Pricelessware suggestion

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

Susan Bugher

The suggestion below was sent to the Pricelessware email link.

Comments?

Susan

<quote>
An OT thought for a new feature - A page of links to sites with good
compartive or extended software reviews. Several aps reference Buzzy's,
but there are a number of good review sites or best-of lists that are
devoted to or encompass freeware (broadly defined). I have especially
found sites such as Fabulous Freeware and links on alt.comp.virus FAQ
(claymania; though going stale) that evaluate several products in
context a useful complement to Pricelessware (e.g., checkout WireKeys).
Some software archives such as WebAttack also provide good ideas/reviews
via their ratings.
</quote>
 
A page of links to sites with good compartive or extended software
reviews.
Click to expand...

I think this would be a great idea. The only problem is getting someone to
administer the whole thing. Something like a wiki might be best, as the
admin load would be distributed.
 
Susan said:
The suggestion below was sent to the Pricelessware email link.
Click to expand...
Comments?
Click to expand...

They *generally* probably don't share our definition of freeware. I
think linking to them from the PW site would, by association, water down
that group definition, by formally sanctioning sites that consider
software like adware and spyware to be freeware.

In casual chatter in here, we often see "[such-and-so] has it", but I'm
not convinced that it's a good idea to formally sanction mixed-software
sites at the pricelessware.org home.
 
Iain said:
I think this would be a great idea. The only problem is getting someone to
administer the whole thing. Something like a wiki might be best, as the
admin load would be distributed.
Click to expand...

Hi Iain,

Your comments are very much to the point - things to consider carefully
if more interest develops in such a project. Doing such a web page could
indeed turn into a major undertaking.

Susan
 
(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in
One of the biggest shortcomings on the whole net where software is
concerned is the lack of insightful comparative reviews. The
point is not "who has it" in an archived/download sense, but
rather how do programs work (e.g., Buzzy's articles, although they
would benefit from a good features shortcomings section) and how
do programs compare to other programs.
Click to expand...

No, that is /not/ the point of the Pricelessware pages. The fact some
idea or another is a good and useful one does not mean that it would be
good to add it to the mission of the Pricelessware pages. I'm all for
extensive comparative reviews, but imo, they should not be hosted by
nor linked to from the Pricelessware list.
 
I'd like to agree, here, if I may.

If I may not, I'll agree *here*. <g> The idea behind the Pricelessware
site is "these are our picks". It gives the user the group consensus
-- he can google for all of the other information he desires, if he
wants more data/opinion before deciding on it (or rejecting it).
Click to expand...

p'raps it could be considered an 'extension' of the pricelessware
function...a listing of the sites considered by the group to offer the
'best' reviews

This list would obviously have to carry all the usual disclaimers (ie this
is not a recommendation of the site, the authors, or any software mentioned
therein), but could be a valuable resource for both comparative info and an
'objective' opinion (it's unfortunate, but a lot of the feedback seen here
tend's to be in the "this thing rocks..." category, hardly objective or
comprehensive).

presumably any/all sites would have to go through the same sort of process
that is currently used for pricelessware before inclusion on any such list,
and could be dropped at any time if they're focus veered too far from
our's.
 
p'raps it could be considered an 'extension' of the pricelessware
function...a listing of the sites considered by the group to offer
the 'best' reviews

This list would obviously have to carry all the usual disclaimers
(ie this is not a recommendation of the site, the authors, or any
software mentioned therein), but could be a valuable resource for
both comparative info and an 'objective' opinion (it's
unfortunate, but a lot of the feedback seen here tend's to be in
the "this thing rocks..." category, hardly objective or
comprehensive).

presumably any/all sites would have to go through the same sort of
process that is currently used for pricelessware before inclusion
on any such list, and could be dropped at any time if they're
focus veered too far from our's.
Click to expand...

I think the Pricelessware pages should remain tightly focused on what
they're presently doing, but a separate project for such a list of
links would be a very good idea imo. I also like the wiki idea that
Iain put forward.
 
»Q« said:
I think the Pricelessware pages should remain tightly focused on what
they're presently doing,
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to be a problem . . .

they just lie there until called for . . .
but a separate project for such a list of
links would be a very good idea imo. I also like the wiki idea that
Iain put forward.
Click to expand...

or ACF reviews and comparisons of freeware . . .

as a separate project from the Pricelessware List . . . ;)

Susan
 
Doesn't seem to be a problem . . .

they just lie there until called for . . .
Click to expand...

Heh. And here I was under the impression that they were constantly
updating themselves. ;)
or ACF reviews and comparisons of freeware . . .

as a separate project from the Pricelessware List . . . ;)
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
»Q« said:
(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in


No, that is /not/ the point of the Pricelessware pages. The fact some
idea or another is a good and useful one does not mean that it would be
good to add it to the mission of the Pricelessware pages. I'm all for
extensive comparative reviews, but imo, they should not be hosted by
nor linked to from the Pricelessware list.
Click to expand...

First, Q (and Blinky later) misconstrue "the point" in my comment. I
should have been clearer.

Blinky previously said: "In casual chatter in here, we often see
"[such-and-so] has it", but I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to
formally sanction mixed-software sites at the pricelessware.org home."

The suggestion is that Pricelessware.org be extended in some form to
include particularly good comparative evaluations -- not links to
sites that have both freeware and shareware. The link may
coincidentally be to such a site (that archives software -- freeware,
shareware, or both), but it would more probably be to a commercial
magazine review, a blog, or a personal site. The primary requirement
would be a good comparative review that evaluates at least one
freeware product, or a detailed review of a single freeware product.
A site that contains numerous reviews might be mentioned several times
or once with a general comment on its relevant content.

Second, the manner of providing the references is wide open. So far a
few people have suggested that they do not want to follow the current
example wherein Buzzy's reviews are referenced (or perhaps the
objection is to referencing any site that discusses anything other
than freeware as defined by the purists in this group). Fine. Let's
put a link at the top of each category page to a review page and list
reviews by category or subcategory.

Third, not everyone precisely agrees upon what should be considered in
this newsgroup (reference various discussions often evolving into
flaming). Similarly, not everyone precisely agrees on what should be
included on the Pricelessware.org _site_. The list itself is clearly
the outcome of a vote, but the site is already more than just that.
It appears to be the web site presence of the ACF ng. It has links to
the unofficial FAQs, member sites, etc.

Fourth, I believe that not all evaluations will be freeware versus
freeware. I think that is all to the good since it will hightlight
both the advantages and shortcomings of any given program. If the
group has a particular problem with a site where we are referencing a
review, we can include an explict exception for that site (e.g., "note
that some programs cited as freeware are spyware" or "xxxx is spyware,
not freeware").

Please note that the suggestion was to recommend reviews, not
necessarily or even usually sites, and certainly not sites as a whole.

BillR
 
(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in
First, Q (and Blinky later) misconstrue "the point" in my comment.
I should have been clearer.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I have just reread your post and mine, and I was actually
referring a different instance of the words "the point" in your OP than
the one I ended up quoting. Again, sorry.

[giant snip]
Please note that the suggestion was to recommend reviews, not
necessarily or even usually sites, and certainly not sites as a
whole.
Click to expand...

That was what I understood the suggestion to be before, and I still
believe the it would be a bad idea to extend the pricelessware.org
pages even to include links to suggested reviews.

In the text I snipped, you mention that the pricelessware.org pages
have a list of links to a.c.f contributors' pages, and imo the best way
to handle this would be for one or more of us to put up a page full of
links to suggested reviews, and have the pricelessware.org site link to
that page as it does other contributors' pages.
 
That was what I understood the suggestion to be before, and I still
believe the it would be a bad idea to extend the pricelessware.org
pages even to include links to suggested reviews.

In the text I snipped, you mention that the pricelessware.org pages
have a list of links to a.c.f contributors' pages, and imo the best way
to handle this would be for one or more of us to put up a page full of
links to suggested reviews, and have the pricelessware.org site link to
that page as it does other contributors' pages.
Click to expand...

Q

it's still not clear (to me at least) why you consider this to be a 'bad
idea'.

As I understand it, the pricelessware pages are there as a resource for
everyone's benefit. They list the tools and utilities that the group
considers the best known to the group, and the opportunity to save
countless hours that might otherwise be wasted resourcing and evaluating
different app's. It's probably also fair to say that most of the regulars
in the group probably don't really need them, cos they aleady know and use
the app's listed anyway....

It really doesn't seem too great a stretch to extend this concept to a
worthwhile listing of sites that would, at the very least, validate the
listing of a given program within the pricelessware pages.

and wouldn't doing this by proxy, ie linking to another page/site that
carries the links still (by your definition) be considered an endorsement
of the content on that page/site??

and if this was deemed the best way to go about this, how would the
resulting list of links be determined (surely this would have to voted on,
as per the current process for pricelessware, else where would the value
be)?
 
I suddenly became aware of said:
(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in
Click to expand...
That was what I understood the suggestion to be before, and I still
believe the it would be a bad idea to extend the pricelessware.org
pages even to include links to suggested reviews.

In the text I snipped, you mention that the pricelessware.org pages
have a list of links to a.c.f contributors' pages, and imo the best way
to handle this would be for one or more of us to put up a page full of
links to suggested reviews, and have the pricelessware.org site link to
that page as it does other contributors' pages.
Click to expand...
I have a page for this all set to go if you want it. It lists Tramp's
finds and an area where user comments would go.
--
POKO SAID THAT ...........
reply to (e-mail address removed) don't use VIAGARA
Pat Keenan - Webmaster, Keenan Consulting
http://www.keenanconsulting.on.ca
silly portal: www.keenanconsulting.on.ca/portal.html
 
it's still not clear (to me at least) why you consider this to be
a 'bad idea'.

As I understand it, the pricelessware pages are there as a
resource for everyone's benefit. They list the tools and
utilities that the group considers the best known to the group,
and the opportunity to save countless hours that might otherwise
be wasted resourcing and evaluating different app's.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.
It's probably also fair to say that most of the regulars in the
group probably don't really need them, cos they aleady know and
use the app's listed anyway....
Click to expand...

Maybe. When I have a need for a freeware app in a category I
haven't previously needed, it's the first place I go. So I do find
the PL useful personally, just not very often.
It really doesn't seem too great a stretch to extend this concept
to a worthwhile listing of sites that would, at the very least,
validate the listing of a given program within the pricelessware
pages.
Click to expand...

It's not a great stretch - I'm just opposed to extending the
pricelessware.org pages even this much.

And imo the PL voting is all that's needed to validate the listing
of a program on the PL.
and wouldn't doing this by proxy, ie linking to another page/site
that carries the links still (by your definition) be considered an
endorsement of the content on that page/site??
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of that idea either. ;)

I misspoke. When I said imo it would be the best way to handle
this, I should have said imo it would be the best way to handle this
if it must be associated with the pricelessware.org site at all.
and if this was deemed the best way to go about this, how would
the resulting list of links be determined (surely this would have
to voted on, as per the current process for pricelessware, else
where would the value be)?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but istm that the PL process could serve as a good
template, if it's to be a relatively formal thing. I don't have a
plan for how to do it, really. Advocates should hammer out the
details here.

I'll toss out another suggestion. If there's enough support for
forming such a list of a.c.f-recommended reviews, folks could
organize it and get it started apart from the pricelessware.org
pages. Once we saw how things went, we could at some point take a
vote on whether or not to move it to the pricelessware.org domain or
place a prominent link from the pricelessware.org main page. Even
if the vote were "no," the page created would probably live on and
be useful to lots of people, so there'd be no wasted effort. POKO's
already graciously offered to host it.
 
Simon said:
and wouldn't doing this by proxy, ie linking to another page/site that
carries the links still (by your definition) be considered an endorsement
of the content on that page/site??
Click to expand...


NO. A member's page reflects the interests and opinions of the member,
not ACF.

http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/members2003PL.htm

<quote>
Sites of some of alt.comp.freeware's regulars:
Please note that not all sites are dedicated to Freeware.
</quote>

The Links Page has the sites that are *endorsed* by ACF.

http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/links2003PL.htm


Susan
 
BillR said:
Second, the manner of providing the references is wide open. So far a
few people have suggested that they do not want to follow the current
example wherein Buzzy's reviews are referenced (or perhaps the
objection is to referencing any site that discusses anything other
than freeware as defined by the purists in this group). Fine. Let's
put a link at the top of each category page to a review page and list
reviews by category or subcategory.
Click to expand...

There have been many ACF posts mentioning how helpful Buzzy's reviews
are. The decision to include the links to Buzzy's site in the PL
descriptions was mine alone - it was not discussed (comments welcome
now).

I have had some cause to regret my decision as it adds to the difficulty
of keeping the PL current. Add more review links?
arrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh :)

Susan
 
There have been many ACF posts mentioning how helpful Buzzy's reviews
are. The decision to include the links to Buzzy's site in the PL
descriptions was mine alone - it was not discussed (comments welcome
now).

I have had some cause to regret my decision as it adds to the difficulty
of keeping the PL current. Add more review links?
arrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh :)
Click to expand...

Let's keep it clean and clear and as it is.

Buzzy's reviews are first class. That does not change the fact that
Pricelessware is the record of what the subscribers to a.c.f - or that
part of the subscribers who wish to nominate, second and vote, decide
are the best programs at that time. Anything else is extraneous. Not
less, in any sense, but not part of Pricelessware.
 
Subject: Re: Pricelessware suggestion
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware

Simon said:
snip
Click to expand...
I'll toss out another suggestion. If there's enough support for
forming such a list of a.c.f-recommended reviews, folks could
organize it and get it started apart from the pricelessware.org
pages. Once we saw how things went, we could at some point take a
vote on whether or not to move it to the pricelessware.org domain or
place a prominent link from the pricelessware.org main page. Even
if the vote were "no," the page created would probably live on and
be useful to lots of people, so there'd be no wasted effort. POKO's
already graciously offered to host it.

--
»Q«
http://www.keenanconsulting.on.ca/freeware.html made a little more
enjoyable to visit plus some humour (humor), of course
--
POKO SAID THAT ...........
reply to (e-mail address removed) don't use VIAGARA
Pat Keenan - Webmaster, Keenan Consulting
http://www.keenanconsulting.on.ca
silly portal: www.keenanconsulting.on.ca/portal.html
 
Back
Top