[PL] 2004 VOTE DISCUSSION

[Susan Bugher]

Onno wrote:




I like the idea too. With that kind of ballot (the one laid out in the
earlier post), it would be a *tad* more work to vote... I mean, you'd
actually have to think a bit ...but it would be well worth it. Not only
would it resolve the niche program issue in a very direct way, but it
would produce some excellent statistical data. Knowing how many people
actually use a certain category of program, makes the program votes all
the more meaningful. I think this proposal should be given serious
consideration.

This is just a hunch but. . .

I suspect many people would leave *all* the categories and vote *just*
for the programs - to ensure that their votes wasn't rejected. I think
this kind of ballot might lead to *fewer* niche programs.

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]

This year some people nominated many programs (I think the greatest
number in one post was 24). Some never furnished descriptions for their
*laundry lists*. There were *drive-by* nominations - the nomination post
was the last we heard of the OP. There were shareware nominations -
because the OP didn't bother to check. etc. etc. etc.

ROFL. Drive-by nominations. Laundry lists splattered everywhere. The images
are going to stay in my mind all day.

 

[Susan Bugher]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:36:25 -0500, Susan Bugher




< snip >

If you are saying that there is a limit to what * you * are prepared
to do. Okay.

If not then I disagree. The majority of the work is now done. IMO
future additions/deletions will NOT be any more work than was done
this year.

How many "new" items were added this year ? 200 ? 300 ? Do you really
think the number will be any higher next year ? I doubt it. Additions/
deletions will probably result in little change to the overall
numbers.

Program descriptions are updated throughout the year - new versions are
noted, dead links are revised (if good links can can be found) etc. etc.
The time required to maintain the PL web pages increases in direct
proportion to the number of PW programs.

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]

»Q« wrote:

I think this would work best as a *set* of web pages with the
subcategories etc. shown.

One secondary benefit I'm seeing with the above is that it will give, to
those folks interested, time and information to evaluate (or re-evaluate)
programs on that page. This year, any programs I was not already using,
I wasn't about to go evaluate them for the sake of voting, as I'd not felt
that it would provide me enough time to come to a good conclusion.

I agree. I think someone seconding such a nomination should confirm that
the description is complete and correct. There will not be much time for
a general review by the group.

The one possible drawback... Involves hose many of us who kept the habits
from school days: ie, never start your term paper until the calendar shows
that you only have <24hrs to due date.

One counterweight here, for those of us who have "final hour" habits,
it will be that the longer time on the description page, the better the
opportunity for voters to consider one's candidate programs. Also, the
other counterweight you might want to see about, if the cut-off day is
not hardlined at prenom, it would be along the lines of peer pressure/
proper procedure emphasis.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I think it is better to first think about what we want, and then
compare it to the old rules formulated earlier.

If we start off from the old rules we might tend to conserve rules we
actually should change, and would like to change, if we took a fresh
look at the problem.

IMO it's always wise to consider why things are done as they are. It's a
good way to avoid pitfalls that we might otherwise overlook. If we do
that first we minimize false starts and dead ends.

Perhaps a little of each approach?

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

 

[Anonymous]

Susan Bugher wrote:

|Program descriptions are updated throughout the year - new versions are
|noted, dead links are revised (if good links can can be found) etc. etc.
|The time required to maintain the PL web pages increases in direct
|proportion to the number of PW programs.

Maybe some sort of half year update could be done. The new vote is
done by end of Jan, 6 months later the information is checked again.
I'm sure that you would be able to get help from people in ACf to
track things down.



-=-

 

[omega]

I suspect many people would leave *all* the categories and vote *just*
for the programs - to ensure that their votes wasn't rejected. I think
this kind of ballot might lead to *fewer* niche programs.

What I expect will happen is by way of a different cause. That many people
won't be able to follow the "leave only this in" and "snip this other part"
instructions. We saw this year how many had trouble with that area, during
the first form of the acceptable/unacceptable design.

I'd be inclined to require them to _affirmatively (re)type_ those categories
that apply to their voting. And for that, make the instructions about this
needing to be done, repeated throughout, so that they don't forget each time
they've scrolled down a screen.

Not that I'm sure that even then that the success rate will be satisfactory,
for people making sure to retype the categories. But asking for snipping,
um, long history shows that to be something with low success rate. The PL
voting in straight form, yes, it accomplished by snipping, but that was
single level....

 

[Susan Bugher]

<news:[email protected]>:

Makes sense to me. But there would also be a single aphabetical list
with links to the descriptions, right?

A full set - category index *and* alphabetical list - we could review
the subcategories then.

Ok. In that case, perhaps whoever is tracking the noms should
followup such posts with "Nomination not accepted due to lack of
description" so that no one mistakenly believes the app should ve
successfully nominated. OTOH, I don't see any big problem with
simply ignoring noms without descriptions.

OTOOH it wouldn't take long to post: rejected
OTOOOH the first Nominations post would have *da rules* so they *should*
know. . .

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

 

[Susan Bugher]

One secondary benefit I'm seeing with the above is that it will give, to
those folks interested, time and information to evaluate (or re-evaluate)
programs on that page. This year, any programs I was not already using,
I wasn't about to go evaluate them for the sake of voting, as I'd not felt
that it would provide me enough time to come to a good conclusion.

I agree and I think we might have a really good discussion period as a
result.

The one possible drawback... Involves hose many of us who kept the habits
from school days: ie, never start your term paper until the calendar shows
that you only have <24hrs to due date.

guilty

One counterweight here, for those of us who have "final hour" habits,
it will be that the longer time on the description page, the better the
opportunity for voters to consider one's candidate programs.

A *very* good point - the sooner the description is posted the better
chance your program has of being selected. That might inspire even a
dedicated procrastinator like me . . .

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]

[snip]

...and have to specify which functions make an app Priceless
in their opinions.

For simplification, that part could be reduced, and categories would be
broader:

instead of:

Ofcourse, you lose important details, but you gain simpler voting. I'd
be willing to let a third person make decisions in defining the
categories.

< snip >

I don't see that as being necessary. I also don't see a "vote" for
categories as being needed. Too much extra work for too little gain.

Here are my suggested steps :

(1) Votes as currently.

(2) Rather than including, or excluding, everything beneath a certain
voting number have a list of everything that didn't "make the cut".

THEN people would need to "justify" why low voting items need to
remain. The only acceptable justification being that the item is a
"niche" one and that it is the "best of the best" for the specific
task/program that it is associated with.

Eg. Text editors.

Item A 20 votes.
Item B 18 votes.
Item C 12 votes.

Someone points out that item A and item B do NOT open text files that
are > 2MB so "recommends" a new category of eg. "text editors for huge
file manipulation".

Not a perfect example but perhaps it gets the point across ?


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]>:

The descriptions submitted to date would be on a webpage, sortable by
using that nifty php script. Those nine people could easily reference
it before annoying you with extra submissions.

I agree that that would solve the problem BUT I doubt that everyone
would look at that page before making a nomination.

Doing a list (one) of "missing" nominations at the end of the
nomination process is still my preferred method. No descriptions
after "x" days and a nomination is rejected.

With this years list being so comprehensive I would think that this
"problem" is being over-rated. Future years will not see as many
"new" nominations, requiring descriptions, as has occurred this
year.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Susan Bugher wrote:

Excellent. That continues to place the burden of responsibility on the
nominators, which is the correct emphasis IMO.

Up to this point, we've been "coddling" people who
haven't followed through on their nominations. It's that very coddling
that leads to laziness and hence to the drive-by nominations.

I don't totally agree with that. Sometimes someone may think a program
is GREAT ! but not have a description/valid link handy. Particularly
those who do newsgroup reading/posting offline. Should such people be
denied the opportunity to make a recommendation of their favourite
program/utility ?

The one thing wrong with this approach is if it discourages nominations
by "ordinary" people and encourages nominations by "authors". Authors
are the most motivated to go to the effort to provide complete
descriptions.

< snip >

Yes, a very good point. Not a problem if a list of nominations with
missing descriptions is posted though. It isn't so important that the
original nominator provides a description. As long as someone
does so.

Regards, John.

 

[jason]

Here are my suggested steps :

(1) Votes as currently.

(2) Rather than including, or excluding, everything beneath a certain
voting number have a list of everything that didn't "make the cut".

THEN people would need to "justify" why low voting items need to
remain. The only acceptable justification being that the item is a
"niche" one and that it is the "best of the best" for the specific
task/program that it is associated with.

Let's look at a real-world example. Last year, I nominated FreshIcons
because it is by far the best program to refresh icons that have
temporarily gotten "confused" (showing the wrong icon for the wrong
program). I don't recall whether it made it on the ballot or not, but I
do remember people pointing out that TweakUI had a similar capability.
Well, for people like myself, who don't *want* a multipurpose program,
and instead want a single-purpose, no-install, "green" program,
FreshIcons is unique and "priceless". How would you, John, look at that
program? Is it unique "enough"? Is it *too* specialized. Just thought
I'd throw out one of the more marginal examples to see where people draw
the line.

 

[omega]

I don't totally agree with that. Sometimes someone may think a program
is GREAT ! but not have a description/valid link handy. Particularly
those who do newsgroup reading/posting offline. Should such people be
denied the opportunity to make a recommendation of their favourite
program/utility ?

The pre-nom phase, its length hasn't been specifically discussed, but
I suspect it will turn out to be somewhere in the 2-4 week range...
Surely even the most dedicated offliners can log into the web once
during that 2-4+ week period, in order to the correct URLs for the
program they think GREAT enough to be on PL.

 

[Susan Bugher]

What I expect will happen is by way of a different cause. That many people
won't be able to follow the "leave only this in" and "snip this other part"
instructions. We saw this year how many had trouble with that area, during
the first form of the acceptable/unacceptable design.

I'll be living that mess down for years . . .

I imagine more than one person just said the hell with it . . .

but it does provide a horrible example for us -> things to avoid in the
future.

OTOH I suspect the simple single ballot for the *programs* contributed
to the higher vote count there this year (almost double last year's).

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]

What I expect will happen is by way of a different cause. That many people
won't be able to follow the "leave only this in" and "snip this other part"
instructions. We saw this year how many had trouble with that area, during
the first form of the acceptable/unacceptable design.

I'd be inclined to require them to _affirmatively (re)type_ those categories
that apply to their voting. And for that, make the instructions about this
needing to be done, repeated throughout, so that they don't forget each time
they've scrolled down a screen.

Not that I'm sure that even then that the success rate will be satisfactory,
for people making sure to retype the categories. But asking for snipping,
um, long history shows that to be something with low success rate. The PL
voting in straight form, yes, it accomplished by snipping, but that was
single level....

How about trying it out for this year on just a few programs and
categories, to see if the voting format will be understood.

news:[email protected]

 

[omega]

I'll be living that mess down for years . . .

Truth was that I was disappointed when you changed the design so soon,
as I was having fun reading the "voting" posts in that pair of threads.
I was thinking we'd have to have a committee for many of those posts,
to debate at length, on what the actual voting intentions were in those
posts.

OTOH I suspect the simple single ballot for the *programs* contributed
to the higher vote count there this year (almost double last year's).

I'd saved the info where you'd said this year it was 100 voters + 5345
votes. What were last year's numbers? As to more votes per person, I
wonder about the cause. Single ballot design? "Abundant enthusiasm"?

Or, calculated strategy, to get the largest number of their favored
programs on the ballot? This last is the major question, in deciding
how to vote. Trying to weigh out the consequences of voting for two+
programs of a single type. Does that mean that you have better chances
for at least one, and maybe both, to make it... Or, does that mean one
will cancel the other down a rung, knocking it out of the top set...

 

[Roger Johansson]

Actually, what I have wanted to do for a while, but have not had time to
implement is move the whole lot to a database. Once created, it would make
everything so much simpler to run, from submissions to listings.

That is a good idea.

The descriptions should contain, among other things, suitable search
words so the program can be found by using google.
The first search word could be what we often call the category.

For 2xExplorer the first search word (category) should be "file
manager", for example.

Use the database to create one page for each program, or category, and
make sure google can find that page.

The descriptions may become objects for discussions so it would be
wise to start the nominations several weeks before the voting.

If I come to the PW web site looking for a file manager, or maybe I
call it a file utility, how can I find such programs in the web site?

If there are categories to choose from I might find the right category
by looking through the list of categories.
If there is a search field I write "file handler" there and push the
search button.
(In that case let's hope somebody has put in several search words for
that category, like "file handler" "file manager" "file utility"
etc..)

I could also arrive to the right category by searching for "freeware
file handler" in google.
....

My methodology here is to start from the user, think about how he/she
arrives at this site, how he/she finds the right group of programs,
reads the descriptions, chooses and clicks on a link to the program,
etc..

How should that site be constructed to allow people to find and use it
in those ways?

How could we build a procedure to produce such a site with as little
effort as possible?

How can that effort be shared by several people?

I think this way of starting from the end result and think backwards
step by step about how to achieve that result could be useful.

After all, the end result and purpose of this exercise is the
Pricelessware web site.

 

[Roger Johansson]

What I expect will happen is by way of a different cause. That many people
won't be able to follow the "leave only this in" and "snip this other part"
instructions. We saw this year how many had trouble with that area, during
the first form of the acceptable/unacceptable design.

I agree. That system is too complicated.

I have another idea. If we can vote either for or against the programs
we can see better what quality a certain program has.

If a program gets 6 votes for and 4 votes against it there is probably
some problem with that program.

If another program gets 5 votes for and none against it is probably a
very good program, even if it does not have as many users as the other
program.

We can put up all programs in two lists, vote only FOR the program you
want to vote for, and vote only AGAINST the programs in the other
list.

This would make it easy to count FOR and AGAINST votes, and it would
work just like we did this year with a few questionable programs.

If there is a database over the programs the category could be the
most important of the search words.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Truth was that I was disappointed when you changed the design so soon,
as I was having fun reading the "voting" posts in that pair of threads.
I was thinking we'd have to have a committee for many of those posts,
to debate at length, on what the actual voting intentions were in those
posts.




I'd saved the info where you'd said this year it was 100 voters + 5345
votes. What were last year's numbers? As to more votes per person, I
wonder about the cause. Single ballot design? "Abundant enthusiasm"?

There were around 3000 votes for PL2003 programs. You've asked once too
often about the number of people . . .

so I Googled up the ballot threads. *If* everyone voted in the INTERNET
category then *approximately* 82 people voted (there may off-topic or
duplicate posts and Genna's initial post in each thread has to be
deducted).

Business - 31 posts
Desktop - 40
File Util. - 50
Graphics - 60
Internet - 83
Multimedia - 47
Organizers - 34
Security - 58
Shell - 37
System - 63
Text - 54
Web Des. - 25

-----------

[PL] 2003 VOTE - BUSINESS
etc.

Should you care to do additional analysis.

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