[PL] Trial for new Voting Procedures

[REMbranded]

This is a trial run to see if a new voting procedure can be easily
understood by all. Please take part to see if the procedure can be
successful. Below are a list of "program types" and a list of
"programs" on which to vote.

Special Instructions:
If you use a program type, leave it in even if you do not vote for a
program of that type. Vote for a program by not deleting it.

LEAVE ONLY THE PROGRAM TYPES THAT YOU USE OR HAVE USED.
Remove all program types that you do not use or have not used.
----------------------
ArchiveUtility
DesktopManager
MultimediaCodecTool
BackupTool
RegistryEditor
TextEditor
PDFTool
EmailChecker
FileRenamer
WebDesignLogoMaker
PacketSniffer
Calculator
Astronomy
ProgrammingTextEditor
UnixShell
WebBrowser
BrowserTool
TimeSynchronizer
CDTool
WebContentFilter
FileAttributesTool

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

I don't use any of the programs, so I can't really vote for any.

 

[Dewey Edwards]

Disagree. Over half the votes for OE - quotefix were made by a
newsreader other than OE.

Dialog - 1
Agent - 6
Gravity - 2
Mozilla - 1
XNews - 2
Unknown - 1 (discounted - also voted for everything)

OE - 9

Can't prove it, but I doubt that few if any of the 12 above regularly
use OE.

< snip >

I guess differently. Why vote for a program you don't use ? That
doesn't make much sense to me.

I guess we have 12 people in the group who consider it priceless not
to see broken sigs.

Regards,

Dewey

 

[jason]

Disagree. Over half the votes for OE - quotefix were made by a
newsreader other than OE.

Dialog - 1
Agent - 6
Gravity - 2
Mozilla - 1
XNews - 2
Unknown - 1 (discounted - also voted for everything)

OE - 9

Can't prove it, but I doubt that few if any of the 12 above regularly
use OE.

They might use it at work?

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

Dewey Edwards wrote in

Disagree. Over half the votes for OE - quotefix were made by a
newsreader other than OE.

You may disagree of course, but the example you provide only proves
there are least *some* people here that vote based on their knowledge,
although not always based on what they them selves use. I my self
voted for Quotefix, although I never used it (nor OE, which I did not
vote for). Guess why I voted as I did? No, not because my testosterone
told me I would "appear smarter" if I did <g>. Simply because I have
been in the receiving end of broken OE messages for years - and I am
tired of it.

My initial guess, about (some voter will pretend to know more than
they do through their "voting behavior" stands though, and that this
could bias the votes either towards the "very popular" and/or the
"very geeky" stuff for that matter. In other words - that some folks
will vote for stuff they never tried them selves, but having noticed
the "important" people here have given the programs very favorable
mention. So when voting, if asked - have you tried it, what do they
reply? And more so when the formula votes/users becomes apparent. But
on the other hand - as long as only about a 100 people out the 6000 or
more that have used this group this year votes, I guess this is
nothing to worry about. I mean, I guess we can assume some general
knowledge among the remaining and for the most part very active
electorate, that they will vote based on what they know (but also -
including what is "PC" and Popular - to some extent. If not - their
not human - but just an extension of their computer <g> )

Anyway, I'm off now - vacation time. Best wishes to all.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

I guess we have 12 people in the group who consider it priceless not
to see broken sigs.

On the other hand (and I'm making the assumption here that OE-quotefix
works/is useful in the email side of OE) it could be that these 12 use
OE for email and something different for news.

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

Laziness will ensure that everyone will NOT do that.



A solution ? As below ;

PLEASE PLACE "YES" BESIDE THE PROGRAMS YOU WANT. PUT
NOTHING BESIDE THE PROGRAMS YOU HAVEN'T USED AND
THOSE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR.

EG.

If laziness ensures people won't cut lines, what makes you think
they'll actually type YES on a line?

Personally, I find the former easier.

 

[Dewey Edwards]

On the other hand (and I'm making the assumption here that OE-quotefix
works/is useful in the email side of OE) it could be that these 12 use
OE for email and something different for news.

Possibly a few, but I really doubt many. My observation is moot
anyway. I don't expect any explanation from anyone so voting. None
is needed.

 

[jason]

Dewey Edwards wrote::

Possibly a few, but I really doubt many. My observation is moot
anyway. I don't expect any explanation from anyone so voting. None
is needed.

Your observation is not moot, I'd say it's important. This trial assumes
people are voting for programs they currently use, but that may not be
the case. For example, both this year and last, I voted for
programs/program categories I'm no longer using. I voted for system tray
utilities I no longer use since I'm trying to cut down on my use of
resources. But I still consider the programs "Pricelessware", so I voted
for them.

The same goes for a program like QuoteFix. The voters may have once used
OE, then switched. They may still consider OE priceless. So I don't
think these kinds of observations are irrelevant. It may help explain
some voting anomalies we might otherwise attribute to the voter
misunderstanding of the procedure.

 

[Ninou]

Le Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:53:41 GMT, Spacey Spade

This is a trial run to see if a new voting procedure can be easily
understood by all. Please take part to see if the procedure can be
successful. Below are a list of "program types" and a list of
"programs" on which to vote.

Special Instructions:
If you use a program type, leave it in even if you do not vote for a
program of that type. Vote for a program by not deleting it.

LEAVE ONLY THE PROGRAM TYPES THAT YOU USE OR HAVE USED.
Remove all program types that you do not use or have not used.
----------------------
ArchiveUtility
DesktopManager
MultimediaCodecTool
BackupTool
RegistryEditor
TextEditor
PDFTool
EmailChecker
FileRenamer
WebDesignLogoMaker
ProgrammingTextEditor
WebBrowser
BrowserTool
TimeSynchronizer
CDTool
WebContentFilter
FileAttributesTool

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

ExtractNow-ArchiveUtility


PDFCreator-PDFTool
YahooPOPs-EmailChecker
PopTray-EmailChecker
FontMagic-WebDesignLogoMaker
Ethereal-PacketSniffer
ESBCalc-Calculator
CartesduCiel-SkyCharts-Astronomy
PSPad-ProgrammingTextEditor
CrazyBrowser-WebBrowser
ePrompter-EmailChecker
LupasRename-Lupas2000-FileRenamer
IE5PowerTweaksWebAccessories-BrowserTool
Dimension4-TimeSynchronizer
Burnatonce-CDTool
AttributeChanger-FileAttributesTool

 

[Susan Bugher]

Dewey Edwards wrote::




Your observation is not moot, I'd say it's important. This trial assumes
people are voting for programs they currently use, but that may not be
the case. For example, both this year and last, I voted for
programs/program categories I'm no longer using. I voted for system tray
utilities I no longer use since I'm trying to cut down on my use of
resources. But I still consider the programs "Pricelessware", so I voted
for them.

The same goes for a program like QuoteFix. The voters may have once used
OE, then switched. They may still consider OE priceless. So I don't
think these kinds of observations are irrelevant. It may help explain
some voting anomalies we might otherwise attribute to the voter
misunderstanding of the procedure.

FWIW at least one of the *nominations* was by someone who no longer uses
the program and is not familiar with the current version:

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

 

[dszady]

Dewey Edwards wrote::

[...]
FWIW at least one of the *nominations* was by someone who no
longer uses the program and is not familiar with the current
version:

What if the best version is not the current. KPF, just for an example,
- which I don't use - seems to get a lot of heat for their current
version. The PL list has the best version, in the view of a lot of
people.

If the nominator writes the description and the "seconder" approves the
current which goes on the list? The old stable standby or the Piece of
Crap nominated one? It seems like various versions have been put out
since the stable version.

Or is that part of the discussion period to determine such and have the
original nominator change the desc?

I guess, in other words, were we voting for the current or the former?

[...]

 

[jason]

dszady wroe:

What if the best version is not the current. KPF, just for an example,
- which I don't use - seems to get a lot of heat for their current
version. The PL list has the best version, in the view of a lot of
people.

If the nominator writes the description and the "seconder" approves the
current which goes on the list? The old stable standby or the Piece of
Crap nominated one? It seems like various versions have been put out
since the stable version.

Or is that part of the discussion period to determine such and have the
original nominator change the desc?

I guess, in other words, were we voting for the current or the former?

That brings up the further issue of people voting for whatever version
they're familiar with, regardless of whether it's the version nominated.
I think many of us are guilty of that. We find a program, like it, and
never bother to upgrade. We vote based on the old version we are familiar
with.

Sticking to the theme of firewalls, I'm guilty of the egregious sin of
voting for ZA based on a very early version (which I am still using). I
realized this at the time of the vote, but you can't go through a huge
thought process for every single item on the ballot. The bottom line for
me was: I liked the look & feel and performance of ZA... i.e. my own
version of ZA...and I figured it couldn't have changed all THAT much. So
I gave it my vote. That could be a very false assumption...but what are
we to do? Download the latest versions of 25 programs just so we can
cast an accurate vote?

 

[Susan Bugher]

dszady wroe:


That brings up the further issue of people voting for whatever version
they're familiar with, regardless of whether it's the version nominated.
I think many of us are guilty of that. We find a program, like it, and
never bother to upgrade. We vote based on the old version we are familiar
with.

Sticking to the theme of firewalls, I'm guilty of the egregious sin of
voting for ZA based on a very early version (which I am still using). I
realized this at the time of the vote, but you can't go through a huge
thought process for every single item on the ballot. The bottom line for
me was: I liked the look & feel and performance of ZA... i.e. my own
version of ZA...and I figured it couldn't have changed all THAT much. So
I gave it my vote. That could be a very false assumption...but what are
we to do? Download the latest versions of 25 programs just so we can
cast an accurate vote?

SuperNews is screwing up - just copied this from another server - arghhh

IMO this just helps point out some of the inadequacies of the voting
system. It's a rough guide at best - IMO a good guide when a program
receives a lot of votes and has a fair number of competitors - not so
good for low vote programs, especially the ones with no competition. FTP
programs have been mentioned several times - apparently one of the good
ones wasn't nominated (good at least in the opinion of the person who
posted about it). IMO low vote programs haven't been evaluated by enough
people to form a good basis for judgement: might be a great program,
might not.

I'm out of here until the posting situation improves at my end. . .

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]

Fitzsimons wrote:

If laziness ensures people won't cut lines, what makes you think
they'll actually type YES on a line?

If they are too lazy to type YES then that's fine. At least they
aren't voting for everything, or programs they haven't used.

If someone is too lazy to type YES then I would not be in a hurry to
accept that they might have extensively tested/compared a particular
program/utility.

Regards, John.

 

[jason]

jason wrote:

IMO this just helps point out some of the inadequacies of the voting
system. It's a rough guide at best - IMO a good guide when a program
receives a lot of votes and has a fair number of competitors - not so
good for low vote programs, especially the ones with no competition.

Good point. We've been looking at the low votes...3,4,5 and 6...as being
"perfect" votes, when in fact, only half may be truly valid. All the more
reason to lean toward the high end when considering the niche votes.

 

[Barnie]

dszady wroe:


That brings up the further issue of people voting for whatever version
they're familiar with, regardless of whether it's the version nominated.
I think many of us are guilty of that. We find a program, like it, and
never bother to upgrade. We vote based on the old version we are familiar
with.

Sticking to the theme of firewalls, I'm guilty of the egregious sin of
voting for ZA based on a very early version (which I am still using). I
realized this at the time of the vote, but you can't go through a huge
thought process for every single item on the ballot. The bottom line for
me was: I liked the look & feel and performance of ZA... i.e. my own
version of ZA...and I figured it couldn't have changed all THAT much. So
I gave it my vote. That could be a very false assumption...but what are
we to do? Download the latest versions of 25 programs just so we can
cast an accurate vote?

I would think, that if you are not using said version
and haven't even tried it you either should do so or simply not vote for
it. Why would you vote for something you don't use? This talk of voting
for something because I "did use it and it was ok" is silly isn't it. If
you aren't still using it then you are either using something else
(which is the program you shud vote for) or no longer need it at all. I
don't think you get a very good result voting on past use only. I know
there are some who vote that way as indicated by some of the other
responses and don't agree with it.
Just my opinion, I'm not flaming you over this.
GoodTime Barnie

 

[jason]

Barnie wrote:

I would think, that if you are not using said version
and haven't even tried it you either should do so or simply not vote
for it. Why would you vote for something you don't use?

I think the first part is unrealistic. Very few people would vote based on
that. I mean, how many of us have the very latest update for all our
programs? I think you have to assume most people are going to be several
versions behind. While the PW nom may be for the *latest* version.

 

[dszady]

Barnie wrote:



I think the first part is unrealistic. Very few people would vote
based on that. I mean, how many of us have the very latest update
for all our programs? I think you have to assume most people are
going to be several versions behind. While the PW nom may be for
the *latest* version.

I think that's where a good description comes in. We very well could be
using or have recently (see - "Freeware Junkie) used the program
nominated and not be cogizant of the fact that the nominator never
mentions there is a newer one out there and the version
nominated is an older or newer one.
I'm not sure if this made sense or not but I'm trying.

 

[DAN]

Special Instructions:
If you use a program type, leave it in even if you do not vote for a
program of that type. Vote for a program by not deleting it.
----------------------
ArchiveUtility
DesktopManager
MultimediaCodecTool
PDFTool
EmailChecker
FileRenamer
Calculator
WebBrowser
BrowserTool
TimeSynchronizer
CDTool
WebContentFilter

 

[Susan Bugher]

What if the best version is not the current. KPF, just for an example,
- which I don't use - seems to get a lot of heat for their current
version. The PL list has the best version, in the view of a lot of
people.

If the nominator writes the description and the "seconder" approves the
current which goes on the list? The old stable standby or the Piece of
Crap nominated one? It seems like various versions have been put out
since the stable version.

Or is that part of the discussion period to determine such and have the
original nominator change the desc?

Just off the top of my head - Kerio Personal Firewall, Mailwasher,
Popcorn and Graph Paper Printer had verson issues this year. They were
all *carryover* nominations (did not have a nominator). ISTM the
discussion period is the logical time to resolve version issues - before
the voting - so we *know* what we're voting for.

I guess, in other words, were we voting for the current or the former?

*Usually* it's for the current version - which is updated throughout the
year => a little crystal ball gazing when you vote

The only other standard procedure for PL updates/changes is for
shareware - remove the program.

There were some changes to Liteware this year. Those were discussed in
the newsgroup. ISTM that last *uncrippled* version could be made a
*standard* PL procedure too . . .

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