A suggestion for the Pricelessware list.

[John Corliss]

Originally the Pricelessware list was intended to have one, or at the
most, two programs listed for each category and the categories were
much broader. This is no longer the case. As a result, IMO the list
has become just another freeware site, and one which I don't use as
often as say, the Nonags site:

http://www.nonags.com/nonags/
http://www.k7v.com/nonags/

or WebAttack:

http://www.webattack.com/freeware/freeware.html

It would make the Pricelessware list more effective if its programs
were rated on a scale of, say, 1 to 6. Borrowing from the WebAttack
site, this rating could be based on the following:

* ease of use
* functionality
* features and performance (compared to similar programs)
* documentation
* uniqueness and innovativeness
* efficiency
* personal opinion.

For instance, right now there are FOUR browsers listed. How can
anybody know which of them is the one that the group recommends over
others?
Rating the programs would overcome this limitation, and the ratings
could be derived from the voting.

Opinions?

 

[rir3760]

It was a dark and stormy night when John Corliss

[Snip]

It would make the Pricelessware list more effective if its
programs were rated on a scale of, say, 1 to 6. Borrowing from the
WebAttack site, this rating could be based on the following:

* ease of use
* functionality
* features and performance (compared to similar programs)
* documentation
* uniqueness and innovativeness
* efficiency
* personal opinion.

Problem is, rating all the applications listed on the Pricelessware
would require an enormous effort.

Plus there is a very subjective aspect that makes an application
better or worse than others and that is the end-user ;-)

An example with text editors: many MS Windows' users with a
Unix/Linux background will find Vim easy to use, in the other hand
users with experience only with MS OSes will say Vim is not intuitive
and, in their case, they are correct as they can't use their MS OS's
background with Vim.

And at least in theory the reviewer(s) will require not only a good
grasp in computers but also, to be able to make objective and
impartial reviews as posible, they will need to review the
application in question plus several relates ones.

For instance, right now there are FOUR browsers listed. How can
anybody know which of them is the one that the group recommends
over others?

Rating the programs would overcome this limitation, and the
ratings could be derived from the voting.

IMHO I don't think rating the Pricelessware apps is a good idea. In
the other hand extensive and thoughtful reviews would be great but
it's such a daunting task that I don't think we will find someone
foolish, err, I mean kind enough to do them

Regards

 

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

Opinions?

I think you make some good points, but that it is too late to
incorporate such suggestions into the 2004 PL. I'd recommend raising
them again in January, with an eye toward the 2005 PL.

 

[John Corliss]

I think you make some good points, but that it is too late to
incorporate such suggestions into the 2004 PL. I'd recommend raising
them again in January, with an eye toward the 2005 PL.

Yes, I agree. And my suggestion was not intended to imply that the
rating should include all of those factors, rather the list of factors
was meant to be a list of possibilities.

 

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:

[Snip]

It would make the Pricelessware list more effective if its
programs were rated on a scale of, say, 1 to 6. Borrowing from the
WebAttack site, this rating could be based on the following:

* ease of use
* functionality
* features and performance (compared to similar programs)
* documentation
* uniqueness and innovativeness
* efficiency
* personal opinion.

Problem is, rating all the applications listed on the Pricelessware
would require an enormous effort.

Oh, I don't know. Depends on how many people would want to help in
that compilation and how often it would be done.

Plus there is a very subjective aspect that makes an application
better or worse than others and that is the end-user ;-)

Still, it's a common practice to rate programs at other freeware sites.

(clipped)


IMHO I don't think rating the Pricelessware apps is a good idea. In
the other hand extensive and thoughtful reviews would be great but
it's such a daunting task that I don't think we will find someone
foolish, err, I mean kind enough to do them

I agree that the reviews would be too large of a task. It's probably
why most freeware sites go with the rating system instead.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Originally the Pricelessware list was intended to have one, or at the
most, two programs listed for each category and the categories were much
broader.

IMO we are *now* trying to do two different things with the PL:

1) list the best of the best
2) list enough programs to fulfill most of the requests for freeware
that are made in ACF.

There was discussion last year about creating a list or using a label
for the top vote getters - this might be a good time to resume that
discussion. . .

It would make the Pricelessware list more effective if its programs
were rated on a scale of, say, 1 to 6. Borrowing from the WebAttack
site, this rating could be based on the following:

* ease of use
* functionality
* features and performance (compared to similar programs)
* documentation
* uniqueness and innovativeness
* efficiency
* personal opinion.

I'm in favor of labeling by ease of use - perhaps just the easiest and
the most difficult programs.

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

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

IMHO I don't think rating the Pricelessware apps is a good idea.

Agree with everything you said, you saved me some typing.
Ratings by users (including voting) who have not tried all the
candidates, and/or lacks the skills to understand/use them, brings
little or no more information than "preferred by many" (or just some).

I'm not saying that "preferred by many" is not helpful information,
but that this information is already there. It follows from the fact
that a program made it to the list. Why people prefer the one over the
other can be answered and argued here in a.c.f. And - as John Corliss
mentioned - other sites already provide ratings (user based or
otherwise). But instead of copying the practice of such sites,
Pricelessware could instead point users that wants "clear cut ratings"
to existing sites for such information. (see suggestion about
search_tip page further below)

Another and slighty different suggestion to help Pricelessware
visitors (and this group) is to add Google links for each listed
application, for searching past message in this group for application
name (sorted by date or relevance). Thus so that alongside the
homepage and download links for each and every application listed on
Pricelessware, one would add a link such as (using Metapad as an
example):

"Search a.c.f for past messages mentioning this application
(messages sorted by date, latest first)
<http://google.com/groups?as_q=Metapad&as_ugroup=alt.comp.freeware&as_scoring=d>"

Another suggestion is to add a "search tip" page at Pricelessware. On
every Pricelessware page (make it visible) one could add the following
link :

"Looking for alternatives - see our search tip page".
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/search_tip.htm>

* The search_tip page could contain a short explanation for the
"Google links" in the application list.

* The search_tip page could offer some general pointers to useful
search engines, including Google. A few words about how to search past
messages in this group via Google. One does not need to re-write the
Google manual/help for instance, but just link to it with short
description.

* The search_tip page could offer some general advice like

- say you have found an application that you "almost" like, you are
looking for something better or just something slighty different. One
thing to try then is to search past messages in a.c.f for messages
mentioning your current application (you can use the Google links in
the application lists here). You will most likely then also find
suggestions for alternatives - if any freeware ones exist - sometimes
with comments and arguments for why someone prefer the one over the
other.

* The search_tip page could links to some sites known to offer
software ratings in one form or another (by users or otherwise).

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Ionizer]

(snip)

It would make the Pricelessware list more effective if its programs
were rated on a scale of, say, 1 to 6. Borrowing from the WebAttack
site, this rating could be based on the following:

(snip)

I'm often sceptical of ratings scales- I find myself wondering from how many
votes (and by whom) the ratings are derived. And when someone rates a
particular piece of software, are they doing so having tried each of the
alternatives, or is it just a general thumbs up or thumbs down based on
their experience with that program alone?

On the Pricelessware site, the text accompanying each recommended program
seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) just the blurb from the author's own
website, which is almost always glowingly positive. I'd find it more
helpful to read a small sample of testimonials (positive and negative) from
real-world users.

Regards,
Ian.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Another suggestion is to add a "search tip" page at Pricelessware.

Hi Bjorn,

*Some* info is here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm#find

I like the idea of a Search tips page - if others do too could someone
volunteer to *chair* a discussion about the details?

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

 

[Susan Bugher]

On the Pricelessware site, the text accompanying each recommended program
seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) just the blurb from the author's own
website, which is almost always glowingly positive. I'd find it more
helpful to read a small sample of testimonials (positive and negative) from
real-world users.

You are correct. In years past the PL has used a blurb from the sites -
it would have been difficult to impossible to assemble the list in any
other way.

This year the people who nominate a program are responsible for
providing the information for the program description (including the
standard info about version, OS, links etc.).

There is no *requirement* to use the site blurb - I'm in favor of
something more informative.

IMO we should give roughly equal space to each program - one big
paragraph should be the max. for an individual program.

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

 

[Bebop & Rocksteady]

If the application has been voted to be added to the Pricelessware list then
then it has already been rated...


--
----------------------------------------
Quantum Illusions: http://quantum.2ya.com
Pegasus Mail Support Site: http://pegasus.quantum.2ya.com
Freeware Site: http://freeware.quantum.2ya.com
DATA Solutions: http://datasolutions.quantum.2ya.com

If you truly want to contact me click the link
http://quantum.2ya.com/email.htm

 

[Buzzy]

IMO we should give roughly equal space to each program - one big
paragraph should be the max. for an individual program.

Susan

Susan, if there is a program listed on the PL site and I have it
reviewed on my site, you may link to any page you want if you feel that
the information in the review is complete enough and what you want.
Just to lend a hand!

Buzzy

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan, if there is a program listed on the PL site and I have it
reviewed on my site, you may link to any page you want if you feel that
the information in the review is complete enough and what you want.
Just to lend a hand!

Thanks Buzzy!

Helping hands are always *most* welcome.

If anyone else feels the urge please succumb to it . . .

I have a little list . . .

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

 

[John Corliss]

If the application has been voted to be added to the Pricelessware list then
then it has already been rated...

Ehhhh.... not really. As I said, the original intent was one program
in each category that was supposed to be the best of the best, two at
most. The list has strayed away from that concept.

 

[John Corliss]

IMO we are *now* trying to do two different things with the PL:

1) list the best of the best
2) list enough programs to fulfill most of the requests for freeware
that are made in ACF.

There was discussion last year about creating a list or using a label
for the top vote getters - this might be a good time to resume that
discussion. . . (clipped)

Kinda what the original intent of the Pricelessware list was supposed
to be. How about just putting the number of votes with each program?
Seems like that would be easy enough since you tally the votes anyway.

 

[Boomer]

Ehhhh.... not really. As I said, the original intent was one
program in each category that was supposed to be the best of the
best, two at most. The list has strayed away from that concept.

Hard not to stray from only one or two programs. Whats the very 'best'
browser? The very best news reader? Best notepad? Is everyone going
to download each others programs and evaluate? I'm glad for choices
on the list. My best is not your best. But the top 3 or 4 give me
a good choice.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Kinda what the original intent of the Pricelessware list was supposed to
be. How about just putting the number of votes with each program?

I believe that was one of the suggestions - and that there were some
objections to the idea. You might want to take a look at the PL2003
thread . . .

Seems
like that would be easy enough since you tally the votes anyway.

Not me babe . . .

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

 

[stan]

perhaps in the description of the product it could show how many
votes it actually got, and this could be the rating, as some said.

I think you make some good points, but that it is too late to
incorporate such suggestions into the 2004 PL. I'd recommend raising
them again in January, with an eye toward the 2005 PL.

or maybe in the 2004 midyear vote or elections..

There was discussion last year about creating a list or using a label
for the top vote getters - this might be a good time to resume that
discussion. . .

yes the more statistics the better..
how many people participated in the vote, which product
got most voted for,etc... are good ideas I agree with.

 

[Genna Reeney]

Originally the Pricelessware list was intended to have one, or at the
most, two programs listed for each category and the categories were
much broader. This is no longer the case.

That is STILL the aim of the PL.
The problem occurs when there is a tie among first place or second place.
For the most part, only the top one or two programs for each category should
be selected.

It would make the Pricelessware list more effective if its programs
were rated on a scale of, say, 1 to 6.

No, we are selecting ONLY the top programs already. If a program is not
worthy of a top grade, then it should not be on the PL in the first place.

 

[Genna Reeney]

On the Pricelessware site, the text accompanying each recommended
program seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) just the blurb from the
author's own website, which is almost always glowingly positive. I'd
find it more helpful to read a small sample of testimonials (positive
and negative) from real-world users.

I think that the program description should be the author's own description
taken from their site. The point being that the list is a subjective choice
anyway, so we might as well present the program as it was intended to be
presented by its author.

If there is a strong need to have personal testimonials attached to each
program, then there could be a paragraph below the description from the
person nominating the program or someone who just feels strongly about it.