiRes
to Desktop (thereby making both Pricelessware sites consistent), and
improving the description. MultiRes illustrates the desirability of
additional indexing or some sort. Please limit this thread to these
topics.

BillR

I appreciate your intent and effort, and I also wish to avoid any
pointless bickering over such a minor thing. But I'm pretty sure that
neither of these sites will ever coincide with each other 100%.

I disagree on the idea that MultiRes should be in Desktop, as it's not
a an item that is soley intended as a desktop item. It's effects are
system wide and affect every program and aspect of the system and not
just the desktop. It's not a tool to pretty the desktop itself, nor
does it add any new functionality to the desktop or remove or edit any
functionality to the desktop. It's a system level tool and if you look
at other listing sites, you typically find such a tool in a system
category. I personally am trying to keep this particular site in a
form that allows most users to show up and logically pick a link and
and actually find what they expect to find in that category.

I do of course agree about the subcategory name and am more than
willing to adjust this to something more properly descriptive of the
type of program that it is.

In fact, I'd like to start seeing a more simple approach to the
category and subcategory naming conventions for the list. It seems
that these have become more of a puzzle than an useful classification
tool for the listings. Some of the subcategory names are more cryptic
than the programs they are suppose to be describing.

And I also agree about the program descriptions and would like to
expand on this subject also. I found that far too many descriptions
were too vague and lacking, while other descriptions are novel sized
and just far too much information which if the visitor needed, could
simply visit the site of the program for such a more indepth
description. The descriptions are just too inconsistent and should be
adjusted in my opinion.

I think some sort of guidelines should be set regarding these things
before the 2005, in fact it would be nice if we went over the whole
concept of Pricelessware and set in stone what the list is about, how
it should be handled, limits on what and where and how much etc.

-Garrett

 

[Ben Cooper]

BillR wrote:

Personally, I have no problem with discussing possible changes like
this for the current list at pricelessware.org. In fact, when I
redesigned the site, I could not help myself from moving some programs
that were obviously in wrong categories and subcategories to more
obvious and logical locations. My opinion is that if there are
corrections needed, regardless if the vote process is long over, the
corrections should still be made when found. If MultiRes is in an
incorrect location or being classified wrong, then it should be
corrected now and not next year. Keep in mind, I only speak for the
site that I am currently maintaining and no other site.


[snip]

So, you're saying that regardless of any vote, poll, or opinion from
this group, your pricelessware.org site will reflect your opinion of
what Pricelessware should be?

You're willing to "correct" a vote if you think (or are later convinced)
it was the wrong vote?

I appreciate your intent and effort, and I also wish to avoid any
pointless bickering over such a minor thing. But I'm pretty sure that
neither of these sites will ever coincide with each other 100%.

Perception is reality. It seems you've already decided how your site
will reflect the "vote".

I disagree on the idea that MultiRes should be in Desktop, as it's not
a an item that is soley intended as a desktop item. It's effects are
system wide and affect every program and aspect of the system and not
just the desktop. It's not a tool to pretty the desktop itself, nor
does it add any new functionality to the desktop or remove or edit any
functionality to the desktop. It's a system level tool and if you
look at other listing sites, you typically find such a tool in a
system category. I personally am trying to keep this particular site
in a form that allows most users to show up and logically pick a link
and and actually find what they expect to find in that category.

I do of course agree about the subcategory name and am more than
willing to adjust this to something more properly descriptive of the
type of program that it is.

In fact, I'd like to start seeing a more simple approach to the
category and subcategory naming conventions for the list. It seems
that these have become more of a puzzle than an useful classification
tool for the listings. Some of the subcategory names are more cryptic
than the programs they are suppose to be describing.

To say such things is ridiculous. The Pricelessware list has worked fine
for years and garnered many accolades.

And I also agree about the program descriptions and would like to
expand on this subject also. I found that far too many descriptions
were too vague and lacking, while other descriptions are novel sized
and just far too much information which if the visitor needed, could
simply visit the site of the program for such a more indepth
description. The descriptions are just too inconsistent and should be
adjusted in my opinion.

Aren't most descriptions taken from the author/owner's sites combined
with commentary from the group?

I think some sort of guidelines should be set regarding these things
before the 2005, in fact it would be nice if we went over the whole
concept of Pricelessware and set in stone what the list is about, how
it should be handled, limits on what and where and how much etc.

Now *that* is a bold statement.
The guidelines *have* been set. They've been set for several years.

I find it fascinating that you step into the successful public face of
an ALT group and are so eager to change its direction.

 

[dszady]

BillR wrote:

[...]

I find it fascinating that you step into the successful public face of
an ALT group and are so eager to change its direction.

Sorry Ben.
Garrett back stabbed and weaseled his way into his "job". I guess it's his
right to run it the way Genna and SOS see fit. The way he did it was all
for the group you know. Shhhh.... he didn't want to get in the middle of
anything.
We can't expect anything MORE from Garrett except to keep gnawing on it for
his own accolades.
And this bullshit about not wanting to get in the middle of it has already
proved again and again he is either a liar or a liar or a liar.
Look at HIS new site. How can he say to your face that he couldn't take the
names off there that were asked of him within.... Oh... 15 minutes at the
most considering the site sat idle for a month. Is he a liar, just plain
lazy or a megalomaniac?
Has he ever completely explained how he got his new job? Noooo....
Because he didn't want to get in the middle of anything. can you say "Back
stabber"?
Garrett the back-stabbing weasel or ...... S....
I'm not blinded by the light.
Sorry Ben that I have disagreed with you at this time. I just didn't want to
get in the middle of anything but for a change now I have spoken on this
matter.
About being a little clique that is always picking on him these other people
can't see the forest for the 'Night of the Long Knives'.
I can-f******-tell the difference between right and wrong. But I don't want
to point any fingers because I don't want to get in the middle of anything.
I'm staying out of it. Believe me.
I don't want to be drawn into a discussion here because I just don't want to
get in the middle of anything. So that was all that I had to say.
EOD
PTFB

 

[Garrett]

dszady wrote:

[snip]

I merely said that I wish not to get into any bickering about something
so simple. And it's people like you who like to take simple things
like this and make them into flame wars such as you are attempting to
do now.

At least Ben was trying to make some points, but you, you've brought
nothing of value to this subject at all except Name calling and
accusations.

It would be nice if you had something to add to the subject... Do you?
If so, drop the little game and let's get real and serious about this.
If not, then I would ask that you please refrain if possible, from
posting in this thread while the rest of us attempt to discuss this
subject.

Thanks and best regards,
-Garrett

 

[Garrett]

BillR wrote:

Personally, I have no problem with discussing possible changes like [snip]
speak for the site that I am currently maintaining and no other

[snip]

So, you're saying that regardless of any vote, poll, or opinion from
this group, your pricelessware.org site will reflect your opinion of
what Pricelessware should be?

You're willing to "correct" a vote if you think (or are later
convinced) it was the wrong vote?

Please read the post again as you seem to have not read it at all.

In summary, I propose clarifying the subcategory name, moving

[snip]
I appreciate your intent and effort, and I also wish to avoid any
pointless bickering over such a minor thing. But I'm pretty sure
that neither of these sites will ever coincide with each other 100%.

Perception is reality. It seems you've already decided how your site
will reflect the "vote".

This comment doesn't seem to even relate to the quoted text above it.
You must be seeing something into this that I do not see.

I disagree on the idea that MultiRes should be in Desktop, as it's [snip]
names are more cryptic than the programs they are suppose to be
describing.

To say such things is ridiculous. The Pricelessware list has worked
fine for years and garnered many accolades.

The pricelessware list has been a mess for years and needs a major
overhaul and some serious refinement. Just ask Susan how hard it is to
try and maintain this list, and I bet she might even agree that the
whole things needs to be reconsidered and simplified.

I will tell you what is rediculous, and that is your opinion that the
pricelessware list should not be cleaned up, things made easier for the
visitors to the list. I have to assume that you would rather see
things in disarray.

Aren't most descriptions taken from the author/owner's sites combined
with commentary from the group?

That might very well be. But are you going to tell me that you don't
find some of the descriptions completely lacking, and some having far
too much of a description? Be honest here Ben, and try to be unbias
about this. This isn't about me, it's about the list. You tell me
that you honestly believe the list is not in bad shape and needs to be
cleaned up, refined and organized better than it is now.

Now that is a bold statement.
The guidelines have been set. They've been set for several years.

The guidelines if any are failing and not doing the pricelessware list
justice at all.

I find it fascinating that you step into the successful public face
of an ALT group and are so eager to change its direction.

Several people have said that times change and people need to change
with them. Well times have changed and the pricelessware list needs to
catch up to the times. Am I the only one that sees this?

Ben, you dislike me, fine, but don't let that get in the way of your
judgement of the list. Don't let that cloud your mind. Even if you
dislike me, I can tell that you're not a troll, an idiot and so on.
You seem to have quite a good brain there, except that you're letting
your dislike of me get in the way. Let it go when it comes to the list
itself.

Read over what I was talking about in the prior post and here without
using me as a tool in part of your reply, stick with the subject and
come back with some real and honest comments, suggestions, but above
all, all I ask is that you be honest with this.

Now if enough level headed and honest people in this group say that I'm
off base with my suggestions and or proposals, then I'll go with the
concensus and do what's needed. I've said all along that I'm more than
willing to make changes and so on, and I'm not talking about waiting
until next year's list comes out. This year's list is still viable and
being used by people like you and me and it would be nice if we always
try to Define and Refine until it's as close to being Divine as
possible.

As my kids would say, "Don't hate the player, hate the game". I'm not
here for some personal goal, I'm here because I like the pricelessware
list, I partook in it's creation and I want to make it better with ever
step it takes. I want to help keep it going without any hang ups. I
want it to be the pure and innocent thing that it's suppose to be.

Personally, I don't hate the players or the game, because I'm not here
to play any game, so I've got no reason to hate or dislike anyone.

Tell me what you want out of this? What do you want do with the list?

It's just as much your list as mine, Susan's, Genna's and even that
Whacky Dszady who's currently out for my skull on a silver platter.
This list is suppose to be for anyone and everyone.

Now if you're serious about this and are passionate about going over
this, let's get down to business here.

Thanks,
-Garrett

 

[Mark Warner]

The pricelessware list has been a mess for years and needs a major
overhaul and some serious refinement. Just ask Susan how hard it is
to try and maintain this list, and I bet she might even agree that the
whole things needs to be reconsidered and simplified.

I will tell you what is rediculous, and that is your opinion that the
pricelessware list should not be cleaned up, things made easier for
the visitors to the list. I have to assume that you would rather see
things in disarray.

What you might lack in tact, you make up for with common sense.

There's so much at play here. On the one hand, any criticism of the old
site is taken by some as a personal attack on Susan. On the other hand,
any unilateral improvements or changes to the site's format is
characterized as megalomania. You can't win.

That might very well be. But are you going to tell me that you don't
find some of the descriptions completely lacking, and some having far
too much of a description? Be honest here Ben, and try to be unbias
about this. This isn't about me, it's about the list. You tell me
that you honestly believe the list is not in bad shape and needs to be
cleaned up, refined and organized better than it is now.

You have the list. That's been voted on. Within reason, only a handful
of people -- those with an ax to grind or a personal "stake" in the old
site -- gives a shit how it's organized or laid out or formatted, as
long as it works. That's a matter of style. All the "votes" and
"discussions" and what-not that have occurred concerning organization
and formatting were merely the webmaster's attempt to gather input and
gain consensus (and maybe a few atta-girls). Nothing wrong with that.
You've shown already that you're more than amenable to suggestions of
the same nature. Your crime today seems to be that you've openly
disagreed with Ben regarding the categorization of one single freaking
program. How dare you!

As webmaster of the pw.org site, it should be expected that the website
will reflect *your* style. The pwhome.org site will reflect Susan's.
Assuming the same basic content -- i.e. The List -- who freaking cares?
Those that prefer Susan's style can use that site and refer others
there. And vise-versa.

Change is good. Choice is good. I say let's have more of it.

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

The pricelessware list has been a mess for years and needs a major
overhaul and some serious refinement. Just ask Susan how hard it is to
try and maintain this list, and I bet she might even agree that the
whole things needs to be reconsidered and simplified.

Pricelessware, in form and content, is what the GROUP decides it will
be, year on year. It doesn't matter what you or Susan think; the
group decides on Pricelessware. It isn't Garrettware or Susanware.
Where Pricelessware is concerned, the webmaster is just there to carry
out the group's wishes. He/she does not have a bigger vote than
anyone else. You may not like it, Garrett, but that's how it is.
Your predecessors understood that simple democratic fact.

No one apart from you has suggested that Pricelessware is a mess.
That's not to say it can't be improved, and it will be, as happens
every year. When the group wants it changed you'll doubtless be told,
Garrett.

 

[Garrett]

Semolina Pilchard wrote:

[snip]

Pricelessware, in form and content, is what the GROUP decides it will
be, year on year. It doesn't matter what you or Susan think; the
group decides on Pricelessware. It isn't Garrettware or Susanware.

It's just like you and a few others... You are the ones whos were all
over me about being an Old Timer here and that times have changed and
that I was basically some outdated relic of days gone by. Well, they
were obviously wrong. I prefer to change with the times myself. It
seems that is some you who said that to me before don't want to
practice what they preached.

And now you're saying that I have no say in this at all, that Susan has
no say at all. Well again you're wrong, because Susan and I are just
as much part of this group as you or anyone else and I too can have my
say, and that's what I'm doing. Susan gets her say in this, why can't
I or others? Nothing against Susan, but does she not basically dictate
some things around here? Does anyone jump her about that? I'm sorry
if you like this list the way it is, but I seriously feel that it needs
some major work now. It has for years now. Even from the get go the
list suffered. And I don't feel sorry for feeling like this or for
bringing it up. Maybe others have felt like this also, but *ARE TOO
AFRAID TO BRING IT UP FOR FEAR THAT THEY WILL BE PERSECUTED* by a small
regime of people who feel that this group and the list are their
personal property.

It's also not Semolinaware. And you don't need to preach to me about
the *GROUP* being the power. Instead, you should be preaching to me
how you feel the list is just fine the way it is instead of trying to
make this some personal thing with me.

Where Pricelessware is concerned, the webmaster is just there to carry
out the group's wishes. He/she does not have a bigger vote than
anyone else. You may not like it, Garrett, but that's how it is.
Your predecessors understood that simple democratic fact.

And you must understand that I do have a say in this also, just like
you do. And I'm not afraid to stand up say "enough is enough". It
seems that you and a few others are actually afraid of changes. Quit
overlooking what's being said and trying to turn this into some
personal thing with me and pay attention to what's actually being said
here.

I'm not just some toy or pawn in your little personal game here. I am
someone who's volunteered his time to aid in something that is suppose
to be wonderful for not only this *GROUP* but for the rest of the world.

And I do like being the volunteer and a member of this group, so not
sure where you trying to go with that. I don't have to understand the
predecessors, that's not the concern. From your own statement there,
whatever the predecessors understood is meaningless anyway. A
completely inaccurate statement you've put up there.

No one apart from you has suggested that Pricelessware is a mess.
That's not to say it can't be improved, and it will be, as happens
every year. When the group wants it changed you'll doubtless be told,
Garrett.

That is exactly right! And that's why I'm bringing this up now. But
instead of reading what's actually being said, you'd rather take this
personal. I'm bringing all this up so that the *GROUP* can discuss
this.

I am part of this group, I can bring up this subject, you can disagree
with it, others can agree or disagree with it, but you can't tell me
that I can't say something at all, or that I can't bring something like
this up. Don't try to tell me that I'm wrong, because it's not a
matter of being right or wrong, it's a matter of one of the *GROUP*
members having an opinion or suggestion and bringing it up with the
rest of the group. A *GROUP* member exercising a right that supposedly
any member of this group has.

And just how can you sit there and talk about this being a democracy
when you are so boldly trying to tell me and the rest of the group that
I have no rights here at all? Ok, if I have no rights to bring up such
things, who does? You? Ben? Susan? Who??

I or anyone else has the power and ability to bring such things up
whenever, and we can also ask that something be done. And if the
*GROUP* agrees, then it will be done.

And no single person should be condemned for this. We should be able
to freely bring things up, ask questions, make suggestions without such
BS that has plagued this group for so long. I'm sick and tired of a
few people in this group who always jump anyone who tries to be a part
of this group and express their honest opinions and make suggestions.
It's just flat out wrong.

Instead of trying to put me in a cage and lock me up (ain't going to
happen!), go over what I have said and give some valued input..

Do you honestly like the list the way it is? If so, fine, but that
doesn't mean I can't bring up the subject and ask for feedback from
others. And it doesn't mean that the *GROUP* can't have their say
about this. And it also doesn't mean that the *GROUP* can't ask for or
demand change. And if the *GROUP* so desires change, then it must be
and will be done. Am I right about that? I mean, after all, this is
supposedly a democracy, right? If the *GROUP* says "Make it so!",
then it must be made so, right?

So, let's drop the petty personal stuff now if you don't mind, and
let's talk about the subject at hand.

I think the list is in disarray and I feel that some new guidelines and
some changes are in order. Do you feel the same way, or do you feel
that the list is just fine the way it is?

Please express your opinion or suggestions about the subject, not the
author of the subject.

If you want to go at it with me, then let's start another thread that
won't mess up this thread. I don't mind if you want to dog me, but I'd
really prefer that you do it out of a thread that has some legit
concerns about the list itself. Hey, start a thread called "Let's dog
Garrett". At least it would be appropriately labeled! LOL!

-Garrett

 

[Garrett]

Mark Warner wrote:

[snip]

What you might lack in tact, you make up for with common sense.

There's so much at play here. On the one hand, any criticism of the
old site is taken by some as a personal attack on Susan. On the other
hand, any unilateral improvements or changes to the site's format is
characterized as megalomania. You can't win.

I know I lack the diplomatic tact that is really need for such a
sensitive subject, and I do try to be careful about how I say things.
I don't mean for it to sound like a personal attack, becuase it's not
really. If one wants to take it that, then it should not just be aimed
at Susan, because I have felt this way about the list even before she
had a role in the list directly. If anything, it should be a personal
attack on myself and everyone else in the group for failing to do our
part in this and standing up sooner to say and do something about this
from day one.

But I suffered from the same thing others did, we didn't want to hurt
anyone's feelings, so we all just sat here and let it go on like this
for all these years now. And I am just as much blame, because I didn't
want to hurt SOS's feelings or Genna's feelings. And I think letting
this go like this for so long only makes it hurt worse for Susan
because it makes it look like she's solely responsible for it. She's
not. If there's blame to be had, it goes to everyone who's been here
for so long and didn't stand up.

If we can get past this, then I think we can do some more good for the
list itself. But unfortunately, we've got to get by our prejudices,
egos and feelings.

I'm not a god, I'm not the defacto member or web designer, I'm just
another person in this group and I also have faults. But if we see a
fault that is overall, then we should at least attempt to correct it,
or at least come as close as possible to correcting.... Attempt to do
the best we can within all our limits here.

All that aside though, what do you think of what I had brought up? Do
you feel that we can better organize the list and set some new
guidelines to help keep the list better organized?

-Garrett

 

[Mark Warner]

All that aside though, what do you think of what I had brought up? Do
you feel that we can better organize the list and set some new
guidelines to help keep the list better organized?

From what I've seen of your work so far, I'd say just keep on doing what
you're doing.

The Pricelessware website (imo) was in need of a facelift, and had
become waaay too bloated and cumbersome. Not Susan's fault, either --
that was the result of trying to accommodate every idea and suggestion.
Sometimes it's easier that way than to just say "no, I ain't gonna do
that."

Change is good. Choice is good. And More is not necessarily better.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Mark Warner wrote:

I agree with Mark, both in the line above and practically everything
else he said.

Semolina may have come on too strong now, or rather thought about only a
part of the problem, but I fully understand her view.

The central issue here is if the acf web site(s) are a result of the
group effort, or if only the voting procedure is involved in the group
effort.

As long as we had only one web site I think it could be seen as the
official acf web site. Now the situation is somewhat different.

If we have no single official web site, but let several sites use the
results of the voting.. do we no longer have an official web site?
Can the two web sites be seen as backed up by different groups here, or
individuals, does the acf newsgroup participators have any say in how
the web site(s) should be run?

Tricky questions..

What we are probably agreeing about is that Susan is the person who will
take care of the voting procedure. The results can be used by anybody.

Many of us also want her to handle the official acf web site.
Some want Garrett.
Others want both.
And others want no official web site at all.

If a web site is created to represent the people in acf it should be
democratically controlled by these people.

If the web sites are only reflecting the result of the voting they can
be set up by any individual or group and only those individuals or
groups have any say about its design and organisation.

Do we want one (or two) official web site(s)?
Or do we see only the voting as representing the group?
In the latter case the web sites are not representing the group, only
the persons involved in the web sites.

Does Garrett (Susan) want his site to be seen as representing himself or
representing the participators of acf?

If he/she wants his/her site to represent the participators of acf I
think he/she should accept a democratic influence from the participators
the web site represent.

It is up to each web site designer to decide this.
Does the web site represent the participators of acf, or only the
individual web designer?

 

[Garrett]

Roger Johansson wrote:

[snip]

Many of us also want her to handle the official acf web site.
Some want Garrett.

Please note that I have never asked, suggested or otherwise that I
should run the vote process. I'd rather leave that to those who have
the experience with it already.

[snip]

Does Garrett (Susan) want his site to be seen as representing himself
or representing the participators of acf?

I'm doing this under the impression that this site as well as Susan's
are products of this group and not individual products. But if a
concensus says that one or the other is solely the product of the
group, then I know I will make the proper adjustment to fit the
situation. If the site I'm currently maintaining is voted as not being
the product of this group, then I will at that point threat the site as
an individual product of my doing and do as I see fit within my own
perspective. Otherwise, I would like to continue to try and do this as
best as possible to the desires of the group.

If he/she wants his/her site to represent the participators of acf I
think he/she should accept a democratic influence from the
participators the web site represent.

All I ask that if this all comes up again about what site is what, that
everyone be fair and honest about it. No shotgun processes. I will
accept the wishes of the *GROUP*, and only the *GROUP*, not just some
small branch of it.

But, right now, I'm merely trying to bring up some suggestions and or
proposals about the list itself. Regardless of which site is which,
the list itself is the focus of what I was trying to say.

If the suggestions and or proposals I offer are implemented, then
regardless of what site and what design, the information will be at
least more consistant and organized. How it's translated to html is
another story though. Even if a design is complicated or simple, the
information being presented will at least be more effective and usable.

-Garett

 

[burnr]

Mark Warner wrote:

[snip]

What you might lack in tact, you make up for with common sense.

There's so much at play here. On the one hand, any criticism of the
old site is taken by some as a personal attack on Susan. On the other
hand, any unilateral improvements or changes to the site's format is
characterized as megalomania. You can't win.

I know I lack the diplomatic tact that is really need for such a
sensitive subject, and I do try to be careful about how I say things.
I don't mean for it to sound like a personal attack, becuase it's not
really. If one wants to take it that, then it should not just be aimed
at Susan, because I have felt this way about the list even before she
had a role in the list directly. If anything, it should be a personal
attack on myself and everyone else in the group for failing to do our
part in this and standing up sooner to say and do something about this
from day one.

Wow. Don't be so hard on yourself (or Susan). Evidently /in your opinion/
there is disarray and inconsistancy with the list.

That's not my opinion!

I know for a fact, Susan continues to do an exceptional job keeping the
list up to date, and in the categories chosen by the group. You certainly
have a right to your opinion as well as a right to express it. So does Ben,
Semolina, and everyone else.

But I suffered from the same thing others did, we didn't want to hurt
anyone's feelings, so we all just sat here and let it go on like this
for all these years now. And I am just as much blame, because I didn't
want to hurt SOS's feelings or Genna's feelings. And I think letting
this go like this for so long only makes it hurt worse for Susan
because it makes it look like she's solely responsible for it. She's
not. If there's blame to be had, it goes to everyone who's been here
for so long and didn't stand up.

Again, your going on as if there is/was a problem with the list. Are you
getting complaints? I've heard nothing but praise for Susans work and the
list speaks for itself. I don't know about the list your keeping because I
don't visit, but the list Susan is keeping is up to date. The program
descriptions are as accurate as anyone can keep them. I'm totally baffled
by your attack on the integrity of the list as it stands now. But as I've
just posted, it's your opinion and I respect that. My opinion is that the
list, as it stands now(certainly not perfect, but what is) is exceptionally
well maintained by Susan through more than just a little effort.

If we can get past this, then I think we can do some more good for the
list itself. But unfortunately, we've got to get by our prejudices,
egos and feelings.

I'm not a god, I'm not the defacto member or web designer, I'm just
another person in this group and I also have faults. But if we see a
fault that is overall, then we should at least attempt to correct it,
or at least come as close as possible to correcting.... Attempt to do
the best we can within all our limits here.

All that aside though, what do you think of what I had brought up? Do
you feel that we can better organize the list and set some new
guidelines to help keep the list better organized?

-Garrett

I'm all for improvements, guidelines, structure, and keeping the list
contents a democratic result as much as possible.

If the recommendations and voting results from the upcoming 2005 process
needs new categories-subcategories-whatever, so be it...the changes will be
made. No big deal. If you want to start a thread suggesting and requesting
input for changes you think are needed *now*, do it. Those interested
enough will let their opinion be known.

And the fact of the matter is, regarding the list you're maintaining, you
can change it all that you like...
<q>In fact, when I redesigned the site, I could not help myself from moving
some programs that were obviously in wrong categories and subcategories to
more obvious and logical locations.</q> ..as you evidently already have.
Who's to stop you? That's your call.

I place my trust and support in the webmaster that has committed to
maintaing the list as the group wishes. I can't recall there ever being an
instance where Susan was justly called on changing the list without group
consensus.

I have never attacked you or anyone else with flames or angry comments. I
simply placed my support in someone who I felt was "wronged" and as a
result have been labeled by some as part of a "clique" and someone opposed
to change. My personal business (job) is all about change lol. I understand
,as well as anybody, the dynamics of change and the inherent necessity of
it. So don't be mistaken and think I'm against change....that's not what
this is about. You have made a call for opinions and discussion...this is
my 2 cents. The current PL is fine and well maintained at
http://pricelesswarehome.org where I'm sure it will continue until Susan
either tires of it or becomes so totally disgusted with all this bickering
that she finally caves in to the frustration and walks away. A sad day for
acf should that happen...again in my opinion.

A lot of words and typing just to say...my opinion, the list is fine.
Changes will be made when agreed upon by the majority of the group who
participate in the voting.