I've been trying to find the right place in this discussion to weigh in with
a suggestion or two. Unsuccessfully, I might add. So I'm just going to dive
right in.
Stroking of egos aside ("This is the software WE use!"), the purpose of the
pricelessware pages is quite simple from an end-user standpoint. In the
broader case, If I go to the page it's because I have need of software to
perform some specific function that is not provided by the software I have
already. The hope is that the software considered the best in it's category
will include that function, letting me get on with what I want to do. Why go
to the PW page specifically? Because there are a lot of freeware sites out
there - some with broader definitions of freeware than others - and I'm
looking for an INFORMED opinion.
I used to participate regularly in this group, before changing ISPs
(involuntarily) to one that didn't offer newsgroup access. (Obviously, this
has now changed). With monotonous regularity, the postings would consist of
member/visitor X asking for reccommendations for software to perform Y.
After the 20th time of seeing people asking, "What's the best newsgroup
reader" or whatever, it started getting pretty monotonous. The Pricelessware
list was only just in its initial conceptual stages at the time, but I
perceived it as a way to avoid having to answer that same question over and
over. Of course, you can never eliminate all such questions - there are at
least as many things that people want to do using their computers as there
are people! Inevitably, some niche issue wouldn't be covered by the list,
but the boringly repetitive issues would be resolved.
The discussions that have been going on about the purpose of the PW list
stem, IMO, from two different definitions of pricelessware: Is it the best,
or is it the most popular amongst the group members? The two things are not
necessarily the same. This is the reason why I would oppose any change to
"first past the post" methodologies. We need to have as many programs in any
given category as we can reasonably handle - and by "We" I gather that at
the moment, that means Susan - which have passed collective review by the
group.
That review process, as I understand it, currently focusses on two issues:
(1) is it genuinely freeware? (2) Is it better at carrying out some
popularly-required function than all the other programs in that category?.
Ah, but (2) is actually a compound step! It actually combines three seperate
issues into one question: Does the software in question have some function
that it does better than any other software? And, if so, is that a function
a commonly-required one? And, if so, does the software in question perform
this function better than any other freeware available?
Obviously, it would be wildly impractical to have a nominations/review
process that looked at these issues one-by-one. Some measure of compounding
is necessary to keep the process manageable. The process that appears to
have been adopted is as follows:
1. A categorisation of software purposes by function. Subcategories may be
needed.
2. A nomination of freeware within each function by the members of the
newsgroup.
3. A voting process which seeks to select the "best" program within each
category/subcategory from amongst those nominated.
Of course, the list can never be exhaustive because the membership can never
be sure that they know every possible freeware program in existance. It's
practically certain that the converse is true, ie that there are freeware
programs out there that none of us have ever heard about.
This exposes a hidden assumption in the current process - the assumption
that the membership who use a given category of software have used all the
nominated programs.
Okay, so much for the review of my understanding of how we get to where we
are, and what the purpose of the PW list is. On to specific suggestions:
1. That a specific FAQ on the voting process be provided on the site,
detailing how a program is nominated, how a category is defined, how a new
subcategory can be proposed, etc. We have such an item in the existing FAQ
for defining what is, and is not, considered freeware; but defining how we
go about determining the contents of the site should also be provided for
people who havn't been partciipants in the group for a while - or ever
before - so that they can hit the ground running. (I hope but don't expect
that what I've written above, with any errors corrected, could be the basis
for such a document).
2. That instead of simply voting FOR a given program in any given
subcategory, the membership can vote AGAINST something. A vote for means "I
have used it and it does everything I want"; a vote against means "I have
used it and found it unsatisfactory, or not as good as the program I have
voted for". This change would mean that a program that had not been tried by
a majority of the members would score more highly if everyone who HAD used
it was satisfied with it, without equating an "I don't know this program"
vote to an "I don't like something about this program" vote.
This also gives a ready-made means of distinguishing between niche programs
and more general software. If a subcategory gets very few votes against any
of the software, few people use it - it's a niche item. If it gets several,
it's not.
Any general program getting a positive total - ie more votes for it being PW
than against - is considered by the majority to be PW. Any niche program
getting less than a cut-off number of votes is not used by enough members to
get listed.
3. Yahoo Groups offers the facility to generate surveys of the membership.
If ACF were to create such a group - perhaps with the most active
participants and old hands like John as moderators - these surveys could be
used to do a lot of Susan's work in tabulating votes for her.
4. Finally, I get the impression that the group works like dogs for a few
months of the year to get the PW list for that year voted for and the web
site updated. Would it be better to divide the whole PW list into 12
categories and deal with each one in successive months? January might be
Internet month or Utilties month or whatever. I would use the current number
of programs in categories and subcategories as the dividing line, eg there
might be enough under "internet" or "graphics" that they should get 2
months, but the general idea is to break the work up into more manageable
slices.
5. Oh, and a PS: It would be absolutely great if the PW pages included a
review of other freeware sites around, a "where to look if you didn't find
what you want - and what to look out for" page. Spelling out that site "X"
includes adware as freeware, demos as freeware, or worse yet, spyware as
freeware, would clue people in and be an incredibly valuable resource.
If I've misinterpreted any stage of the process or the debate, it's probably
because there isn't a "how we choose" proceedure outlined on the website. I
get the impression that the discussion is currently veering off in many
different directions at once, and that many things that should be seperate
threads are all being lumped together in this one. If we can break the
process down into logically-defined steps, we can then discuss each one
seperately - less noise, more communication.
On re-reading that last, I am horrified to realise that the "less noise"
comment could be misinterpreted as criticism of the discussion, or of
people's participation in it. I did not mean it in that sense, but in the
sense that talking at crosspurposes and about many things in the same thread
ultimately makes that thread confusing and hard to follow, reducing valuable
and cogent discussion to noise! Points get lost in the shuffle.....
Mike
