[PL] 2004 Discussion - Program categories

[Susan Bugher]

I'm jumping the gun a bit - program category discussion was due to start
next week - but IMO it will be helpful to get going now.

What don't you like?

Are there program *groups* that should be relocated? Let's try to get
those issues resolved first and then move on to specific programs as needed.

Fire away.

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

 

[Bill Day]

Are there program *groups* that should be relocated? Let's try to get
those issues resolved first and then move on to specific programs as needed.

Fire away.

Susan

Categories are complicated, huh? The edges get fuzzy.

There are a couple type programs I often use that don't seem to fit
exactly. I refer to "folder hiding" apps, and "boss key" apps.. I would
loosely classify them as 'security', but which do not necessarily use
encryption, but we don't currently have any listed except encryption.

Under "boss key" would something like WatchCat
http://www.simtel.net/product.php?url_fb_product_page=12778 , which does
LOTS more than making windows disappear, and used to get mentioned in
categories like "desktop".....

Under "folder hiding" would be something like Hide Folders
http://pcprivacycentral.com/id_data_security_hf2.htm (has a free
version) or FolderGuard , which I believe has a 'junior' version. (I use
one which is nagware and is off-topic) There are others I have seen.

I suppose it would be necessary to have programs nominated before we
require a tweaking of the category, so I guess I'll go suggest WatchCat.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Categories are complicated, huh? The edges get fuzzy.

True

There are a couple type programs I often use that don't seem to fit
exactly. I refer to "folder hiding" apps, and "boss key" apps.. I would
loosely classify them as 'security', but which do not necessarily use
encryption, but we don't currently have any listed except encryption.

Under "boss key" would something like WatchCat
http://www.simtel.net/product.php?url_fb_product_page=12778 , which does
LOTS more than making windows disappear, and used to get mentioned in
categories like "desktop".....

Under "folder hiding" would be something like Hide Folders
http://pcprivacycentral.com/id_data_security_hf2.htm (has a free
version) or FolderGuard , which I believe has a 'junior' version. (I use
one which is nagware and is off-topic) There are others I have seen.

I suppose it would be necessary to have programs nominated before we
require a tweaking of the category, so I guess I'll go suggest WatchCat.

First impression - WatchCat should be on the Desktop page. Hide Folders
perhaps under File Utilities. Both could be cross-referenced as Security
apps.

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]

Are there program *groups* that should be relocated? Let's try to get
those issues resolved first and then move on to specific programs as
needed.

No objections to the location of the program groups. . . yet. . .

so . . .

Let's start talking about the individual programs.

I am *not* familiar with many of the programs. Would the experts please
offer their opinions pro and con any suggested changes.

We have separate threads for each web page. Which programs should be
moved to a different page?

What changes are needed in the various subcategories? NOTE: These are
the sub-categories for the discussion period and voting. *Final*
sub-categories can be determined after the votes have been counted.

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

 

[omega]

What changes are needed in the various subcategories? NOTE: These are
the sub-categories for the discussion period and voting. *Final*
sub-categories can be determined after the votes have been counted.

The Carryover program, Regseeker, has been misplaced.[1] It is not a
registry editor.

Last year it was classified as a "Registry Tool."[2] I don't know if the
previous cat-name, or one seen as more satisfying, will be chosen for it.
For example, "Registry Cleaning Suite." Or, another poss, at one place I
saw it describe itself as a "Registry Toolbox."

However to call it, "Registry Editor" is not possible, as that has specific
meaning.

Please know that I certainly mean no rudeness towards nominators. Just that
after all -- you is talkin to a Registry Momma here (gonna get me a tatto
that says HKLM).

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I'm jumping the gun a bit - program category discussion was due to start
next week - but IMO it will be helpful to get going now.

First I suggest two new sub categories under System Utilities:
Memory Ram-Disk
Memory Misc Util

The latter - "Memory Misc Util"" - for anything that does not fit in
any "clear cut" ram/memory related category.

I choose to call it "Memory Misc Util" and not "Misc Memory Util"
since if sorted by name it will group with the other "Memory
something" sub-categories. For the same reason I suggest "Memory Ram
Disk" and not simply "Ram disk". If this sounds awkward, one can use a
colon after "memory" in the sub-category name, like "Memory: Ram disk"
and "Memory: Misc Util".

On the 2004 nomination pages I find a few seemingly "clear cut" memory
related categories, like
1 RAM Tester
2 Process Monitor: RAM
4 RAM Manager

see: <http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004SYSTEMUTILITIES.htm>

I think these are OK, except for the names. I suggest use of "Memory"
instead of "Ram" where more appropriate and/or less excluding. In line
with this I suggest the following changes

RAM Tester -> Memory Tester
Process Monitor: RAM -> Memory Usage Monitor
RAM Manager -> Memory Manager

Thus for the MEMORY related sub categories I suggest we use:

Memory Tester
Memory Usage Monitor
Memory Manager
Memory Ram-Disk
Memory Misc Util

My suggestion are based on what is currently listed in memory related
categories on:
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004SYSTEMUTILITIES.htm>

As for the ram-disk category suggestion: There are AFAIK no Ram Disk
utilities listed in the 2003 list.
For the current nomination I have nominated two RAM DISK utilities my
self, see <(not yet
seconded). Currently they are both temporarily listed under the
category System Utilities/5 CD Tool on the 2004 nomination page, where
they clearly do not belong.
If possible I suggest they be moved to a the suggested "Memory Ram
Disk" category before nomination process end - so that readers
browsing the nomination pages before closing can see there are two
utilities listed in this category - neither of which have been
seconded yet. If not then at least that they be moved to the suggested
"Memory Misc Util" category for now.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[omega]

First I suggest two new sub categories under System Utilities:
Memory Ram-Disk
Memory Misc Util

The latter - "Memory Misc Util"" - for anything that does not fit in
any "clear cut" ram/memory related category.
[...]
On the 2004 nomination pages I find a few seemingly "clear cut" memory
related categories, like
1 RAM Tester
2 Process Monitor: RAM
4 RAM Manager
[...]
Thus for the MEMORY related sub categories I suggest we use:

Memory Tester
Memory Usage Monitor
Memory Manager
Memory Ram-Disk
Memory Misc Util

My suggestion are based on what is currently listed in memory related
categories on:
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004SYSTEMUTILITIES.htm>

Looking at PL2003.

o Memory Utilities

1. Cacheman change settings related to disk cache, etc
2. Memload determine loaded programs' memory usage

o Resource Meter

1. QuickResource monitor available system resources

That's all I see there.

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see anything in PL2003
related to hardware, which is where I'd fit Memory Tester. I'd tend
to want it over with the CPU coolers and Motherboard Monitors of the
PL2004 nominees.

Bjorn, I wonder if you might think of some way to consolidate a bit,
your proposed subcats? I'm not sure how exactly, off the bat. One thing,
to me, I tend to fork off those utilities that report active usage,
from those that configure ongoing settings. Although I really can't
say if that approach would be appropriate here.

I just feel in a general way, that it would be good to keep these MEM +
Resource + Caching + Ramdisk utilities down to 2 or max 3 subcats. I
wonder for a way to fit them down...

Just initial thoughts,

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

[...]

Thus for the MEMORY related sub categories I suggest we use:

Memory Tester
Memory Usage Monitor
Memory Manager
Memory Ram-Disk
Memory Misc Util

My suggestion are based on what is currently listed in memory related
categories on:
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004SYSTEMUTILITIES.htm>

Looking at PL2003.

o Memory Utilities

1. Cacheman change settings related to disk cache, etc

fits in: Memory Manager

2. Memload determine loaded programs' memory usage
o Resource Meter
1. QuickResource monitor available system resources

both fits in: Memory Usage

That's all I see there.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see anything in PL2003
related to hardware, which is where I'd fit Memory Tester.

Yes you are - overlooking, see
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/PL2003SYSTEMUTILITIES.htm#MemoryUtility>

Susan did not copy this category to the 2004 nomination pages, but
instead created the (ad hoc) sub categories I listed in my previous
post, like: 1 RAM Tester, 2 Process Monitor: RAM and 4 RAM Manager.
So I based my suggestion on this for starters...

I'd tend to want it over with the CPU coolers and Motherboard Monitors of the
PL2004 nominees.

I understand, but as long as these are all listed under the general
System Utilities category - on the same page - although in different
sub categories...like:
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/PL2003SYSTEMUTILITIES.htm#HardwareMonitor>
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/PL2003SYSTEMUTILITIES.htm#MemoryUtility>
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/PL2003SYSTEMUTILITIES.htm#Cooler>

....I see no great need for changes in the general approach - although
some of the sub categories could probably be re-arranged/changed...

Bjorn, I wonder if you might think of some way to consolidate a bit,
your proposed subcats? I'm not sure how exactly, off the bat. One thing,
to me, I tend to fork off those utilities that report active usage,
from those that configure ongoing settings. Although I really can't
say if that approach would be appropriate here.

how about from 5 to 4, possibly only 3 (if misc omitted).

Memory Tester
Memory Monitor (monitor usage,Resource Meter )
Memory Config (Managers, Ram-Disk, Cache utils)
Memory Misc (only if needed - for any that does not fit the above )

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

how about from 5 to 4, possibly only 3 (if misc omitted).

Memory Tester
Memory Monitor (monitor usage,Resource Meter )
Memory Config (Managers, Ram-Disk, Cache utils)
Memory Misc (only if needed - for any that does not fit the above )

or how about from 4 to 3, possibly only 2 (if misc omitted)

Memory Diag&Mon (tester/diagnostic, monitor/Resource Meter )
Memory Config (Managers, Ram-Disk, Cache utils)
Memory Misc (only if needed - for any that does not fit the above )

One major problem here is this: How will the categories come in to
play when counting the final votes?
See: <http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004proceduresPL.htm>
<quote>
In categories where several programs received enough votes to
qualify, only the top vote getters will be picked.
<qoute>

So then...??

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[omega]

Looking at PL2003. [...]
That's all I see there.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see anything in PL2003
related to hardware, which is where I'd fit Memory Tester.

Yes you are - overlooking, see
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/PL2003SYSTEMUTILITIES.htm#MemoryUtility>

[...]
Ah, you know what. I'd been looking at PL002 (offline), without realizing it.
Your recent categorizations, which I'm momentarily snipping, overall look
rather good to me. I might have some small comments to add back later. But
that wouldn't be before I've made sure this time to have studied the right
pages. 8-0

 

[omega]

or how about from 4 to 3, possibly only 2 (if misc omitted)

Memory Diag&Mon (tester/diagnostic, monitor/Resource Meter )
Memory Config (Managers, Ram-Disk, Cache utils)
Memory Misc (only if needed - for any that does not fit the above )

One major problem here is this: How will the categories come in to
play when counting the final votes?
See: <http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004proceduresPL.htm>
<quote>
In categories where several programs received enough votes to
qualify, only the top vote getters will be picked.
<qoute>

So then...??

This last is an important consideration. I was dwelling foremost on
logical groupings, as simplified and consolidated as possible.

So I'm glad you brought forth this issue, that the categorizations
affect the chances for programs to make it to PL.

Time to Contemplate.

(I'm not going to be hanging out with rtdos today on abstract ponderings
like "What is Truly Free" ...so I believe I'll have time spared for
thinking about system utilities. <g> )

 

[Susan Bugher]

This last is an important consideration. I was dwelling foremost on
logical groupings, as simplified and consolidated as possible.

IMO that should be the *primary* consideration.

So I'm glad you brought forth this issue, that the categorizations
affect the chances for programs to make it to PL.

I didn't tackle this part of the problem when I rearranged the
furniture. Perhaps the answer is to group subcategories alphabetically
and then look at the vote results in each group when we determine the
winners and losers.

For example - the category list in file utilities includes:

Archives: Unzip
Archives: Zip-Unzip

It seems to me it would make a lot more sense to call that Group N than
to rename the subcategories for voting purposes and then possibly have
to change the names back again after the voting.

Just my 2 cents worth.

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]

This last is an important consideration. I was dwelling foremost on
logical groupings, as simplified and consolidated as possible.

So I'm glad you brought forth this issue, that the categorizations
affect the chances for programs to make it to PL.

I guess one way around this is to consider the web page categories
first and foremost as logical/navigational helpers only - and settle
any disputes about "sameness" (1) after the vote - should they arise.

(1): Should program X be considered a member of the same category as
program Y, if so - then only Y made it to the PL. If not - then both
made it - but in different categories.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

So I'm glad you brought forth this issue, that the categorizations
affect the chances for programs to make it to PL.

Also in another way, as I argued in a previous post
<:
<quote>
Although maybe not very important, still: I do think it can matter if
a program is listed as *one of its kind* among the many nominated -
compared to if it is listed along side four or five others in the
"same" category. Anyone looking over the list of programs not (yet)
nominated *might* stop and read more carefully, think twice and maybe
even try a program, *if* it is listed/grouped as the only one (or two)
in a category, compared to if is listed as one of several other
(seconded) ones. Oh well
</quote>

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[omega]

[...]
I didn't tackle this part of the problem when I rearranged the
furniture. Perhaps the answer is to group subcategories alphabetically
and then look at the vote results in each group when we determine the
winners and losers.

For example - the category list in file utilities includes:

Archives: Unzip
Archives: Zip-Unzip

It seems to me it would make a lot more sense to call that Group N than
to rename the subcategories for voting purposes and then possibly have
to change the names back again after the voting.

I'm feeling slow to get this. So can you help me understand what you mean
by Group N?

On the File Utilities page, a display [truncated] shows like this:

2 Copy Directory Path
2 Copy Directory Structure
2 Folder Access
2 Folder Customizer
2 Folder Shortcuts

3 Archives: Unzip
3 Archives: Zip-Unzip
3 File Renamer
3 File Splitter
[...]

If you mean N is the number as shown above, then my inital reaction is to
be pleased -- to see less isolation of single programs spread out into an
overwhelming number of subcategories.

(Sidenote: This initial reaction is ignoring Bjorn's speculation that
the lesser-used types of programs could lose chances of being considered
if they're absorbed into larger groupings)

Yet I don't think my interpretation of how you meant N is correct? Did
you in fact mean, hmm, well as you said, alphabetical. Then where it's
the first word in the description. Such that below, from Web Design...

1 Editor: HTML
1 Editor: WYSIWYG
2 Calendar Maker
2 Convert: Text To HTML

Both types of Editors would be one group, together. Calendar Maker and
Convert Txt2html would be two separate groups. Is this how you mean?
Ok. I'm deciding that is how you mean. But you said, as well, renaming
things. Such that, in the example above, it woud be something like

2 Webauthoring tools: calendar maker
2 Webauthoring tools: Text 2 HTML


Is that how we're talking, or am I lost?


.. . .

By the way, don't interpret anything in this message as containing the
slightest opinion on how to proceed about categorizing, with regards to
the voting process. I am only trying to get better understanding about
what your suggestion meant.


.. . .

And actually at present I've become pretty absorbed with looking over
the SuperCat situation. As in what's in Organizers, vs what's in Text,
and so on.

Susan, looking at things side-by-side with PL2003, I am starting to see
what you meant, when you said earlier in this message, "when I rearranged
the furniture." You must be exhausted, and your muscles sore! Take 3
Aleves & a six-pack tout de suite.

Short mentions. I am glad to see that "Shell" supercat hauled into the
dumpster in one fell swoop; that group made no sense at all. On the other
hand, I really don't think the TV belongs against that wall.. Actually, I
mean it, there are some things that could arguably be moved from some of
the pages to the next. The new Programmer's group, for one example, it
has there "registry tweaking tools," which seems odd to be separated from
other registry utilities. And the "Security" page, everything listed in it
is Internet, so I wonder why the separate page. And ...

Should I look towards putting forth anything along these lines? Assist in
the complicate-things-some-more dept?

 

[omega]

I guess one way around this is to consider the web page categories
first and foremost as logical/navigational helpers only -

I like the idea of getting the pages categorized well, in the way seen
the most logical towards their end form. And getting started with that
in mind even though the early procedure message stated that categories
can be re-arranged post-vote.

I guess one way around this is to consider the web page categories
first and foremost as logical/navigational helpers only - and settle
any disputes about "sameness" (1) after the vote - should they arise.

(1): Should program X be considered a member of the same category as
program Y, if so - then only Y made it to the PL. If not - then both
made it - but in different categories.

If you read my message to Susan, you'll observe that I'm being a little
dense at this juncture. Should we stay focused on the end form of the
categories? To not categorize specially with consideration of what
affects votes? This post-vote situation you describe, disputes about
sameness, you are saying that when we get to final stages of cats and
subcats, then the votes can be tabulated accordingly, for what might
stay and what might go. This last, makes sense, I think I like it, and,
relief, think I understand it.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Bjorn Simonsen wrote

One major problem here is this: How will the categories come in to
play when counting the final votes?

<quote>
In categories where several programs received enough votes to
qualify, only the top vote getters will be picked.
<qoute>

[...]

I didn't tackle this part of the problem when I rearranged the
furniture. Perhaps the answer is to group subcategories alphabetically
and then look at the vote results in each group when we determine the
winners and losers.

For example - the category list in file utilities includes:

Archives: Unzip
Archives: Zip-Unzip

It seems to me it would make a lot more sense to call that Group N than
to rename the subcategories for voting purposes and then possibly have
to change the names back again after the voting.

I'm feeling slow to get this. So can you help me understand what you mean
by Group N?

On the File Utilities page, a display [truncated] shows like this:

2 Copy Directory Path
2 Copy Directory Structure
2 Folder Access
2 Folder Customizer
2 Folder Shortcuts

3 Archives: Unzip
3 Archives: Zip-Unzip
3 File Renamer
3 File Splitter
[...]

If you mean N is the number as shown above, then my inital reaction is to
be pleased -- to see less isolation of single programs spread out into an
overwhelming number of subcategories.

(Sidenote: This initial reaction is ignoring Bjorn's speculation that
the lesser-used types of programs could lose chances of being considered
if they're absorbed into larger groupings)

Yet I don't think my interpretation of how you meant N is correct? Did
you in fact mean, hmm, well as you said, alphabetical. Then where it's
the first word in the description. Such that below, from Web Design...

I meant:

3N Archives: Unzip
3N Archives: Zip-Unzip

That was just the first example I came to - I thought it showed pretty
clearly *why* I would like to make groups.

I used numbers for overall grouping - so used letters in that example as
the group for voting . . .

1 Editor: HTML
1 Editor: WYSIWYG
2 Calendar Maker
2 Convert: Text To HTML

Both types of Editors would be one group, together. Calendar Maker and
Convert Txt2html would be two separate groups. Is this how you mean?
Ok. I'm deciding that is how you mean. But you said, as well, renaming
things. Such that, in the example above, it woud be something like

2 Webauthoring tools: calendar maker
2 Webauthoring tools: Text 2 HTML


Is that how we're talking, or am I lost?

IMO you're doing fine. I tried that and the names got wayyyyyy to
long - that's why I switched to using numbers at the front.

I think the groups for voting would depend a lot on the subcategory -
how many programs are in it - do the things the programs do overlap with
other subcategories?

By the way, don't interpret anything in this message as containing the
slightest opinion on how to proceed about categorizing, with regards to
the voting process. I am only trying to get better understanding about
what your suggestion meant.

FWIW - we had a lot of programs and a lot of votes in the Internet
browser category last year - ended up splitting the programs into three
subcategories - I think groups might work fairly well . . .

Susan, looking at things side-by-side with PL2003, I am starting to see
what you meant, when you said earlier in this message, "when I rearranged
the furniture." You must be exhausted, and your muscles sore! Take 3
Aleves & a six-pack tout de suite.

Actually I have a miserable cold - haven't gotten much of anything done
today . . .

Short mentions. I am glad to see that "Shell" supercat hauled into the
dumpster in one fell swoop; that group made no sense at all. On the other
hand, I really don't think the TV belongs against that wall.. Actually, I
mean it, there are some things that could arguably be moved from some of
the pages to the next. The new Programmer's group, for one example, it
has there "registry tweaking tools," which seems odd to be separated from
other registry utilities. And the "Security" page, everything listed in it
is Internet, so I wonder why the separate page. And ...

Should I look towards putting forth anything along these lines? Assist in
the complicate-things-some-more dept?

Yes *please* - work with Bjorn (and anyone else who is interested). I
would be delighted to have some *experts* on the job - and *don't* worry
about hurting my feelings - the more constructive criticism the
happier I'll be. I'm sure there is *lots* of room for improvement.

I hope some of that makes sense - what was your cold prescription again
Doctor?

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

 

[omega]

I think the groups for voting would depend a lot on the subcategory -
how many programs are in it - do the things the programs do overlap with
other subcategories?

FWIW - we had a lot of programs and a lot of votes in the Internet
browser category last year - ended up splitting the programs into three
subcategories - I think groups might work fairly well . . .

The web browser category is a very good case for where we need to have
multiple candidates making it to the finals. Another good example is the
text eds. Looking at past winners lists, I see that this was handled.

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004proceduresPL.htm

In categories where several programs received enough votes
to qualify, only the top vote getters will be picked.

The plural there, the top vote getters, it must be that it can mean several
top vote getters within a single category, yes?

You'll see this is newbie mode questioning coming from me. Brings to a large
part of the cause I was being somewhat dense yesterday on the subject of
categorizing with regard to voting outcomes. I have read zillion messages
from ACF, including had even posted here early ad '99, when mspg saw this
group had come into legitimacy. Yet my primary mode really has been lurk
mode, downloading once a month. Former PL discussion, the only messages I
saved, were those that contained info and opinions about various programs.
The point:

I've never read the past PL discussions in a way that would give me what
would be most useful for me now: a good sense of the rhythms and process
during its discussion.

I almost thought of putting out a request for whether anyone had saved
some large bulk of discussions from a previous year, so that I could visit
past events in a way that could give me better instincts. Lieu of that,
I'll try to compensate as best I can, and would appreciate any and all
fundamental hints geared towards "PL Newbies".

(Or, hm, can I call it PL virgins? I would jump the chance to be dress as
a virgin. Far better than wearing that tacky newbie straw hat.)

.. . . .

Actually I have a miserable cold - haven't gotten much of anything done
today . . .

That is unfortunate to hear, as it does in seriousness sound might be a
symptom of overwork. I hope you can pull off some time to get in a little
extra sleep to get it gone.

Yes *please* - work with Bjorn (and anyone else who is interested). I
would be delighted to have some *experts* on the job - and *don't* worry
about hurting my feelings - the more constructive criticism the
happier I'll be. I'm sure there is *lots* of room for improvement.

Looking at different ways to categorize, you know that it would have nothing
to do with criticism. I think of how constantly I do rearrangements my own D
drive...it's about the dynamic nature of categorizing. So, on the 2004 pages,
I do have some opinions on moving some things, and will post them; then
hopefully Bjorn, and others who might participate, will post back, to where
we get closest to which placements feel the most natural to us overall.

I hope some of that makes sense - what was your cold prescription again
Doctor?

The sleep prescription is boring, I know. In my decadent past, it was always
hot brandy w lemon and honey that my caretakers prescribed. Or, do you have
a cough with this cold? For that situation, you are required to dose up
with a few jiggers of Jaagermeister.

Do not exceed the recommended dose, however, as doing so is known in some
circles to cause pregnancy -- or worse, singing in Karaoke bars.

 

[stan]

I'm jumping the gun a bit - program category discussion was due to start
next week - but IMO it will be helpful to get going now.

What don't you like?

hi, some Category suggestions..

Xteq X-Setup in PROGRAMMING: 2 System Tweaker
TWEAK UI in PROGRAMMING: 2 System Tweaker
TweakAll in PROGRAMMING: 2 System Tweaker

I think these are better suited in SYSTEM UTILITIES - System Tweaker

and

Aida32 in ORGANIZERS: 1 Cataloger: System
Belarc Advisor in ORGANIZERS: 1 Cataloger: System

I think these are better suited in SYSTEM UTILITIES - System information

regards
stan

 

[omega]

I meant:


That was just the first example I came to - I thought it showed pretty
clearly *why* I would like to make groups.

I used numbers for overall grouping - so used letters in that example as
the group for voting . . .


IMO you're doing fine. I tried that and the names got wayyyyyy to
long - that's why I switched to using numbers at the front.

I think the groups for voting would depend a lot on the subcategory -
how many programs are in it - do the things the programs do overlap with
other subcategories?.

FWIW - we had a lot of programs and a lot of votes in the Internet
browser category last year - ended up splitting the programs into three
subcategories - I think groups might work fairly well . . .

The little lightbulb just clicked on!! Finally, at last, I can now
visualize the plan you are describing.

If we were to proceed this way. Organizing the cats with focus on their
final form, while simultaneously appending Group symbols for the course
of the voting period. Where would the work come from, to do the grouping?

I mean, if this is the route chosen, would you be able yourself to start
sketching in first draft throughout all the cats? It seems that would be a
very large and complex task. (Yet, too, you've proven already to have very
formidable energies to meet such challenges.)