[PL] 2004 edition

[Genna Reeney]

Okay, not quite yet...

A couple of questions for the group though...

First, does anyone know of a good poll/survey script that could fit our
needs for the Pricelessware List? Namely, it has to allow for multiple
questions for each section. Ideally, it also would allow someone to make up
to 2 picks per category but no more. If there are no good scripts available,
is there anyone here who could code something, or even improve on an
open-source code? The whole thing could be hosted on the pricelessware site,
so that is not a concern. It is just plain silly to do this manually.

Second, this is the tentative timetable for the 2004 vote.

NOMINATIONS (2 weeks): November 3 - November 16, 2003
DISCUSSION (2 weeks): November 17 - November 30, 2003
VOTING (1 week): December 1 - December 7, 2003
POST-VOTE DISCUSSION (1 week): December 8 - December 14, 2003
FINAL LISTED POSTED: December 15, 2003

There have been concerns expressed in the past that the final discussion
runs too close to the year-end Holidays. If that is still a concern, we
could move the schedule up by 2 weeks.

Opinions welcome.

Susan has graciously agreed to continue with her efforts on the list. I am
immensely grateful to her.

 

[Cousin Stanley]

Genna ...

I have no experience with this program,
but saw it at FreewareWorld this morning ...

http://www.all4you.dk/FreewareWorld/links.php?go=3427

nabopoll is a complete voting/survey system written in PHP4 and MySQL. It allows for quick polls integrated in the middle of a web
page or for longert survey with multiple questions. It features an easy-to-use administration interface allowing you to quickly
design your surveys. All the data is stored in 4 tables that need to be created your database. Customization is made easy since
version 1.1. This version introduced a template mechanism allowing you to quicky and easily customize the look of your surveys. You
just have to edit HTML files and you are ready to go! (JL)

 

[Iain Cheyne]

Susan has graciously agreed to continue with her efforts on the list.
I am immensely grateful to her.

And thanks to you too for continuing to take an interest in this.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan has graciously agreed to continue with her efforts on the list. I am
immensely grateful to her.

Susan cannot imagine how Genna was able to do it all by herself . . .

for years and years (the mind boggles) . . .

Susan is a great believer in group effort . . .

such as the preparation of this year's Pricelessware pages . . .

Genna by herself is *not* a group - I *had* to agree or compromise my
principles . . .

plus I simply couldn't resist the thought of all that glory . . .

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Second, this is the tentative timetable for the 2004 vote.

NOMINATIONS (2 weeks): November 3 - November 16, 2003
DISCUSSION (2 weeks): November 17 - November 30, 2003
VOTING (1 week): December 1 - December 7, 2003
POST-VOTE DISCUSSION (1 week): December 8 - December 14, 2003
FINAL LISTED POSTED: December 15, 2003

Let's do some brainstorming about Pricelessware and the Pricelessware
site. Please post any and all suggestions - just let your imagination
run wild (er - on-topic wild).

There are some great ideas and suggestions buried in unrelated threads.
Please repost them here to make them easier to find.

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Better to start a new post about this, as older threads tend to get burried
and forgotten.

the lack of response tends to support that idea or . . .

it could be that no one's very interested . . .

Personally, I think Pricelessware is great the way it is.

agree (but there's *always* room for improvement)

Perhaps put spam, spyware etc. links on a separate page?

A voting script would be nice, but the downside is that no evidence trail
is left in the newsgroup. Should be fun going to a website to vote though!

*If* Genna finds the right program . . .

Wasn't the vote count done by volunteers last year (I wasn't around)? It
would help distribute the work load if we did it that way . . .

Susan

 

[Spacey Spade]

Susan Bugher wrote:
[snip]

*If* Genna finds the right program . . .

Wasn't the vote count done by volunteers last year (I wasn't around)? It
would help distribute the work load if we did it that way . . .

Susan

I helped count with one category, and I'd do it again. I think R.L. was
much more helpful, IIRC.

Spacey

 

[Susan Bugher]

I did the descriptions of Organizer and Desktop last time. I can
do the same this year

Thank you!

And, I posted this on the other thread, hoping that it could be
helpful:

http://www.wintips-inc.com/winpoll.htm

"WinPoll is a PHP script that enables you to add a poll to
your web site, where visitors can
vote on any question that you want to ask them. WinPoll
includes a password protected
administrative panel where you can create, customize, and view
your polls. WinPoll is
also very customizable, so you can make your polls blend in
with you web site's layout."

I saw that post, figured you were inspired to search after Spacey
suggested you might help count the votes.


Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

It appears to be limited to one question, multiple choice? Would you
be running several iterations then?

I'd like to propose a change in the voting process. In the past some
programs have been nominated in more than one category. I think a
program should only appear once on the ballot. If a program is nominated
in more than one category the most suitable category can be determined
during the discussion period.

That would eliminate the problem of duplicate votes and make it easier
to determine the winning programs . . .

Susan

 

[Tiger]

I'd like to propose a change in the voting process. In the past
some programs have been nominated in more than one category. I
think a program should only appear once on the ballot. If a
program is nominated in more than one category the most suitable
category can be determined during the discussion period.

That would eliminate the problem of duplicate votes and make it
easier to determine the winning programs . . .

Agreed.

 

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

Agreed.

I also agree.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:50:38 -0400, Susan Bugher

I'd like to propose a change in the voting process. In the past some
programs have been nominated in more than one category. I think a
program should only appear once on the ballot. If a program is nominated
in more than one category the most suitable category can be determined
during the discussion period.

That would eliminate the problem of duplicate votes and make it easier
to determine the winning programs . . .

I suggest :

Round 1 : Recommendation of programs WITHOUT categories.

Round 2 : Categorisation of all winning nominations.

All to be done here. As usual.

Doing it via the web will ensure that endless future threads will say
that voting wasn't transparent and that who ever supplied the web
voting made up the figures him/her self.

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.aspects.org.au/index.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[tlshell]

I also agree.

I didn't reply to this thread earlier, I think I have the dubious
honor of being forged?

(At least it was for something reasonable)

 

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

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

I didn't reply to this thread earlier, I think I have the dubious
honor of being forged?

There was no forgery. I made a mistake with the attribution, and I
apologize. There is a message of yours upthread from this, but it's
not the one I quoted.

Yours was <I was quoting Tiger's reply
<to Susan's reply to
you, and I snipped the wrong attribution.

Again, I'm sorry.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I suggest :

Round 1 : Recommendation of programs WITHOUT categories.

Round 2 : Categorisation of all winning nominations.

All to be done here. As usual.

Doing it via the web will ensure that endless future threads will say
that voting wasn't transparent and that who ever supplied the web
voting made up the figures him/her self.

I think we should have the category structure in place *before*
nominations begin. IMO the easiest way to do this is by reviewing and
revising the PL 2003 categories before opening nominations - with
further revisions as needed during the nomination process.

I believe the consensus last year was in favor of automatic renomination
of Pricelessware programs - with a second required to get them on the
ballot.

If we proceed in this way only new candidates will need to be added to
the nominations lists after nominations open and the process should go
more smoothly.

It might be helpful if we start posting information now about new
programs we intend to nominate. That would give everyone more time to
try the programs. If this seems like a *good idea* I suggest adding PL
Candidate to the Subject line to make it easy to Google for that type of
post.

I agree that posts to the list are the best way to vote. Are there
volunteers who are willing to count the votes. I think Genna has more
than earned a life-time exemption from that job - and I'm not offering
to take it on.

Susan

 

[tlshell]

There was no forgery. I made a mistake with the attribution, and I
apologize. There is a message of yours upthread from this, but it's
not the one I quoted.

Oh! No problem, I was mainly worried about the vote. The rest was a
novelty. (-:

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]> schreef in

Sorry to hop in here

Come on in, the water's fine

I agree to that idea, Susan. IMHO the 'system' category needs some
revision... But maybe there are more....

I think there are more . . .

Well, sorry to say this, but I don't like an 'automatic' renomination.
Each program has to 'earn' its place on the PL-list, and already being on
the PL-list isn't a garantuee for a new nomination. The PL-list is about
'the best of the best' freeware programs, and when a already mentioned
program appears to have some bugs, a bad update or when a better program
is available, that program should have to be removed from the PL-list.

PL2003 programs will fall off the PL2004 nominations list if they don't
have a second. IMO the poorer programs will not be seconded and/or
re-elected. Perhaps it would be better to require two seconds - that
would be equivalent to a nomination and a second. IMO 'Automatic'
renomination would make the nomination process better but it looks like
more discussion of this is needed.

I really don't know what the difference is between your proposal about
'candidates' and the previous procedure about nominating programs. I'm
afraid that mentioning now the candidates doesn't add anything to the
nomination which will take place in November.

That wasn't a very good explanation of what I had in mind.

We only nominate Pricelessware programs once a year. I'm not suggesting
we change that.

OTOH it would be nice to have a way to find posts about the best new
programs - the ones people intend to nominate for Pricelessware. I
suggest we *flag* posts with information about such programs to make
them easy to search for. Then when someone wants to find this type of
post they could Google for "PL Candidate".

We haven't done that in the past. If people post program information
with the *flags* now others will have a chance to evaluate new program
*before* the nomination period starts.

I *hope* that makes the idea clearer.

I agree to this. Last year a couple of folks in here counted the votes in
the categories. Maybe those folks would like to do that again.

Spacey volunteered to help earlier in this thread. Maybe he can tell us
how many people are needed.

Susan

 

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

PL2003 programs will fall off the PL2004 nominations list if they
don't have a second. IMO the poorer programs will not be seconded
and/or re-elected. Perhaps it would be better to require two
seconds - that would be equivalent to a nomination and a second.
IMO 'Automatic' renomination would make the nomination process
better but it looks like more discussion of this is needed.

Imo, it should be left the way it is, with programs on the current
PL automatically nominated but requiring a fresh second. One reason
is that automatically placing them on the ballot may lead to
complacency among regulars whose favorites are already on the list
during the nomination phase; imo the more attention we each pay
during each phase of the process, the better.

I see valid arguments both for automatically putting current PL apps
on the ballot and for starting completely from scratch. I think the
current system of automatic nomination requiring a second is a good
compromise between those two options. (And I think that's how we
came by the current system, though my memory is hazy here.)

 

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

An entry with program name and the post's "From:" line could be
output to a file for each vote, this could then be sorted by
"from:" so accidental duplicate votes could be dropped and a count
of votes and list of who voted for what could be all generated
pretty much automatically I think.

If such a file is created, it might as well also include the Message-
IDs. That way if needed, it would be easy to go back and verify the
post itself.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Imo, it should be left the way it is, with programs on the current
PL automatically nominated but requiring a fresh second. One reason
is that automatically placing them on the ballot may lead to
complacency among regulars whose favorites are already on the list
during the nomination phase; imo the more attention we each pay
during each phase of the process, the better.

I see valid arguments both for automatically putting current PL apps
on the ballot and for starting completely from scratch. I think the
current system of automatic nomination requiring a second is a good
compromise between those two options. (And I think that's how we
came by the current system, though my memory is hazy here.)

'Automatic' nominations of last year's programs is not the current
system . . .

AFAIK we did this for the first time last year - in the middle of the
nominating process - due to a somewhat chaotic situation . . .

The PW2002 programs were added to the nominations list (if they weren't
already there) and then dropped from the ballot if they did not have a
second.

I did find a fairly short thread about some of this . . .

Subject: Re: [PL] 2003 list - quick check list

Susan