»Q« said:
(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in
No, that is /not/ the point of the Pricelessware pages. The fact some
idea or another is a good and useful one does not mean that it would be
good to add it to the mission of the Pricelessware pages. I'm all for
extensive comparative reviews, but imo, they should not be hosted by
nor linked to from the Pricelessware list.
First, Q (and Blinky later) misconstrue "the point" in my comment. I
should have been clearer.
Blinky previously said: "In casual chatter in here, we often see
"[such-and-so] has it", but I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to
formally sanction mixed-software sites at the pricelessware.org home."
The suggestion is that Pricelessware.org be extended in some form to
include particularly good comparative evaluations -- not links to
sites that have both freeware and shareware. The link may
coincidentally be to such a site (that archives software -- freeware,
shareware, or both), but it would more probably be to a commercial
magazine review, a blog, or a personal site. The primary requirement
would be a good comparative review that evaluates at least one
freeware product, or a detailed review of a single freeware product.
A site that contains numerous reviews might be mentioned several times
or once with a general comment on its relevant content.
Second, the manner of providing the references is wide open. So far a
few people have suggested that they do not want to follow the current
example wherein Buzzy's reviews are referenced (or perhaps the
objection is to referencing any site that discusses anything other
than freeware as defined by the purists in this group). Fine. Let's
put a link at the top of each category page to a review page and list
reviews by category or subcategory.
Third, not everyone precisely agrees upon what should be considered in
this newsgroup (reference various discussions often evolving into
flaming). Similarly, not everyone precisely agrees on what should be
included on the Pricelessware.org _site_. The list itself is clearly
the outcome of a vote, but the site is already more than just that.
It appears to be the web site presence of the ACF ng. It has links to
the unofficial FAQs, member sites, etc.
Fourth, I believe that not all evaluations will be freeware versus
freeware. I think that is all to the good since it will hightlight
both the advantages and shortcomings of any given program. If the
group has a particular problem with a site where we are referencing a
review, we can include an explict exception for that site (e.g., "note
that some programs cited as freeware are spyware" or "xxxx is spyware,
not freeware").
Please note that the suggestion was to recommend reviews, not
necessarily or even usually sites, and certainly not sites as a whole.
BillR
