Are you sure that belongs in pricelesswarehome.org... ?

[jacaranda]

When an app has a history of intermittent nags I don't think one short
test *proves* it's not Nagware. . .

Neither does a handful of people saying they've seen the nagscreen without
documenting the *frequency* of the nag. A nag once a year, or even once
every 6 months...for a person who uses a program heavily...is not going to
be much of a nag, in the practical sense. That's a weakness in the whole
system. It doesn't account for what a "reasonable person" would consider a
nag...in terms of frequency.

No big deal...it's just one of those pesky things that doesn't fit neatly
into a category lol. We'll never be able to capture all of these
aberrations, and we'll just have to live with the consequences, whether the
vote seems to be based on common sense or not lol.

 

[Susan Bugher]

@individual.net:

Neither does a handful of people saying they've seen the nagscreen without
documenting the *frequency* of the nag.

The facts are sometimes hard to come by. I've seen more opinions than
facts in this thread. . .

A nag once a year, or even once

every 6 months...for a person who uses a program heavily...is not going to
be much of a nag, in the practical sense. That's a weakness in the whole
system. It doesn't account for what a "reasonable person" would consider a
nag...in terms of frequency.

I disagree. We have a way of evaluating that. It's called a "Ware
Ballot".

No big deal...it's just one of those pesky things that doesn't fit neatly
into a category lol. We'll never be able to capture all of these
aberrations,

That's why the Ware Ballot is needed - to make decisions about the "odd
bods".

Some nags are more objectionable than others. The *frequency* of the
nags matters to some voters, not to others. . . lots of factors enter
into voting decisions. If the *facts* are laid out on the table I think
we make pretty good decisions - based on our own definitions of "free
enough for the Pricelessware List".

and we'll just have to live with the consequences, whether the

vote seems to be based on common sense or not lol.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[jacaranda]

A nag once a year, or even once

I disagree. We have a way of evaluating that. It's called a "Ware
Ballot".

Do we know that the people voting have actually tried the S/W. Or are they
voting reflexively based on the word "nag"? I'd bet there was
both...though there's no way to prove it lol. The ballot excludes any
discussion, so people can't say whether or not they've tried the program,
or how long.

The facts are sometimes hard to come by. I've seen more opinions than
facts in this thread. . .

Which again suggests the voting may not be objective.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Do we know that the people voting have actually tried the S/W.

That's not a requirement for *any* vote that's held during the PW
selection process.

Or are they

voting reflexively based on the word "nag"?

Do you think we should disqualify people who vote for their convictions?

Some newsgroup participants have stated that they do not regard any
Nagware as elegible for the PL. Some newsgroup participants have stated
that they do not regard any Spyware as elegible for the PL. Some
newsgroup participants have stated that they do not regard any Adware as
elegible for the PL. Do you have a problem with that?

Which again suggests the voting may not be objective.

ISTM all voting is subjective. What's your definition of an "objective"
vote?

FWIW I think it's interesting that so far the people who have voted are
mostly opposed - it looks like many of the people who voted *for*
inclusion of these two apps on PL2006 have either changed their minds or
gone on vacation. . .

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[jacaranda]

That's not a requirement for *any* vote that's held during the PW
selection process.

I didn't say that it was.

Or are they

Do you think we should disqualify people who vote for their
convictions?

Nope, I'm simply pointing out that the system is imperfect.

Some newsgroup participants have stated that they do not regard any
Nagware as elegible for the PL. Some newsgroup participants have
stated that they do not regard any Spyware as elegible for the PL.
Some newsgroup participants have stated that they do not regard any
Adware as elegible for the PL. Do you have a problem with that?

Not at all.

ISTM all voting is subjective. What's your definition of an
"objective" vote?

A vote that would actually *mean* something would include the pertinent
objective facts of the program. For example, in a nagware vote, it
would include the version we're talking about (so there's no confusion),
the number of hours before a pop-up nag and the dimension (and perhaps
color) of any "display". And perhaps a link to a screenshot of the
interface. With objective information like that, everyone is clear on
what they're voting on. And they can see for themselves whether or not
the program is objectionable...in a pragmatic sense.

BTW, I'm not recommending any changes to the process, I'm simply
pointing out that the current process is imperfect. But as I've said
before, I'm okay with that. Pricelessware isn't the end-all be-all, and
no one expects it to be. So no need to defend the process. I'm not
lobbying for a change.

FWIW I think it's interesting that so far the people who have voted
are mostly opposed - it looks like many of the people who voted *for*
inclusion of these two apps on PL2006 have either changed their minds
or gone on vacation. . .

As I said before, there are probably people who haven't even used the
program who are voting. And they see the word "nag" and they rush ahead
and vote lol. This newsgroup has a very strong contingent of people who
are ardently against anything with the label of "nagware"...purely on
principle...so I wouldn't expect anything different. They're the ones
who are most motivated to vote. Most "crusaders" with deeply-held
"principles" are going to be more motivated to vote than just someone
who happens to like the program.

 

[Aaron]

As I said before, there are probably people who haven't even used the
program who are voting. And they see the word "nag" and they rush ahead
and vote lol. This newsgroup has a very strong contingent of people who
are ardently against anything with the label of "nagware"...purely on
principle...so I wouldn't expect anything different.

And these are the people who fret about 'ware discussions' and rules and
definitions...

They're the ones

who are most motivated to vote. Most "crusaders" with deeply-held
"principles" are going to be more motivated to vote than just someone
who happens to like the program.

Many causal voters probably vote against nagware too , but go on to vote
for Antivir anyway. These people should be shot!

 

[Susan Bugher]

A vote that would actually *mean* something would include the pertinent
objective facts of the program. For example, in a nagware vote, it
would include the version we're talking about (so there's no confusion),

There's are links to the PL descriptions on the ware ballot => the
versions are known.

the number of hours before a pop-up nag and the dimension (and perhaps
color) of any "display". And perhaps a link to a screenshot of the
interface. With objective information like that, everyone is clear on
what they're voting on. And they can see for themselves whether or not
the program is objectionable...in a pragmatic sense.

You use the PowerDesk. Why didn't you post that information? I agree
such information would have been helpful. It wasn't furnished by
newsgroup participants.

FYI - that type of information *was* posted for Trillian (and Trillian
won its ware ballot).

BTW, I'm not recommending any changes to the process, I'm simply
pointing out that the current process is imperfect. But as I've said
before, I'm okay with that. Pricelessware isn't the end-all be-all, and
no one expects it to be. So no need to defend the process. I'm not
lobbying for a change.

This vote could have been everything you say it should have been. *You*
could have done the things you say should have been done. The process is
as good as we make it.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Dewey Edwards]

Er. I was just randomly giving examples of how voting should work, it
wasn't meant to be a real poll. You seem to think I'm trying to get
adware or nagware into PL, I'm not.

I never said that. You offered a hypothetical poll, well I'm
answering.

This is exactly what I mean, the term adware/nagware alone scares the
hell out of you and you say no way! Shouldn't you at least look at the
definition of adware/nagware first? Remember, what the group considers
and defines as adware/nagware might not be the same as what you think it
is.

I have seen the definition. And you are correct that I define it
differently. I not only define the two programs under questiion as
adware, but I also define "watermarked output" programs as adware. I
think I'm a minority of one that feels that way. I have argued that
in the past and lost to the group's decision. I have no intention of
bringing that up again, but I will vote that way in any future "ware"
ballot. As you may vote differently.

Are you presuming that your idea of nagware/adware is always the one the
group adopts?

NO, just what I believe. And post.

 

[Mark R. Blain]

From my old F.A.Q., here is the arrangement that this group long ago
came up with, regarding what is and what's not okay to recommend in this
group...

Orphanware - Software that is no longer supported or offered to the
public by the original author or company. Some people have saved the
original compressed download somewhere and occasionally will make it
available if asked.
Sometimes offering it to others is okay to do and sometimes it
isn't. The main instance where offering orphanware is not okay is when
the product has been improved and changed from freeware to shareware. In
this case the freeware version has been made unavailable by the author
because it would compete with the newer non-freeware version.
With the author's permission, orphanware can become freeware.
Orphanware is infrequently discussed in alt.comp.freeware. Be
careful about copyright infringement when using orphanware.

Nice comprehensive list, John, and I appreciate all the opinions that
went into its creation. Just wanted to mention for all that
"abandonware" is a common synonym for orphanware, with the same
problems and copyright concerns.

 

[jacaranda]

You use the PowerDesk. Why didn't you post that information?

I did relate my experiences with the program. And I got shot down since I
was told I couldn't discuss in the voting thread lol.

This vote could have been everything you say it should have been. *You*
could have done the things you say should have been done.

Right, but I'm not arguing that anything needs changing. Unlike the ardent
"ware" crusaders, I don't have any passion to bring to bear haha. I'm
simply a person that likes a particular program, feels it is not
"objectionable" nagware, and that it should stay PW. But making PW
"perfect" takes way too much time....moreso than most of us are willing to
commit. That's why I'm simply expressing my thoughts in the thread, but
not calling for change. People who have the time and committment to spend
"perfecting" a newsgroup ballot (and the whole PW process to boot) would be
a great boon to making PW "perfect", but alas, they are far and few in
number. So, no need to hope for that to happen. But we have a good
product in PW - not a perfect one - but a good product. And as long as
people are aware of it's limitations, it serves a public good.

 

[Susan Bugher]

@individual.net:

Right, but I'm not arguing that anything needs changing.

LOL - you sure fooled me.

Unlike the ardent

"ware" crusaders, I don't have any passion to bring to bear haha. I'm
simply a person that likes a particular program, feels it is not
"objectionable" nagware, and that it should stay PW.

Well - the votes are in and the apps are out. re: improving the process
- Pricelessware program descriptions are prepared by people who think
the programs are great. ISTM there's a natural tendency to gloss over
the drawbacks and ignore ware issues (despite "da rules"). IMO that's a
mistake. . . IMO these programs would have gotten more "IS elegible"
votes if the Nagware issues had been identified, discussed and voted on
*during* the PL2006 selection process.

JMHO. . .

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[jacaranda]

- Pricelessware program descriptions are prepared by people who think
the programs are great. ISTM there's a natural tendency to gloss over
the drawbacks and ignore ware issues (despite "da rules"). IMO that's a
mistake. . . IMO these programs would have gotten more "IS elegible"
votes if the Nagware issues had been identified, discussed and voted on
*during* the PL2006 selection process.

Probably. Just like more programs would have been submitted for PW if the
process was simpler. Bottom line: unless a critical number of people have
a high commitment to the process, there's always going to be imperfections.
And hey, that's life.