{PL] Small suggestions for Pricelessware.Org

[Semolina Pilchard]

It's also not Semolinaware.

Nothing I said suggests that I think I have a greater role in this
than anyone else. It's you that's abrogating the power to change the
list as you see fit.

And you don't need to preach to me about
the *GROUP* being the power.

Yes, I do. Obviously. You're setting out to change what was once a
Pricelessware site without reference to the group. In fact, you've
already done so, by changing the ware definitions which were the
result of the group's efforts and deliberations. That seems to me to
be the act of someone who holds other people's opinions and work in
total contempt.

I don't think anyone here has any fear of change, Garrett. It's where
the change comes from that's important.

I've removed the rest of your paranoid ravings. Try to stick to the
issue in hand instead of using a scattergun approach to try to divert
the discussion into some other area where you are less obviously
wrong.

 

[Roger Johansson]

I'm doing this under the impression that this site as well as Susan's
are products of this group and not individual products.

The democratic influence Semolina talked about is one important aspect
to consider, but there must also be a freedom for the web designer to do
his/her work in a fashion he/she likes to work. That aspect is also
important.

The balance between democracy and individual freedom needs a lot of
common sense and compromises between different views.

And let's try to remember to relax and have some fun. That is probably
the most important aspect, when so many people are too engaged and
deadly serious.

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

The democratic influence Semolina talked about is one important aspect
to consider, but there must also be a freedom for the web designer to do
his/her work in a fashion he/she likes to work. That aspect is also
important.

I have no problem with the webmaster deciding how the content is
presented in a graphical and technical sense. That's the webmaster's
business. I object to the content being tampered with without any
authority whatsoever. That's a different matter.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Heh. You obviously missed out on the PL 'cateogory debates' last year.
Susan asked for input, but had very strong opinions of her own, and in the
end, largely acted on them. And that was her perogative. She was more
laissez faire about some things, but when it came to which programs
belonged in which categories, that was a big thing for her. A the
webmaster, that was her right. She had the clout to act on her own
preferences, when those own preferences were strong. Garret has the exact
same leeway. It's one of the perks of the job.

It's difficult to rearrange programs *and* categories in the middle of
the PL selection process.

I *had* asked for input on the categories in the summer and *nobody* was
interested - so I "rearranged the furniture" by myself before the start
of PL2004 nominations - I've asked since then re categories on the acf
program pages - and no one was interested. . .

IMO *now* is a very good time to revisit the issue.

What do you want to see changed?

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:

[snip]

It's difficult to rearrange programs and categories in the middle of
the PL selection process.

IMO now is a very good time to revisit the issue.
What do you want to see changed?

Well, first, do you think we need any guidelines for how catagories and
subs are named? Right now, there are almost as many sub-catagories as
there are programs listed.

We would have to pick more low vote selections or choose only the top
vote getters (which would eliminate *many* subcategories) to change
that. That's the natural result of the proposed selection process:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/PL-Procedures.htm

Do we need any guidelines on how to decide where a program is placed in
the catagories and subs?

IMO simply discussing individual programs on list is easier and better -
programs vary - they often simply refuse to fit into preselected
subcategories.

The question I think should be addressed is: What is the best Category
page for a subcategory or group of subcategories.

If no one feels that we need guidelines, then we can start by just
going through the listings now and weeding things out.

I'm talking about *PL2005* Categories and Subcategories. . .

Also, what about when a catagory becomes a bit too big? Should there
be something about how to break a catagory into smaller catagories?

What does too big mean - in this context?

Personally, I feel that some sort of guidelines for this. Trying to
play off the hip on this is not good.

Either way, I would just like to help get it sorted out. I do believe
it will make things much easier for those involved with putting the
list together.

If no interest in setting up guidelines, those interested in going over
this can get started.

The *guideline* is the Category Index page. Could you propose the
*specific* changes you would like to see in the subcategory placement
for further discussion?

Susan

 

[Garrett]

I'm putting together an informal proposal for this. I will post it
within the next few days.

All I ask is that if you're intested in this (agree or disagree), that
when you respond to it, that we at least try to keep this on track and
leave the personal issues aside.

If the proposal is deemed dead in the water and there is no interest in
furthering discussions regarding it, then we all should accept the
outcome and leave it at that.... Of course, that's not to say that
myself or someone else may not bring it up again next year.

If there is interest in furthering discussions, then we can go over the
proposal, amend it with input from those interested, and then submit a
formal proposal to the group.

Thanks,
-Garrett

 

[Garrett]

burnr wrote:

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.

In fact, that's all I am trying to do here. I'm not trying to start
any kind of a war or anything here... I'm bringing it up so anyone
who's interested in this subject can give some input. Agree or
disagree, suggestions or not. That's all I'm looking for here.


[snip]

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.

A lot of words yes, but words that were regarding the subject presented
and not the author personally. Thank you.

I must say though, that this thread is going well, even if some things
are not exactly on topic, the tone and maturity of the posts are so
much better than I have seen in the past with regards to touchy issues.
I'm glad that people are trying to keep with the subject and relaying
their opinions and feelings regarding the subject more so than
directing their opinons toward the author. Only some references toward
the author, but it's not that bad at all. I'm just glad that we are
able to at least discuss this without it going sour.

I thank everyone who's been participating in this thread for this.

Thanks,
-Garrett

 

[Garrett]

Nothing I said suggests that I think I have a greater role in this
than anyone else. It's you that's abrogating the power to change the
list as you see fit.

Yes, what you said is that the webmaster has no say in this at all,
that they are merely tools for you and everyone else, hence, your say
is more valued than mine or Susan's.

Yes, I do. Obviously. You're setting out to change what was once a
Pricelessware site without reference to the group. In fact, you've

I feel it is time for change, and I'm bringing it up to the group. If
you dislike the idea of change, that's fine, but instead of trying put
this into some sort of personal situation, please keep it in the
context that it's intended to be. Quit preaching and state your
opinion and elaborate on it. Quit trying to take this to a personal
level.

already done so, by changing the ware definitions which were the
result of the group's efforts and deliberations. That seems to me to
be the act of someone who holds other people's opinions and work in
total contempt.

Well, you better jump all over Susan for the changes she did to her
site without consulting the group before making those changes. She's
done quite a few things to that site without even asking the group...
Now, is it ok that she did this to that site?

Hmmmm, I saw what I did as doing the group a favor by making some
corrections that were needed. This is also what has brought me to
bring this subject up. Changes and corrections are needed IMO, so I
bring this up to the group. I don't see this as being wrong.

I don't think anyone here has any fear of change, Garrett. It's where
the change comes from that's important.

Where the change comes from is meaningless, it's where the change takes
you is what counts. But you seem to fear where the change is coming
from, which makes it more of a personal issue than anything. It's
about the list and not who brings it up. Get over the personal angle
on this and look at it for what it is intended to be.... A suggestion
and discussion for some change in the way things are. If you can't do
that, then step back a few steps, gather your thoughts and then step
back in when ready.

-Garrett

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

Semolina Pilchard wrote:

Yes, what you said is that the webmaster has no say in this at all,
that they are merely tools for you and everyone else, hence, your say
is more valued than mine or Susan's.

He/she does not have a bigger vote than
anyone else.

That's what I also said. Do you understand what that means? Stop
being deliberately stupid, Garret. You have a vote like everyone else
and that's all you have. And yes, you make yourselves tools of the
group as volunteers, as I do in supplying Pricelessware CDs.

I feel it is time for change, and I'm bringing it up to the group.

I didn't see you bring your changes to the software type definitions
up in the group.

If
you dislike the idea of change, that's fine, but instead of trying put
this into some sort of personal situation, please keep it in the
context that it's intended to be. Quit preaching and state your
opinion and elaborate on it. Quit trying to take this to a personal
level.

How does "you tampered with the content without consulting the group"
need elaboration?

Well, you better jump all over Susan for the changes she did to her
site without consulting the group before making those changes. She's
done quite a few things to that site without even asking the group...
Now, is it ok that she did this to that site?

What, you mean Susan changed something the group decided upon without
consultation, Garrett? First I've heard about it. Just point it out
to us all, now that you've made the accusation. Be specific.

Hmmmm, I saw what I did as doing the group a favor by making some
corrections that were needed. This is also what has brought me to
bring this subject up. Changes and corrections are needed IMO, so I
bring this up to the group. I don't see this as being wrong.

Nor do I, Garrett. What I see as wrong is when you do it
unilaterally.

Where the change comes from is meaningless,

You still don't get it, do you? Change comes through the group and
with the agreement of the group, so in that sense it's very meaningful
where it comes from.

it's where the change takes
you is what counts. But you seem to fear where the change is coming
from, which makes it more of a personal issue than anything.

Don't be so ridiculously repetitive, Garrett. It's not about fear of
change.

It's
about the list and not who brings it up.

It's not about who brings it up, Garrett. It's about you doing things
without bringing it up.

Get over the personal angle

There's no personal angle. You're words on a screen to me. It's
about what you've done.

 

[jason]

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.

Heh. You obviously missed out on the PL 'cateogory debates' last year.
Susan asked for input, but had very strong opinions of her own, and in the
end, largely acted on them. And that was her perogative. She was more
laissez faire about some things, but when it came to which programs
belonged in which categories, that was a big thing for her. A the
webmaster, that was her right. She had the clout to act on her own
preferences, when those own preferences were strong. Garret has the exact
same leeway. It's one of the perks of the job.

 

[jo]

Hmmmm, I saw what I did as doing the group a favor by making some
corrections that were needed. This is also what has brought me to
bring this subject up. Changes and corrections are needed IMO, so I
bring this up to the group. I don't see this as being wrong.

A) You come to the group with your ideas for change and see how the
group responds

B) You report to the group that you have made changes on the group's
behalf

You chose 'B'

 

[Roger Johansson]

Heh. You obviously missed out on the PL 'cateogory debates' last year.
Susan asked for input, but had very strong opinions of her own, and in the
end, largely acted on them. And that was her perogative. She was more
laissez faire about some things, but when it came to which programs
belonged in which categories, that was a big thing for her. A the
webmaster, that was her right. She had the clout to act on her own
preferences, when those own preferences were strong. Garret has the exact
same leeway. It's one of the perks of the job.

The category is a secondary factor and I think later adjustments by the
web designer is okay.

I would agree with Semolina if it was about something really important,
because she is right in principle if it is applied to important things
but to me the category is not important.

It would, of course, be best if the category characteristic was perfect
from the beginning, because it affects the voting result.
But the category is just one of the characteristics of a program, just
like other descriptive characteristics.

 

[Mark Warner]

The category is a secondary factor and I think later adjustments by
the web designer is okay.

I would agree with Semolina if it was about something really
important, because she is right in principle if it is applied to
important things but to me the category is not important.

It would, of course, be best if the category characteristic was
perfect from the beginning, because it affects the voting result.
But the category is just one of the characteristics of a program, just
like other descriptive characteristics.

Holy Moly! More common sense!

This is gettin' outta hand...

 

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

A) You come to the group with your ideas for change and see how
the group responds

B) You report to the group that you have made changes on the
group's behalf

You chose 'B'

At one point or another, everyone who has maintained pricelessware
pages has chosen to make changes to the pages and then looked for
feedback from the group.

While I'm in a thread that has become about the pages in general, I
guess I'll toss in ideas about direction. (I can't think too much
about the categories without getting a headache.) IMO it would be good
if pricelessware.org focused tightly on the list itself while
pricelesswarehome.org continues to make itself a more general resource
for people interested in freeware. I was generally opposed to the
second approach at one time, but I've been shown the value of it;
OTOH, now that there are two, it would be nice to have one that's only
about the PL.

 

[Mark Warner]

At one point or another, everyone who has maintained pricelessware
pages has chosen to make changes to the pages and then looked for
feedback from the group.

While I'm in a thread that has become about the pages in general, I
guess I'll toss in ideas about direction. (I can't think too much
about the categories without getting a headache.) IMO it would be
good if pricelessware.org focused tightly on the list itself while
pricelesswarehome.org continues to make itself a more general resource
for people interested in freeware. I was generally opposed to the
second approach at one time, but I've been shown the value of it;
OTOH, now that there are two, it would be nice to have one that's only
about the PL.

Oh My Gawd! Another coherant, common sense post! With a solid, simple
idea behind it!

This place is goin' downhill fast...

 

[Ben Cooper]

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.

I did read the post, Garrett. Don't be condescending.

A program such as MultiRes can't be in the "wrong" location if it's in
the location that everyone voted it in.

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.

Maybe it was the part where you said, "But I'm pretty sure that neither
of these sites will ever coincide with each other 100%."

How can they *not* coincide when the list is supposed to represent the
vote that is held here in the group? You seem to be saying that your
list will put programs into any category you feel is more appropriate,
regardless of what the vote results may be.

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.

Why do you keep snipping parts of your post I was quoting?

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.

Are you sure you want to make that bet?

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.

See, this is the part you don't understand.
Things weren't in disarray and it was working quite well.

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.

Garrett, your sense of self regarding this seems to be egregiously
over-inflated.
This has *always* been about the Pricelessware list and how it is
presented on the web.
I hate to break this to you, but I don't know you well enough to hate
you or even dislike you.

I can say, though, that your actions thus far show that
pricelessware.org will be reflecting your opinions and not those of this
group.

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

This is a patently false and misleading statement. The site was working
quite well until you and your ilk stepped in to change it.

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?

What do you mean when you say "catch up to the times"?

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.

Like I said before, this has nothing to do with you and is about how the
list is presented.
I would have nothing to say if you presented the PW list as it was
decided to be presented with the most recent vote.
You've now taken it upon yourself to change program categories and
program descriptions with no whit to any general consensus from those of
us involved with this group.

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.

This implies my original comments weren't "real or honest". I assure
they were and are.
I would like to see a plain statement for what your intentions are
regarding the Pricelessware list.

Will it be an accurate presentation of the group's wishes, or will it be
a presentation filtered through *your* sensibilities?

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.

I'm not looking for divinity, I'm looking for accuracy as to how it
reflects the wishes of this group.

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.

OK, this was my last effort to persuade you from making a site that
reflects "you and yours" opinion of what Pricelessware should be.
Obviously, you are not receptive to any suggestions from those who don't
agree with you.
Pricelessware.org is your site and yours alone. I'm sure it will be
quite successful for you.

 

[Ben Cooper]

I have no problem with the webmaster deciding how the content is
presented in a graphical and technical sense. That's the webmaster's
business. I object to the content being tampered with without any
authority whatsoever. That's a different matter.

That's what my concern is, too. The presentation may be different, but
the content should be synonymous.

 

[Garrett]

A) You come to the group with your ideas for change and see how the
group responds

B) You report to the group that you have made changes on the group's
behalf

You chose 'B'

Again, as usual, your snibbling brings nothing of value to the
discussion. Thanks for being consistant.

At least I'm trying to do something to help.. What are you doing to
help?

-Garrett

 

[Garrett]

Susan Bugher wrote:

[snip]

It's difficult to rearrange programs and categories in the middle of
the PL selection process.

I figured that and thought it would be wise also to try and hash this
out now. That way, if something came up during the voting process, it
would be less tasking to take care of it.

I had asked for input on the categories in the summer and nobody was
interested - so I "rearranged the furniture" by myself before the
start of PL2004 nominations - I've asked since then re categories on
the acf program pages - and no one was interested. . .

I am sorry that I was here for that, or I may have missed, otherwise I
would have been more than happy to help out with that.

IMO now is a very good time to revisit the issue.

What do you want to see changed?

Well, first, do you think we need any guidelines for how catagories and
subs are named? Right now, there are almost as many sub-catagories as
there are programs listed.

Do we need any guidelines on how to decide where a program is placed in
the catagories and subs?

If no one feels that we need guidelines, then we can start by just
going through the listings now and weeding things out.

Also, what about when a catagory becomes a bit too big? Should there
be something about how to break a catagory into smaller catagories?

Personally, I feel that some sort of guidelines for this. Trying to
play off the hip on this is not good.

Either way, I would just like to help get it sorted out. I do believe
it will make things much easier for those involved with putting the
list together.

If no interest in setting up guidelines, those interested in going over
this can get started.

-Garrett

 

[Ben Cooper]

At one point or another, everyone who has maintained pricelessware
pages has chosen to make changes to the pages and then looked for
feedback from the group.

While I'm in a thread that has become about the pages in general, I
guess I'll toss in ideas about direction. (I can't think too much
about the categories without getting a headache.) IMO it would be
good if pricelessware.org focused tightly on the list itself while
pricelesswarehome.org continues to make itself a more general resource
for people interested in freeware. I was generally opposed to the
second approach at one time, but I've been shown the value of it;
OTOH, now that there are two, it would be nice to have one that's only
about the PL.

This is an interesting suggestion!
Any thoughts on how we could move forward with such an agenda?