[PL] 2004 VOTE DISCUSSION

[Genna Reeney]

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.

The original PL had 100 programs on it only.
How many programs were voted in this time?

I ask this because it was never the purpose of the PL to be a comprehensive
collection of the best available freeware, but rather to serve as a
repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for X?" As such, I
think we do a disservice by giving out too many choices and diluting the
purpose of the list. Quite frankly, it cheapens it.

I strongly oppose any breakdown that includes Honorable Mentions.

 

[jason]

Spacey Spade wrot:

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.

I don't care either way, but by having the Honorable Mentions, it *is* more
work, since Susan would have more programs to keep updated.

 

[Genna Reeney]

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 is incorrect.
We have always picked programs. The number of votes required to make the
list is what has changed.

 

[Susan Bugher]

<
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.

I'm glad you brought it up. This year I stayed *fairly* close to the
selection process used in previous years. Next year I'd like to give
more weight to the vote count and less to the subcategories. That kind
of change needs to be discussed thoroughly and now may be the best time
to do it.

I agree completely.

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]

The original PL had 100 programs on it only.
How many programs were voted in this time?

I ask this because it was never the purpose of the PL to be a
comprehensive collection of the best available freeware, but rather to
serve as a repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for
X?"

I think someone...maybe Karen...suggested that low-vote programs should
be included in the list if they offered a unique capability AND that the
capability was widely sought after. What are your feelings on that? It
has resulted in some programs being added despite a relatively low vote,
yet questions about those program-types are asked fairly frequently in
the group...admittedly a very subjective observation. IOW, how much
weight do we give to the actual vote vs discussions that have transpired
in the group?

 

[Anonymous]

My Name wrote:

|> 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

I think you're right. I think SN is the problem. I pull from a few
news servers and all my posts show up. Some news servers are hard on
anonymous posts because of abuse. I could try a another remailer see
if that works. I like bigapple because of the low latency.

-=-

 

[Anonymous]

Susan Bugher wrote:

|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.

Whatver the group decides is fine by me. I am little biased because
QuickSliver was recommended by me. I do think though that in the
future if programs are required to meet a specific number of votes
that it should apply to all programs. BTW, I think you have a done a
splendid job.



-=-

 

[My Name]

I think you're right. I think SN is the problem. I pull
from a few news servers and all my posts show up. Some news
servers are hard on anonymous posts because of abuse. I
could try a another remailer see if that works. I like
bigapple because of the low latency.

I'd bet that'd solve it.
I don't think anyone filters usenet more aggressively than SN,
and if you happen to use a remailer they've blacklisted, well
.... It still don't 'splain why Susans posts have never showed up
for me on SN when that is her provider yet they got propagated
out elsewhere, but not NH. It must be on my end somehow, I
guess. I actually checked my empty killfile just to be sure that
somehow she, or anyone else hadn't accidentally got in there.

Ghost in the Machine

 

[omega]

DC <[email protected]>:

[...]

"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?"

What a tease. All this, without even giving me a download link!

 

[DC]

DC <[email protected]>:

[...]
"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?"

What a tease. All this, without even giving me a download link!

Hehe. Here, more than you can shake a stick at. };O)

http://tinyurl.com/z44c

 

[omega]

I think someone...maybe Karen...suggested that low-vote programs should
be included in the list if they offered a unique capability AND that the
capability was widely sought after. What are your feelings on that? It
has resulted in some programs being added despite a relatively low vote,
yet questions about those program-types are asked fairly frequently in
the group...admittedly a very subjective observation. IOW, how much
weight do we give to the actual vote vs discussions that have transpired
in the group?

And someone else (sorry, forgot who) mentioned that we might consider that
ACF'ers, and their tastes, are far more geeky than normal. That the many
passersby, who ask for a type of program, they often want types of things
that are more basic (eg URL2BMP).

So, Geena's end of emphasis, it has aesthetic attraction to me. Yet at the
same time, don't we also feel a need for the PL to serve as sort of the A's
of a FAQ?

.. . .

(For my part, I'm voting both ways, again. (cite law: woman's perogative))

 

[omega]

DC <[email protected]>:

[...]
"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?"

What a tease. All this, without even giving me a download link!

Hehe. Here, more than you can shake a stick at. };O)

http://tinyurl.com/z44c

Chipmunks into infinity! Those first few, what were they called, "Alvin
and the Chipmunks"? If one of their horrid sound tracks had launched from
there, I'd have freaked from pain, and never forgiven you... <g>

 

[DC]

DC <[email protected]>:

DC <[email protected]>:
[...]
"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?"
What a tease. All this, without even giving me a download link!

Hehe. Here, more than you can shake a stick at. };O)
http://tinyurl.com/z44c

Chipmunks into infinity! Those first few, what were they called, "Alvin
and the Chipmunks"? If one of their horrid sound tracks had launched from
there, I'd have freaked from pain, and never forgiven you... <g>

Now, now. It's Christmas time. You know, the time forgiving. };O)

 

[omega]

Now, now. It's Christmas time. You know, the time forgiving. };O)

Well, if you go start singing Christmas time songs at 78 rpm, forgiving will
become impossible!

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:

The original PL had 100 programs on it only.
How many programs were voted in this time?

I ask this because it was never the purpose of the PL to be a comprehensive
collection of the best available freeware, but rather to serve as a
repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for X?" As such, I
think we do a disservice by giving out too many choices and diluting the
purpose of the list. Quite frankly, it cheapens it.

262 programs - the breakdown of PL picks per subcategory is:

0 PL picks - 30 subcategories
1 PL pick - 107 subcategories
2 PL picks - 37 subcategories
3 PL picks - 14 subcategories
4 PL picks - 6 subcategories
5 PL picks - 3 subcategories

total - 197 subcategories

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]

<
[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>

If under some number of votes (like 12), we could apply some uncertainty
analysis (statistics).

Here's one simplified idea:

If 12 votes is the cutoff point, then we could subtract 8% (1/12
rounded) for every vote lacking, thus:
11 votes: max score is 92%
10 votes: max score is 84%
9 votes: max score is 76%
8 votes: max score is 68%
7 votes: not included in pricelessware

Thus, in the example above, 7 out of 8 votes would earn the program a
score = 7 divided by 8 times 0.68 = 0.595%, which is short of the 60%.
So the minimums to be included in pricelessware are 8 out of 9 votes or
8 out of 8 votes.

 

[Spacey Spade]

Susan Bugher wrote:

|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.

Whatver the group decides is fine by me. I am little biased because
QuickSliver was recommended by me. I do think though that in the
future if programs are required to meet a specific number of votes
that it should apply to all programs. BTW, I think you have a done a
splendid job.

Me too

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Susan Bugher wrote:

The original PL had 100 programs on it only.
How many programs were voted in this time?

I ask this because it was never the purpose of the PL to be a comprehensive
collection of the best available freeware, but rather to serve as a
repository to the often-asked "what is the best program for X?" As such, I
think we do a disservice by giving out too many choices and diluting the
purpose of the list. Quite frankly, it cheapens it.

I strongly oppose any breakdown that includes Honorable Mentions.

I dislike the term "honourable mentions" BUT IMO sometimes more than
two "best" apply. It depends on what one is wanting.

In text editors for example ;

Which is "best" for opening quickly ?

Which is "best" for stripping html ?

Which is best for programmers ?

Which is "best" for rtf ?

Which is "best" for macros/scripts ?

etc. etc.

I know reducing the above to eg. two choices saves work BUT if neither
of the two choices does what one wants then it is a waste of time one
looking at those two.

The PL list becomes MORE useful with *more* categories, not less, IMO.

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]

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."

< snip >

Which obviously didn't apply to AGO. Now, what other programs
have the "special capability" to re-order the newsgroup list in Free
Agent ? To change newsgroups to folders ? To display/print the
numbers/names of Agent/Free Agent newsgroups etc ?

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

<news:[email protected]>:

True, but there must be a cutoff somewhere,

Sure, but the cutoff figure doesn't need to be the same for every
category. Unless robots have taken over and we can no longer deal with
"case by case" issues.

a vote threshold for
considering an app with specialized features to be Pricelessware.
Susan put that threshold at 6 votes this time around, and I certainly
would not argue that is should be lower. If anything, I'd have made it
higher.

The number should NOT be set IMO. In one year where few vote we could
have most of the nominations fail due to the majority having <6 votes.
In a "busy" voting year we could end up with rubbish due to everything
having >6 votes.

I don't think we should do that. As Genna pointed out, we vote for
apps, not categories, and the goal should not be to fill categories.
The categories are in place so that people visiting pricelessware.org
have an easier time finding what they are looking for. IIRC the
programs are categorized before voting only because categorization is a
PiTA and would be an awful awful PiTA if we waited until after voting
to sort them all.

Why one or the other ? Why not both ? Some programs compete against
everything. Others are "special interest" and can be "best of the
best" even though getting very few votes. Something like PTFB comes
to mind here.

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/