[PL] 2004 Discussion - Program categories

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]>:

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?

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.

Usually the top one or two programs are picked - Genna Reeney did the
web pages for years and this part of the process went very smoothly.

Last year I did the PL pages for the first time. Talk about jumping in
at the deep end. Choosing the final selections took a *lot* longer.

Categories are needed - if we just pick the very top vote getters we'll
end up with a dozen web browsers and lose many valuable programs - but
they do complicate the process of determining the winners.

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".

Google for [PL] threads.

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.

Super - have at it.

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]

Google for [PL] threads.

Google groups only works well for specific informations. To get the daily
rhythms of something that goes on in a newsgroup, it's needed to have
the ~thousand messages stored locally, to keystroke through them. I might
go ahead and see what I do have in my archives, related to PL, since I
tend to keep a lot, even tho' my save criteria was different at the time.

 

[Susan Bugher]

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.)

I would like to see the programs listed now in there proper *final*
subcategory.

If we proceed in that direction I think we should have a consensus that
subcategories *may* be grouped when the winners are determined - so that
the process of determining the proper subcategory is separate from
voting considerations.

IOW just getting two votes in a subcategory is *not* necessarily enough
to make a program a winner. Going back to my initial example: zip and
zip-unzip subcategory results could be considered as a group and the zip
subcategory *might* be eliminated.

In principal it's a change - in practice I don't think it would be much
different from the way we've done things in the past.

If the principal is agreed to then I think it might make sense to
determine the groups *after* the election - during the vote discussion
period. (KISS)

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 would like to see the programs listed now in there proper *final*
subcategory.

If we proceed in that direction I think we should have a consensus that
subcategories *may* be grouped when the winners are determined - so that
the process of determining the proper subcategory is separate from
voting considerations.

IOW just getting two votes in a subcategory is *not* necessarily enough
to make a program a winner. Going back to my initial example: zip and
zip-unzip subcategory results could be considered as a group and the zip
subcategory *might* be eliminated.

In principal it's a change - in practice I don't think it would be much
different from the way we've done things in the past.

If the principal is agreed to then I think it might make sense to
determine the groups *after* the election - during the vote discussion
period. (KISS)

I cast my ballot happily to what you've outlined above, with the vote of>
YES

 

[jason]

Usually the top one or two programs are picked - Genna Reeney did the
web pages for years and this part of the process went very smoothly.

And to omega--as I recall...the most contentious issue was: what does
"top vote-getters" mean? It was hard deciding on a cut-off point. What
if 5 programs all received 5's and that was the second-high vote count?
One way of getting around that problem was to add new categories...That
way you could keep more programs in, putting them under the new category.
But deciding those new categories was a very subjective thing. For
example, under programming editors, some people wanted VIM in, despite
it's low vote count. They felt it was *far* more capable than any of the
other picks...despite it's low vote count and it's user unfriendliness.
But do you create a new category for "nerdy" programming editors?? You
can see the problem...

And there was a big issue on whether or not to include Treepad in the
Organizer section. Could it be considered a "lite" organizer while the
unanimous top vote-getter Keynote was just a regular organizer?...and so
on...So it's good that kind of discussion is taking place before the
vote...when there's plenty of time to address these issues.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I cast my ballot happily to what you've outlined above, with the vote of>
YES

Sorry for my late respons Susan and Karen. I agree in principle with
the suggested outline (I think). I do see some "issues", including
perhaps need for further clarification and explication of
routines/rules, but life have intervened so I have not found the time
to dig further into the matter. Besides - if no objections from others
- no need to "rock the boat"... at least not now - when so many things
currently going on (PL process/admin workload). Not sure I understand
the use of number system/groups - but will watch and learn.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Susan Bugher]

Sorry for my late respons Susan and Karen. I agree in principle with
the suggested outline (I think). I do see some "issues", including
perhaps need for further clarification and explication of
routines/rules, but life have intervened so I have not found the time
to dig further into the matter. Besides - if no objections from others
- no need to "rock the boat"... at least not now - when so many things
currently going on (PL process/admin workload). Not sure I understand
the use of number system/groups - but will watch and learn.

The task should be somewhat simpler now that nominations are over and
the field has been winnowed. I uploaded a revised Category index page
that shows the current subcategories (subcategories for the programs
that were nominated *and* seconded). See:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004CategoryIndex.htm

The numbered groups are just a way to sort program subcategories by
something *other* than alphabetical order. Take a look at the Graphics
subcategories - I wanted the graphics tools to be in a group. Rather
that name the subcategories:

Graphics tool: color picker
Graphics tool: Plug-In Filter
etc. etc.

I used a numbering system:

5 Color Picker
5 Plug-In Filter
etc. etc.

The second part of the *groups* discussion is about finding the *best*
subcategory name for *each* program - without concerning ourselves *at
that point* with how that might effect the final selection of programs.

It's advance notice to the group that if subcategories overlap (zip vs.
zip & unzip) they may be considered as a group during the final
selection process.

IOW being the only program in the unzip subcategory and receiving 2
votes would *not* mean an *automatic* selection for PL2004.

I am counting on help to finalize the subcategories - especially the
Programming and System Utilites subcategories . . .

help . . . please

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]

The numbered groups are just a way to sort program subcategories by
something *other* than alphabetical order. Take a look at the Graphics
subcategories - I wanted the graphics tools to be in a group. Rather
that name the subcategories:

Graphics tool: color picker
Graphics tool: Plug-In Filter
etc. etc.

I used a numbering system:

5 Color Picker
5 Plug-In Filter
etc. etc.

Thank you for explaining. I think this is how I understood it in the
first place. What had me confused.. well...: to immediately understand
and make sense of the numbers when browsing the PL pages - one has to
know what they represent. To do that perhaps one also have to
"intuitively agree" with the reasoning behind (that it makes more
sense (prima face) to list program X in category Y - than to list same
program in a different category). Else the numbers might confuse the
reader, even if one understands that "numbers" stands for a general
category as such, that sub-categories prefaced with the same number
belongs to the same general category.

When this is said, I much prefer

Graphics tool: color picker over
5 Color Picker

The latter says very little, unless I am very familiar with the PL web
site. The former I immediately understand on the other hand. It also
makes it easier to navigate a page/pages - since the long name (like
general category: sub category) will always tell me where (in which
category) I am (when scrolling a page) compared to a number which
prima face only tells me I am scrolling within the same category -
what ever that is.

Use of numbers might simplify your editing of pages, and/or the
handling of nominations and votes, and make descriptive headings
shorter, but for navigational purposes (and for discussions) I suggest
using the "long" versions - and only use numbers for internal
purposes if needed.

The second part of the *groups* discussion is about finding the *best*
subcategory name for *each* program - without concerning ourselves *at
that point* with how that might effect the final selection of programs.

It's advance notice to the group that if subcategories overlap (zip vs.
zip & unzip) they may be considered as a group during the final
selection process.

IOW being the only program in the unzip subcategory and receiving 2
votes would *not* mean an *automatic* selection for PL2004.

I disagree with your zip unzip example, but only because there may be
substantial differences to consider here. Example: Say a user never
needs to ZIP a program, but she needs to UNZIP all the time. Now if a
UNZIP utility is simpler/less complex/more intuitive to use than most
ZIP utilities, she might prefer the simpler to use alternative over
the possibly more complex and feature rich ZIP alternatives. And
consequently, she would probably like to find the "best" unzip
program listed on the PL pages, compared to "just" the (assumed to be
more complex and feature rich) all purpose zip&unzip programs. The
above is an argument to keep the UNZIP category - also when counting
the votes.

I think this can also serve to illustrate another point:
While <http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004proceduresPL.htm> states
that

"The programs picked are not meant to be an exhaustive list of the
best available Freeware, but rather an answer to the often asked
"which _____ is best?"

I take it this does not mean that the PL should not make use of as
many sub-categories as *needed*. It only means that the PL does not
aspire to list every possible freeware in every possible category.
In other words, it should *not* be seen as a goal for the PL to keep
the number of sub-categories to a minimum *as such*.

On the other hand, trying to avoid overlapping categories should of
course always be a goal. Clarity and order over confusion and chaos
and so on. Not in any way a simple task, still something one should
aim for, as an overriding aspiration one knows can never be completely
satisfied in the real world.

What constitutes separate categories - when new sub-categories - or
removal/inclusion of existing ones are called for, sometimes warrants
carefully consideration and discussion. Other times it may be pretty
straight forward, provoking nothing more than silent nods of approval,
if any reactions at all.

I am counting on help to finalize the subcategories - especially the
Programming and System Utilites subcategories . . .

I will try to find some time and look at the current categories and
maybe suggests some changes, hopefully before the discussion phase
ends....

I wrote this in a bit of a hurry ...hope it makes sense and that my
English is at least understandable

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote in <[email protected]>:

When this is said, I much prefer

Numbers will *not* be shown on the final web pages - just used
internally to order the subcategories.

The latter says very little, unless I am very familiar with the PL web
site. The former I immediately understand on the other hand. It also
makes it easier to navigate a page/pages - since the long name (like
general category: sub category) will always tell me where (in which
category) I am (when scrolling a page) compared to a number which
prima face only tells me I am scrolling within the same category -
what ever that is.

IMO it is the Category index page we should be most concerned about when
discussing subcategory names and subcategory organization. If that page
is satisfactory I think the web pages will work well too. Short names
are advantageous on the Category page. The current 3 column page is
reasonably short - some subcategory names wrap but IMO it's still fairly
easy to read.

I disagree with your zip unzip example, but only because there may be
substantial differences to consider here. Example: Say a user never
needs to ZIP a program, but she needs to UNZIP all the time. Now if a
UNZIP utility is simpler/less complex/more intuitive to use than most
ZIP utilities, she might prefer the simpler to use alternative over
the possibly more complex and feature rich ZIP alternatives. And
consequently, she would probably like to find the "best" unzip
program listed on the PL pages, compared to "just" the (assumed to be
more complex and feature rich) all purpose zip&unzip programs. The
above is an argument to keep the UNZIP category - also when counting
the votes.

What if there is a ZIP program that does a *better* job of satisfying
all the criteria you outined above *and* it got more votes? Shouldn't
that program be preferred over the UNZIP program?

I think this can also serve to illustrate another point:
While <http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004proceduresPL.htm> states
that

"The programs picked are not meant to be an exhaustive list of the
best available Freeware, but rather an answer to the often asked
"which _____ is best?"

I take it this does not mean that the PL should not make use of as
many sub-categories as *needed*. It only means that the PL does not
aspire to list every possible freeware in every possible category.
In other words, it should *not* be seen as a goal for the PL to keep
the number of sub-categories to a minimum *as such*.

True - Subcategories are simply a means to present the programs - the
programs are what count - subcategories are used as needed. A bit
further down on the procedures page:

<quote>
Sub-categories are provided for ease of reference, but it is NOT the
goal of the Pricelessware vote to come up with a program to fit every
category.
</quote>

IOW - PL programs should be *great* programs. (Better to have an
unfilled category than select a not very good program as Pricelessware.)

I will try to find some time and look at the current categories and
maybe suggests some changes, hopefully before the discussion phase
ends....

That would be very helpful.

I wrote this in a bit of a hurry ...hope it makes sense and that my
English is at least understandable

It made lots of sense and your English is great.

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

 

[jason]

Just some random observations...

1. Eraser is a Security tool. While it may wipe files, it's purpose is
SECURITY and that's where most people would look for it.

2. If Search & Replace utilities are not placed under TEXT, they surely
need to be cross-referenced there.

3. GrabIt and PowerGrab are listed separately from BNR. Aren't they all
binary news readers? PowerGrab is...and that's the popular term for it
(not binary downloader)

4. RUNit & Traybar perform the same function. They're both program/file
launchers...though I suppose "shortcuts" can be used in lieu of
"launchers". But they should both be in the same category IMO.

5. MPEG Audio Collection is used for organizing, tagging, renaming and
playing MP3s. If not placed under MULTIMEDIA, it surely needs to be
cross-referenced there.

6. World Time, Sun Clock, etc... aren't they Desktop Tools? I use two
similar programs and I wouldn't think to look for them under ORGANIZERS!
In fact, I'd consider most time & clock tools as either DESKTOP or SYSTEM
UTILITIES. JMO.

 

[Susan Bugher]

jason wrote:

Hi Jason,

Just some random observations...

1. Eraser is a Security tool. While it may wipe files, it's purpose is
SECURITY and that's where most people would look for it.

Ah, but look at Restoration which has both delete and undelete functions
- and Restoration is next door to Drive Rescue and PC Inspector File
Recovery which undelete and they are next door to the file validators
and undeleters . . .

# 3 File Wiper
# 3 File Wiper-Undelete
# 3 Files: Undelete
# 3 Files: Validate
# 3 Files: Validate; Undelete


IMO if Eraser is in Security - Restoration's delete capability will be
missed or Eraser will be missed if Restoration is found first . . .

2. If Search & Replace utilities are not placed under TEXT, they surely
need to be cross-referenced there.

Similar reasoning - file managers have search capabilities - so I put
the whole group in File Utilities

# 1 File Manager
# 1 File Manager Tools
# 1 Search
# 1 Search And Replace
# 1 Search Archived Files

in PL2003 those subcategories are split between file util and text - I
think the functions overlap in spots . . .

3. GrabIt and PowerGrab are listed separately from BNR. Aren't they all
binary news readers? PowerGrab is...and that's the popular term for it
(not binary downloader)

you tell me - *please*, all I know is what I read . . .
and I may not have read too carefully . . .

4. RUNit & Traybar perform the same function. They're both program/file
launchers...though I suppose "shortcuts" can be used in lieu of
"launchers". But they should both be in the same category IMO.

I believe some people have strong feelings on where these apps *reside*
on the desktop - anyone care to comment further?

5. MPEG Audio Collection is used for organizing, tagging, renaming and
playing MP3s. If not placed under MULTIMEDIA, it surely needs to be
cross-referenced there.

It *is* a cataloger: <q> scans selected drives for *.mpa, *.mp2 and

6. World Time, Sun Clock, etc... aren't they Desktop Tools? I use two
similar programs and I wouldn't think to look for them under ORGANIZERS!
In fact, I'd consider most time & clock tools as either DESKTOP or SYSTEM
UTILITIES. JMO.

Some clocks have timers etc. etc. - I put all time related apps in
organizers:

# 2 Notes And Reminders
# 2 Reminders
# 2 Reminders; Scheduler
# 3 Calendar
# 3 Clock
# 3 Clock Customizer
# 3 Clock Customizer; Reminders
# 3 Time Synchronizer

Time Synchronizers could logically go in the Internet category - but
then where does the clock that has a time sync function belong? Better
to have all such in one spot IMO . . .

re: Cross referencing - I'm not sure what you have in mind but if you
have a brillant idea of two - please don't be shy.

*IMO* the *overall* organizational framework will work pretty well (once
everyone adjusts to the changes)

I'm also sure that there is still a lot of room for improvement.

Your turn.

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

 

[jason]

Ah, but look at Restoration which has both delete and undelete
functions - and Restoration is next door to Drive Rescue and PC
Inspector File Recovery which undelete and they are next door to the
file validators and undeleters . . .

IMO if Eraser is in Security - Restoration's delete capability will be
missed or Eraser will be missed if Restoration is found first . . .

People are used to certain conventions. When they want to erase their
files, they look under SECURITY. Every software site I can recall is set up
that way. It confuses people if you go against the trend. So I sure hope
you cross-reference it in SECURITY! Or better yet, move it to SECURITY and
cross-reference it wherever else you want.

Also IIRC, Restoration is more a file RECOVERY tool, which might make it
better suited for SYSTEM UTILITIES. If it has a file wiping capability,
it's certainly not one of the biggies...those being Eraser, BCWipe, etc.
I've read a lot of security stuff in the past, and Restoration was never
mentioned in connection with file wiping.

You basically use Eraser if you want to delete files, and Restoration to
recover them.

And DESKTOP is absolutely the *last* place I'd look for *any* of those
programs!

Similar reasoning - file managers have search capabilities - so I put
the whole group in File Utilities

But I don't think people operate based on abstract reasoning like that. I
think they say to themselves, "I want a text search utility", and so they
look under TEXT. So again, I hope you cross-reference...

you tell me - *please*, all I know is what I read . . .
and I may not have read too carefully . . .

Make them all binary news readers.

4. RUNit & Traybar perform the same function. They're both

I believe some people have strong feelings on where these apps
*reside* on the desktop - anyone care to comment further?

Just to add my own thoughts on that...both are unobtrusive. RUNit...at
least the way I have it set up...is invisible. When I want to see it, I
just right click on the side of my screen and it magically appears.
Traybar sits in the System Tray...which is also unobtrusive...though
slightly less so. Beyond that, there is little difference between the two
programs (that I can remember).

It *is* a cataloger: <q> scans selected drives for *.mpa, *.mp2 and
*.mp3 files, and lists them in an Explorer-style tree </q> and grouped
with other catalogers.

Then cross-reference it! People THINK of it as an MP3 Tool. For example,
Web Attack lists programs like that under MULTIMEDIA (MP3/Music
Management).

Some clocks have timers etc. etc. - I put all time related apps in
organizers:

# 2 Notes And Reminders
# 2 Reminders
# 2 Reminders; Scheduler
# 3 Calendar
# 3 Clock
# 3 Clock Customizer
# 3 Clock Customizer; Reminders
# 3 Time Synchronizer

Maybe it's just a question of definition. How do you define ORGANIZERS? I
thought it was mostly for Treepad type things.

Time Synchronizers could logically go in the Internet category - but
then where does the clock that has a time sync function belong? Better
to have all such in one spot IMO . . .

I think placement should be gauged according to how people LOOK FOR a
particular utililty. You appear to want more *abstract* reasoning. The
middle ground would be to do a lot of cross-referencing.

re: Cross referencing - I'm not sure what you have in mind but if you
have a brillant idea of two - please don't be shy.

*IMO* the *overall* organizational framework will work pretty well
(once everyone adjusts to the changes)

I'd have to respectfully disagree. It seems you're getting more and more
away from the organization that other software sites use. I mean, we're
all like Pavlov's dogs. If many or most sites are organized one way, it's
confusing if PW is organized differently. Why not use some of the popular
sites like Web Attack as a guide?

JMO.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:




People are used to certain conventions. When they want to erase their
files, they look under SECURITY. Every software site I can recall is set up
that way. It confuses people if you go against the trend. So I sure hope
you cross-reference it in SECURITY! Or better yet, move it to SECURITY and
cross-reference it wherever else you want.

Also IIRC, Restoration is more a file RECOVERY tool, which might make it
better suited for SYSTEM UTILITIES. If it has a file wiping capability,
it's certainly not one of the biggies...those being Eraser, BCWipe, etc.
I've read a lot of security stuff in the past, and Restoration was never
mentioned in connection with file wiping.

You basically use Eraser if you want to delete files, and Restoration to
recover them.

And DESKTOP is absolutely the *last* place I'd look for *any* of those
programs!

?????????????

These are all listed as FILE UTILITIES.

See the Category Index page ???

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

 

[jason]

?????????????

These are all listed as FILE UTILITIES.

See the Category Index page ???

Susan

Ooops...scratch that comment.

 

[Spacey Spade]

I mean, we're all like Pavlov's dogs.

Bark, Bark!!! Either way, I feel good about having the site.

....oh help me... I'm going to be counting votes
(never mind: bad feeling)

 

[Susan Bugher]

Bark, Bark!!! Either way, I feel good about having the site.

...oh help me... I'm going to be counting votes
(never mind: bad feeling)

You didn't think I'd forget, did you?

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]

Susan Bugher wrote:




Make them all binary news readers.

Thank you.

Maybe it's just a question of definition. How do you define ORGANIZERS? I
thought it was mostly for Treepad type things.

Catalogers (program collects the data), organizers (you enter the data),
PIMs, diaries, treepad type apps, notes & reminders (AtNotes),
reminders, calendars (often with date reminders), clocks, alarms . . .

I think placement should be gauged according to how people LOOK FOR a
particular utililty. You appear to want more *abstract* reasoning. The
middle ground would be to do a lot of cross-referencing.

Not that abstract. I watch posts, see what people look for and ask for,
see what PL stuff they get pointed to - what apps they don't miss - a
lot of the reorganization comes from that . . .

I'd have to respectfully disagree. It seems you're getting more and more
away from the organization that other software sites use. I mean, we're
all like Pavlov's dogs.

I don't see quite as much uniformity in other sites as you do - I agree
that changes are a PITA . . .

If many or most sites are organized one way, it's
confusing if PW is organized differently. Why not use some of the popular
sites like Web Attack as a guide?

Been there, done that (Tucows and others). Web Attack actually is not
too different re: the internet apps - which is their specialty (they
have a lot more subcategories there) - but it has a much narrower focus
than the PL (no text apps, organizers, calculators etc. etc.) and that
effects their other groups.

back at ya . . .

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

 

[jason]

Not that abstract. I watch posts, see what people look for and ask
for, see what PL stuff they get pointed to - what apps they don't miss
- a lot of the reorganization comes from that . . .

Aw, come on! You were...or are...an engineer, and you LOVE organizing
things by scientific principles! Actually I can see from your standpoint
where some of the groupings might make sense...but I just don't think
people THINK that way (necessarily) when searching for a program. It's no
big deal...people will either deal with it or not, but I thought I'd take a
stand since it's the only PW issue I feel strongly about. And of the
issues I mentioned, Eraser as a SECURITY app is the strongest! I just
can't see it going under FILE UTILITIES unless it's also cross-referenced
in SECURITY.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:




Aw, come on! You were...or are...an engineer, and you LOVE organizing
things by scientific principles! Actually I can see from your standpoint
where some of the groupings might make sense...but I just don't think
people THINK that way (necessarily) when searching for a program. It's no
big deal...people will either deal with it or not, but I thought I'd take a
stand since it's the only PW issue I feel strongly about. And of the
issues I mentioned, Eraser as a SECURITY app is the strongest! I just
can't see it going under FILE UTILITIES unless it's also cross-referenced
in SECURITY.

I think that can be arranged.

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]

Susan Bugher wrote in <[email protected]>:

Thanks for clarifying Susan.

What if there is a ZIP program that does a *better* job of satisfying
all the criteria you outined above *and* it got more votes? Shouldn't
that program be preferred over the UNZIP program?

Yes, but only if the list of criteria is reasonably exhaustive and the
zip program scores better on all compared to the unzip alternative.
Ease of use is only one criteria. Others could be: Does the unzip
program cover more formats than the all purpose zip program it is
being compared to? Likewise - does it cover some formats not found in
the all purpose alternative? And is the unzip program smaller in
download and/or install size than the zip program it is being compared
to?

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen