[PL] 2004 VOTE DISCUSSION

[Spacey Spade]

[snip]

Thank you. This is the part I was not understanding. If a program
with only 6 or 7 votes was accepted because they filled a catagory,
then I think all such programs like that should be accepted. If it is
done by votes {12 or more from the looks of it) and nothing but votes
then I don't have a problem if QuickSilver goes, as long as all other
program that didn't meet the required number of votes go.

What about this:
news: (e-mail address removed)

 

[Spacey Spade]

[snip]

[snip]

Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the best of
the best, they do not have a large user base because only a minority of
people use such programs. For example an FTP server.

What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
voting:

LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.

ArchiveUtility(zip-rar-etc)
GraphicsViewer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
EmailClient
NewsReader
...

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.

----------------------

1-4aRename
1by1
1stPage2000
2FlyerScreensaverBuilder
2xExplorer
...

So now we can grade votes on percentages, which would be a lot more
meaningful. Of the people who use GraphicsConverters, what percentage
find Irfanview to be the best (or among the best in case they vote for
more than one GC).

[snip]

An example vote:

LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.
----------------------
FtpServer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer

 

[Spacey Spade]

Spacey Spade (e-mail address removed) wrote... [snip]

So now we can grade votes on percentages, which would be a lot more
meaningful. Of the people who use GraphicsConverters, what percentage
find Irfanview to be the best (or among the best in case they vote for
more than one GC).

[snip]

An example vote:

LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.
----------------------
FtpServer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer

Added bonus:
Those people who vote for 300+ programs are going to have to put a
little work into figuring out the program categories they use. If the
votes don't match the categories, then they get the reply:

<reply>
Subject: Re: [PL] 2004 VOTE - Programs - Disqualified, Please Fix

Please fix your categories to represent your votes and post as a reply
to this post. Failure to do so will nullify all your votes.
</reply>

 

[Susan Bugher]

IMO he 2004 PL should not have any sig manager or remailer because
none of those types of apps got enough votes. (BTW, I am the one who
nominated KookieJar.)

But, Susan, you wrote, "A few winners with 6-7 votes were picked when a
special capability would otherwise have been lost from the list." They
are:

6 EyeDropper
6 Fractal Explorer
6 nnCron Lite
6 2Flyer Screensaver Builder
7 AutoSizer
7 Blender
7 Push That Freakin' Button
7 RUNit
7 Speakonia
7 VanBasco's Karaoke Player
7 Web2Text

the selection process I used:

I included *all* programs that received at least 12 votes. That filled
many subcategories without (IMO) overwhelming any - AFAIK the maximum
number of selections in a subcategory is 4.

I added programs in the 8-11 vote range - primarily to fill additional
subcategories - occasionally for close votes.

That left about 30 subcategories with no PW pick. The 11 *unique*
subcategories you noted were judgement calls to keep a subcategory. 5
*unique* subcategories were eliminated. The subcategories that were
eliminated (and the reason for the elimination) are:

BUSINESS:
Converter:Currency 1-5v (vote count)
CDCoverAndLabelsCreator 1-5v (vote count)

DESKTOP:
** DesktopShortcuts 1-7v [now a PW pick]
KeyboardShortcuts 2-7v,6v
MouseShortcuts 2-4v,4v
SystemTrayShortcuts 1-4v
(the above are overlapping subcategories)

Desktop:Icons 1-5v (vote count)
Desktop:Themes 1-7v (overlapping)
RecycleBinUtility 1-5v (vote count)

FILE UTILITIES:
SearchArchivedFiles 2-6v,6v (overlapping)

GRAPHICS:
Editor:LandscapeGenerator 1-4v (vote count)
Editor:Morph 1-4v (vote count)
* Plug-InFilter 1-6v (judgement call)

INTERNET:
* EmailTool 2-7v,6v (judgement call)
* NewsreaderTool 1-7v (judgement call)
FTPServer 2-5v,5v (vote count)
ProxyServer 1,3v (vote count)
Spider 1-4v (vote count)

ORGANIZERS:
Reminders 1-7v (overlapping)
Reminders;Scheduler 1-6v (overlapping)
ClockCustomizer;Reminders 1-9v (overlapping)

PROGRAMMING:
Programming:Compiler 1-4v (vote count)

SECURITY:
* Anti-Tracking 1-6v (judgement call)

WEB DESIGN
EmailAddressEncoder 2-4v,3v (vote count)
ImageDicer 1-5v (vote count)
ButtonMaker 1-6v (overlapping)

I'm not clear on what makes these with capabilities that would be lost
from the list different from KookieJar and QuickSilver. I'd deselect
all of them from the list.

In particular, I've seen the case that nnCron Lite belongs for some
reasons I'll take one at a time.

It's not been nominated before this year. I don't see why this should
matter at all.

It would have been more accurate to say that I judged carryover programs
more harshly than newcomers.

The 6-8 vote picks were my wiffle-waffle categories. I'm *not* prepared
to defend my decisions to the death . . .

Comments *please* - should all the 6-7 vote programs go? Should some
that were elimiated be added?

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

 

[Spacey Spade]

[snip]

Comments *please* - should all the 6-7 vote programs go? Should some
that were elimiated be added?

8 of the 100 people who voted use a blahblah type program. Of those 8,
7 voted for program B. That gives program B a percentage score of 88%.
The cut-off point has been decided by the group to be 60%, therefore,
program B stays!

 

[jason]

the selection process I used:

I included *all* programs that received at least 12 votes. That filled
many subcategories without (IMO) overwhelming any - AFAIK the maximum
number of selections in a subcategory is 4.

I have no problems with that number (the 12), but I'm curious how it was
picked. Was it a judgement call after seeing the vote spread, or is it
an absolute number that you'd use next time around?

Comments *please* - should all the 6-7 vote programs go? Should some
that were elimiated be added?

No. Not all the 6-7 vote programs should go. The rationale for some of
inclusions have already been discussed, and the rationale for some of the
others are obvious, at least to me. But it would help if the rationales
were listed next to each program, so everyone could see for themselves.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I have no problems with that number (the 12), but I'm curious how it was
picked. Was it a judgement call after seeing the vote spread, or is it
an absolute number that you'd use next time around?

It was a trial and error procedure . . .

I wanted to use votes counts as the criteria for selection to the
greatest extent possible. This year 12 seemed to work pretty well - not
too different from 13 or 14 in the *high* vote subcategories and more
subcategories were filled initially using 12 as the magic number. (At 11
votes the high vote categories had too many programs.)

No. Not all the 6-7 vote programs should go. The rationale for some of
inclusions have already been discussed, and the rationale for some of the
others are obvious, at least to me. But it would help if the rationales
were listed next to each program, so everyone could see for themselves.

I added the rationale to the subcategories I eliminated - the
subcategories I kept were all *judgement* (or lack thereof) calls . . .

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]

It was a trial and error procedure . . .

I wanted to use votes counts as the criteria for selection to the
greatest extent possible. This year 12 seemed to work pretty well -
not too different from 13 or 14 in the *high* vote subcategories and
more subcategories were filled initially using 12 as the magic number.
(At 11 votes the high vote categories had too many programs.)

Thanks Susan. For your own sake, I was hoping it boiled down to a
percentage or something, to make it easier for next year, but I guess the
vote is too variable for that.

I added the rationale to the subcategories I eliminated - the
subcategories I kept were all *judgement* (or lack thereof) calls . .
.

No problem with that. This is mostly a democratic process, but your
own judgement has to come in at some point. It's up to us to give you the
input, and if we fail, you have to rely on your own instincts. It's too
bad though that there are so few people participating in the discussions.
Sometimes it feels more like an oligarchy than a democracy in determining
the fate of these programs. Maybe we need a few threads with titles like
"We're going to delete such and such a program unless you speak up!!"

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

Spacey Spade wrote in

No opposition - but not much support either. I won't use Honorable
Mention designations.

[snip]

I didn't think it was a good idea cause it means more work in keeping up
the site.

My immediate respons when reading this: I do not agree with our
conclusion, I think it is a great idea. I don't think it will mean
much more work for Susan - since with such a distinction she will
probably have to spend less time on figuring where to "draw the line"
between winners and "looser's" in each category. Of course a new line
will have to be drawn between "Honorable Mention" and "not worthy at
all", but I think it will be a more relaxed one (easier to make) than
that between winners and looser's.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[My Name]

FYI - I have a problem. I almost never see your posts on my
news server. I had to go to another server to find your
ballot for PL2004. That was the *only* ballot that did not
show up. I don't know if the QuickSilver plays any part in
this . . .

I think it's SN.
Your vote result posts never showed on SN, or NH, Waa!

 

[DC]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

IMO omitting high vote getters in popular categories is a case of
throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think an Honorable Mention
designation would be useful for such cases.
I fully agree.

No opposition - but not much support either. I won't use Honorable
Mention designations. [snip]

I didn't think it was a good idea cause it means more work in keeping up
the site.

Fully agree, but for the simple reason that it would dilute the PL list
to the point where it would become just one more freeware site.

"I've included blabla.exe on the PL list, not because it is all that
widely used -- my babysitter's mom used it, once -- but don't you just
*love* the cute little chipmunk icon?"

Bah! };O)

 

[DC]

Thanks Susan. For your own sake, I was hoping it boiled down to a
percentage or something, to make it easier for next year ...[snip]

Yes, Susan. *Next year*. I'll bet you can hardly wait! };O)

 

[Spacey Spade]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:
IMO omitting high vote getters in popular categories is a case of
throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think an Honorable Mention
designation would be useful for such cases.
I fully agree.
No opposition - but not much support either. I won't use Honorable
Mention designations. [snip]

I didn't think it was a good idea cause it means more work in keeping up
the site.

Fully agree, but for the simple reason that it would dilute the PL list
to the point where it would become just one more freeware site.

"I've included blabla.exe on the PL list, not because it is all that
widely used -- my babysitter's mom used it, once -- but don't you just
*love* the cute little chipmunk icon?"

Bah! };O)

Good point!

 

[Susan Bugher]

the selection process I used:

I included *all* programs that received at least 12 votes. That filled
many subcategories without (IMO) overwhelming any - AFAIK the maximum
number of selections in a subcategory is 4.

I added programs in the 8-11 vote range - primarily to fill additional
subcategories - occasionally for close votes.

a bit more about that:

In previous years subcategories were the *primary* criteria for
selection as PW. Many PL2003 subcategories have more than one low vote
pick because the votes were close. PL2003 has 54 PW picks that received
only 2 votes.

This year I used vote count as the *primary* selection criteria and
subcategories as the *secondary* criteria. Most of the subcategories
were retained but there are fewer low vote PW picks.

I've done a breakdown of PL picks in the 6-11 vote range:

11 votes - added 15 programs - filled 8 subcategories
10 votes - added 22 programs - filled 12 subcategories
9 votes - added 18 programs - filled 17 subcategories
8 votes - added 26 programs - filled 20 subcategories
7 votes - added 9 programs - filled 8 subcategories
6 votes - added 3 programs - gained 3 subcategories

totals - added 93 programs - filled 68 subcategories

IMO we should give even *more* weight to the vote count. This year some
programs that received 10 or 11 votes were eliminated while programs
that received 6 votes were selected. That doesn't make a whole lot of
sense to me. . .

IMO lower vote programs do not belong on the PL - but good programs -
especially good *niche* programs - *should* have a place on the
Pricelessware site. The PL2004 Nominations List will be that place for
now (ISTM there may be a better way).

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

 

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

<
Thanks for all the explanation you have given in this thread. I'm a
lot clearer on things now.

And I'm sorry to have been one to spur you to have to type all that
out, especially this late in the discussion period. Thanks for
bearing with us.

IMO we should give even *more* weight to the vote count. This year
some programs that received 10 or 11 votes were eliminated while
programs that received 6 votes were selected. That doesn't make a
whole lot of sense to me. . .

IMO lower vote programs do not belong on the PL - but good
programs - especially good *niche* programs - *should* have a
place on the Pricelessware site. The PL2004 Nominations List will
be that place for now (ISTM there may be a better way).

I agree completely.

Going back to specifics raised here, I now see that KookieJar and
QuickSilver are indeed niche programs whose 'markets' are relatively
small. nnCron Lite, OTOH, is a scheduler, not at all a niche
program. That's IMO a perfectly good criterion for including nnCron
Lite and excluding the other two, and I can certainly be happy with
the decisions that have been made. (I don't have the time to
thoroughly review all the apps with 6-7 votes, but I doubt I'd find
anything to write about - ISTM that the group, and Susan in
particular, have done a very nice job across the board.)

 

[Susan Bugher]

Of course a new line
will have to be drawn between "Honorable Mention" and "not worthy at
all", but I think it will be a more relaxed one (easier to make) than
that between winners and looser's.

FWIW - the Honorable Mention line *would* have been drawn between "da
winner" and "also very very very very very popular".

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

 

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

<
[about Spacey's proposed system, details in
<and

8 of the 100 people who voted use a blahblah type program. Of
those 8, 7 voted for program B. That gives program B a percentage
score of 88%.

87.5%

The cut-off point has been decided by the group to
be 60%, therefore, program B stays!

I think I understand your proposal better now - sorry I replied some
earlier before it sunk into my thick skull.

But I'd still say a total of 7 votes is not enough, and that it
should not matter that the program B is the clear choice amongst
users of that subcategory of apps. Today, Susan has written a good
deal here about overall vote totals being of primary importance, and
I agree with her completely about that.

In any case, it should be fun to hash all this out between now and
the 2005 process. <beg>

 

[Susan Bugher]

Anonymous (e-mail address removed) wrote...
[snip]

Thank you. This is the part I was not understanding. If a program
with only 6 or 7 votes was accepted because they filled a catagory,
then I think all such programs like that should be accepted. If it is
done by votes {12 or more from the looks of it) and nothing but votes
then I don't have a problem if QuickSilver goes, as long as all other
program that didn't meet the required number of votes go.

IMO any PL2004 pick that received less that 11 votes can be called an
unfair pick. Programs with more votes were eliminated and it was chosen.

Some subcategories overlap with others, some contain very different
programs - fairness is subjective. The Internet page is the largest.
Many programs on that page received high votes. I took this into
consideration when I made the PL picks and set the bar a little higher.

FYI - I have a problem. I almost never see your posts on my news server.
I had to go to another server to find your ballot for PL2004. That was
the *only* ballot that did not show up. I don't know if the QuickSilver
plays any part in this . . .

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]

No problem with that. This is mostly a democratic process, but your
own judgement has to come in at some point. It's up to us to give you the
input, and if we fail, you have to rely on your own instincts. It's too
bad though that there are so few people participating in the discussions.
Sometimes it feels more like an oligarchy than a democracy in determining
the fate of these programs. Maybe we need a few threads with titles like
"We're going to delete such and such a program unless you speak up!!"

LOL - but. . . IMO an oligarchy is what's needed in the vote
discussion period. That's when the specialists with detailed knowledge
of all the programs in a category or subcategory should speak up. The
*votes* narrow down the field - close calls should be decided by the
experts. I'm very grateful to those who took the time to tell me which
app was the most valuable and should be picked in addition to the
*clear* winners.

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]

Thanks Susan. For your own sake, I was hoping it boiled down to a
percentage or something, to make it easier for next year ...[snip]

Yes, Susan. *Next year*. I'll bet you can hardly wait! };O)

You bet! I can hardly wait (sigh). . .

I'm looking hard for ways to improve the process . . .

and looking even harder fot ways to make it a lot easier.

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