[PL] 2004 VOTE DISCUSSION: INTERNET

[Max Quordlepleen]

I have read and reread your flurry of posts. You advocate ignoring the
vote counts when they are high and ignoring them when they are low.

AFAICT you are really advocating a juried system in which votes play
no part. Why not simply say so?

You are doing him a disservice. He only advocates playing fast and
loose with the voting system, or dispensing with it altogether, when
app.s he favours are culled. As long as people vote the way he wants
them to, he's more than happy to leave the system intact. He's nothing
if not magnanimous.

 

[DAN]

Max Quordlepleen wrote:

Were you even remotely interested in objectivity,

What an interesting individual!

the fact that OE comes with every M$ installation, and is free.

And so smart! Nobody knew that.

if you still feel the need to crow about OE's victory, by all
means go ahead.

"Crow"? You have an own way of understanding reality.
No wonder your world is this miserable and your personality this interesting.
Bye.
DAN

 

[DAN]

Well John, this is after all a *vote* discussion - and votes *are* numbers.

I have read and reread your flurry of posts. You advocate ignoring the
vote counts when they are high and ignoring them when they are low.

Susan,

John used a style that I can't find justified in any way, but he did make 2
points:
1) in terms of numbers of vote AGO fared better than some other apps that
get to stay.
Which makes the "out" decision hard to understand.

2) in "specialized interest" categories, numbers are not comparable with
mainstream categories.
Which does not necessarily have a bearing on anything immediatley relevant,
LOL.

Now, I've made my point, and you've understood it. It looks like it failed to
convince you. Too bad. Go with whatever you decide.


Separately, Genna's suggestion to move it to an addendum to the text for
FreeAgent makes sense to me. Anyway AGO is of interest only to this context.

DAN

 

[Susan Bugher]

John used a style that I can't find justified in any way, but he did make 2
points:
1) in terms of numbers of vote AGO fared better than some other apps that
get to stay.
Which makes the "out" decision hard to understand.

The decision might be more understandable if you look at the *many* 7-11
vote programs that were not selected rather than focusing on the *few*
6 vote programs that were.

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004AlphabeticalList.php

If vote count was the sole criteria for selection in the 6 to 11 vote
range AGO Agent Group Order's 7 votes would put it well out of the
running.

It's called straining at gnats and swallowing camels. . .

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 Fitzsimons]

John Fitzsimons wrote:

Well John, this is after all a *vote* discussion - and votes *are* numbers.

I have read and reread your flurry of posts. You advocate ignoring the
vote counts when they are high

Please quote where I have said that.

and ignoring them when they are low.

Please quote where I suggest low votes should be ignored.

AFAICT you are really advocating a juried system in which votes play no
part. Why not simply say so?

Please quote where I have advocated a juried system.

This is the third time in a row where you have misrepresented what
I have said. Is that on purpose ?

My point is very simple. "General" items go by highest vote. Items
that are "niche" ones should have a lower voting threshold
due to fewer people voting for them.

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/

 

[John Fitzsimons]

<news:[email protected]>:

I have to admit I'm surprised and confused by your stance. If large
vote totals indicate mediocrity, perhaps we should remove the top
vote-getters from the PL?

You have missed my point. I am not suggesting getting rid of high
voted items. I am pointing out that there are many "priceless"
programs/utilities that will get low votes due to being "niche"
programs. Going by "high vote only" these programs would
quickly be removed from the list.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

DAN wrote:

The decision might be more understandable if you look at the *many* 7-11
vote programs that were not selected rather than focusing on the *few*
6 vote programs that were.

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004AlphabeticalList.php

It isn't more understandable at all. That link doesn't explain why AGO
went and others stayed.

Perhaps rather than pointing to a web page you could just explain why
those with the same/or less votes to AGO stayed and AGO went ?

< snip >

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Susan Bugher wrote:

John used a style that I can't find justified in any way, but he did make 2
points:

1) in terms of numbers of vote AGO fared better than some other apps that
get to stay.
Which makes the "out" decision hard to understand.

Exactly. Why did AGO go while others with the same, or less, votes
stayed ?

2) in "specialized interest" categories, numbers are not comparable with
mainstream categories.
Which does not necessarily have a bearing on anything immediatley relevant,
LOL.

It has a bearing if one wants the "best of the best" in a "specialized
interest" category.

< snip >

Seems like you had no difficulty reading/understanding my post. Makes
one wonder what the agenda is of those who suggested that I said
something totally different is.

Regards, John.

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 15 Dec 2003, John Fitzsimons wrote

-snip-

You have missed my point. I am not suggesting getting rid of high
voted items. I am pointing out that there are many "priceless"
programs/utilities that will get low votes due to being "niche"
programs. Going by "high vote only" these programs would
quickly be removed from the list.

I felt this way about FTP servers. Both programs in the category only
got 5 votes, and thus got dropped; clearly, there aren't many FTP
server users in the group. The category thus will not appear at all in
the pricelessware list.

The discussion stage has clarified the rationale behind this -- the
list is compiled as a (more or less) straightforward popularity/beauty
contest rather than an exhaustive or even comprehensive advisory list -
- but that is, to me, unfortunate. I value the opinions of the readers
of this group, and they're *particularly* valuable when one is looking
for minority-interest programs.

(The list, in my view, also seems to present itself to its users as
comprehensive rather than restrictive, but that's another issue; in
any event, a possible solution seems to be emerging in the "general
discussion" thread.)

 

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

You have missed my point. I am not suggesting getting rid of high
voted items. I am pointing out that there are many "priceless"
programs/utilities that will get low votes due to being "niche"
programs. Going by "high vote only" these programs would
quickly be removed from the list.

I did not miss your point. But in order to make your point, you
mentioned the mediocrity of non-niche programs. Unless you are
abandoning that facet of your argument, perhaps you should explain
how high vote totals indicate mediocrity.

 

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

My point is very simple. "General" items go by highest vote.
Items that are "niche" ones should have a lower voting threshold
due to fewer people voting for them.

I agree with you. That's how it's been done this year, and it looks
like most people agree with it.

In previous years, some niche apps have been placed on the list with
only two votes. IMO that threshold was too low, reducing sections
of the PL to "Best of the Best as determined by two readers of
alt.comp.freware."

 

[jason]

In previous years, some niche apps have been placed on the list with
only two votes. IMO that threshold was too low, reducing sections
of the PL to "Best of the Best as determined by two readers of
alt.comp.freware."

Well, when you look at it that way, even 12 seems too low. "Best of the
Best as determined by 12 readers of alt.comp.freeware"? That hardly seems
right either. I'd expect pricelessware to be based on something like 50
readers. But as we all see, only a fraction of the readership votes. So
you have to go with what you've got.

 

[Anonymous]

|I agree with you. That's how it's been done this year, and it looks
|like most people agree with it.
|
|In previous years, some niche apps have been placed on the list with
|only two votes. IMO that threshold was too low, reducing sections
|of the PL to "Best of the Best as determined by two readers of
|alt.comp.freware."

I'm curious. Let us pretend that there were only 5 people in ACF that
used MACs. If 2 of those people voted for a program that was just for
MACs and the other 3 didn't vote would you still consider it too low?

-=-

 

[Spacey Spade]

|I agree with you. That's how it's been done this year, and it looks
|like most people agree with it.
|
|In previous years, some niche apps have been placed on the list with
|only two votes. IMO that threshold was too low, reducing sections
|of the PL to "Best of the Best as determined by two readers of
|alt.comp.freware."

I'm curious. Let us pretend that there were only 5 people in ACF that
used MACs. If 2 of those people voted for a program that was just for
MACs and the other 3 didn't vote would you still consider it too low?

I'd consider the -uncertainty- of the program being considered excellent
by a large group of people to be really high.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

If 2 of those people voted for a program that was just for
MACs and the other 3 didn't vote would you still consider it too low?

The Pricelessware homepage says "Windows freeware", so I wouldn't
expect to see Mac software there at all, just as I don't expect to see
Linux-only software there.

 

[Bjorn Abelli]

Anonymous wrote...

I'd consider the -uncertainty- of the program being considered
excellent by a large group of people to be really high.

I'm not so sure that the MAC-programs even should be nominated as "the best
of the best in Windows Freeware"...

// Bjorn A

 

[Anonymous]

Spacey Spade wrote:

|I'd consider the -uncertainty- of the program being considered excellent
|by a large group of people to be really high.

I'll buy that.

IMO there is no difference between a program that 50 people use or a
program that 2 people use. If only 2 people in ACF have a need for
and use an FTP server it doesn't make it any less Priceless than the
graphics program that 50 people use. No matter how any of this turns
out this year it sure will be interesting next time around.



-=-

 

[Anonymous]

Max Quordlepleen wrote:
|

|The Pricelessware homepage says "Windows freeware", so I wouldn't
|expect to see Mac software there at all, just as I don't expect to see
|Linux-only software there.

I never even though of that. Since Linux users visit ACF as well
maybe there could be a section on the Pricelessware site for Linux
programs. I'm sure there are "Pricelessware" Linux programs. Maybe
one of the Linux users could handle that part of the Pricelessware
voting to cut down on the the work load Susan already has.

-=-

 

[omega]

Max Quordlepleen wrote:
|
|The Pricelessware homepage says "Windows freeware", so I wouldn't
|expect to see Mac software there at all, just as I don't expect to see
|Linux-only software there.

I never even though of that. Since Linux users visit ACF as well
maybe there could be a section on the Pricelessware site for Linux
programs. I'm sure there are "Pricelessware" Linux programs. Maybe
one of the Linux users could handle that part of the Pricelessware
voting to cut down on the the work load Susan already has.

A good group of the most popular programs on PL are cross-platform. Their
high vote counts come from both Windows and Linux users. It would only
cause confusion, IMO, to try to make a separate page for Linux apps that
have not been ported; and an odd extra labor for a "Windows freeware" site.

 

[Susan Bugher]

My point is very simple. "General" items go by highest vote. Items
that are "niche" ones should have a lower voting threshold
due to fewer people voting for them.

Thank you. Some examples of how to *apply* your criteria to the PL2004
selection process would be helpful. Which of the 5, 6 and 7 vote
programs would you have selected. Are there any 8-11 vote niche
categories? Which (if any) of the 12+ vote programs would you have dropped?

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