S
Susan Bugher
Simon said:
Hi Simon,
Thanks for clarifying that. What do you think should be done? Should
there be a links page (if yes, where)? I read back up the thread but got
cross-eyed trying to follow the discussion.
Susan
Hi Simon,
Thanks for clarifying that. What do you think should be done? Should
there be a links page (if yes, where)? I read back up the thread but got
cross-eyed trying to follow the discussion.
Susan
R
REMbranded
I've thought of some way to make recommendations available from the
people who have them here in acf.
The way threads evolve makes it difficult. It seems a message board
might work, but they aren't all that popular. The OT posts can be
deleted, but vigorous participation in on-topic posts will be lacking.
I was thinking that PW might have a list of programs and the number of
thumbs up and thumbs downs a program gets and maybe link to the
on-topic archived discussion about it from the people interested
enough to install and test drive it.
Another idea is listing similar programs with feature lists.
For instance, EditPad Lite opens, searches and replaces large text
files, but wordwrap is about the only other feature it has. It doesn't
sort, spell check, etc.
Hopefully someone will discover another program that will open large
files, wordwrap, spell check, search and replace and sort, etc.
With a heads up comparison, the user can identify the requirements,
look at the file sizes (and recommendations maybe) and select the one
best suited for a single job, or for a permanent program.
I dunno. I'll have much more free time to help out however I can in
two weeks though.
Are there enough people to make up a distinguished panel to review
programs (anyone with motive and opportunity <G>)? Cross OS and Win
versions could be interesting.
Is anyone interested in concentrating on simple discovery of better
programs than are currently known?
If a panel were assembled it would be very easy to give the thumbs up
and down and a coherent discussion about a particular program. It's
simply observation and personal preferences in many cases, but I
imagine this is true for most comparisons.
D
dszady
The paragraph above was what I was thinking before you posted
Also the list from the year(s) before has come in very handy.
<snip>
</snip>
B
Boomer
[snip]
I like the above idea.
Thanks, REMbranded.
S
Susan Bugher
What a lot of good ideas.
I think some advice on how to search for freeware programs would be a
nice addition to the site.
Ranking programs by degree of difficulty would be useful too - could be
part of your suggested feature comparison.
I like your panel of experts idea . . .
Susan
R
REMbranded
An email list will work if anyone has any interest in this. I'll give
it a go. A program or two a week? Anyone who wants to install it, try
it, and write a small review?
The qualifications:
You have access to the internet.
You will install and try a program for a week or so.
You will write your opinion.
It need not get get overly complicated. Someone might try to spoof it
though and a moderator might be best. I suggest Geena, since I'm
safely out of striking distance. She might not have the time. She has
invented PW though and isn't currently active here. That's a pretty
neutral authority. Should she pass... guess what Susan? Should Susan
pass... guess what you (whoever you are).
S
Simon
Hi Simon,
Thanks for clarifying that. What do you think should be done? Should
there be a links page (if yes, where)? I read back up the thread but
got cross-eyed trying to follow the discussion.
Susan
Susan
Not much that I could add to the excellent discussion and ideas that appear
later in this thread (just glad to see that I'm not the only one).
S
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
further out of her striking distance.
Gad. I thought the Laws of Usenet would not force me to make
mistakes when correcting a mistake as long as I was just trying to
be helpful, but it looks like I was mistaken.
R
REMbranded
Es ok. I'm from Texas and my spelling and grammer is bad prety.
I enjoy mistakes tactfully pointed out. Otherwise ignorance is the
best I can strive for.
S
Susan Bugher
Last I heard Genna hopes to be more active soon . . .
so don't be to sure about being out of striking distance.
I like the idea of experts who do the moderation . . .
Reviews and comments by anyone who wants to post, experts to bring order
out of chaos by editing posts and/or preparing new material for the
Pricelessware site . . .
the details are a bit hazy as yet . . .
Susan
J
John Fitzsimons
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:15:01 GMT, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
< snip >
If a program does something a previous program doesn't then it should
be nominated.
IMO there have been two main reasons for the PL list being a bit of a
mess here :
(1) Not automatically nominating all previous items from the previous
year. This re-inventing of the wheel is tedious and unnecessary IMO.
Nominations should only be for additions/deletions to the existing
list. As soon as nominations start the FIRST POST should include a
link to the alphabetical 2003 listing. Hopefully people will check
that first before nominating anything.
(2) Program votes being split due to some programs being able to be
put in multiple categories.
The solution is to find the most popular programs THEN put them into
categories.
That doesn't mean that people cannot say "I nominate xyz for the
graphics category". It only means that the second part of that comment
is ignored until "xyz" has the minimum required votes. Eg.
xyz 15 votes
abx 14 votes
hjy 12 votes
jut 10 votes.
THEN put the above into categories. Stop adding to a category when it
already has two-three items in it.
Regards, John.
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/
< snip >
If a program does something a previous program doesn't then it should
be nominated.
IMO there have been two main reasons for the PL list being a bit of a
mess here :
(1) Not automatically nominating all previous items from the previous
year. This re-inventing of the wheel is tedious and unnecessary IMO.
Nominations should only be for additions/deletions to the existing
list. As soon as nominations start the FIRST POST should include a
link to the alphabetical 2003 listing. Hopefully people will check
that first before nominating anything.
(2) Program votes being split due to some programs being able to be
put in multiple categories.
The solution is to find the most popular programs THEN put them into
categories.
That doesn't mean that people cannot say "I nominate xyz for the
graphics category". It only means that the second part of that comment
is ignored until "xyz" has the minimum required votes. Eg.
xyz 15 votes
abx 14 votes
hjy 12 votes
jut 10 votes.
THEN put the above into categories. Stop adding to a category when it
already has two-three items in it.
Regards, John.
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/
S
Susan Bugher
John said:
Hello John,
I just responded to your post in the [PL] 2004 edition thread and
commented on most of the items mentioned here. Can we move further
discussion about nominations and voting to that thread?
Susan
R
REMbranded
The editor category might need expanding. EditPad Lite is the only one
I've found so far that will open, search/replace, and allow editing to
large files. I stopped at 118 megs. Aside from this feat, it's a
pretty bare editor.
Crypt Edit, NoteTab Lite and others make for better choices of
permanent, or default text editors.
Quincy or Programmers File Editor might be preferred for writing code.
It's been a long time, but I think both are still freeware and both
have linkers and compilers. The editors included are better for
writing code though, highlighting tokens and such.
That is all I can think of at the moment, but I'll bet there are other
special cases in the editor department. I haven't tried any of the
*nix editors that have been ported to Windows yet.
BK ReplaceEm compliments all, although for small files most editors
have an adequate search and replace. BK is faster and far more
powerful than most though and is good to have in the toolbox.
Text Editors: Heavy Duty, Feature Rich, Programming?
Something similar to the above?
I suggest adding the number of registry entries for each program that
makes the PW page also.
S
Susan Bugher
I don't think that's always true. I agree with REMbranded's suggestion.
Pricelessware is *the best of the best*. It is not a comprehensive
listing of all useful programs.
Adding new pages to the PL site would give us a place to put information
about specialized programs that are not and should not be Pricelessware.
Yes! I think that would be very helpful.
Susan
Pricelessware is *the best of the best*. It is not a comprehensive
listing of all useful programs.
Adding new pages to the PL site would give us a place to put information
about specialized programs that are not and should not be Pricelessware.
Yes! I think that would be very helpful.
Susan
B
BillR
Susan,
s-o-r-r-y <cringe> <g>
Constructive comments for the ng below.
BillR
So, better a link/reference to a page of annotated links that can be
maintained separately (and potentially by more than one person). If
the link is a full reference where possible, then even if the link
breaks an interested person could easily find it. Here are two quite
different examples and additional commentary. I'll continue a
different branch for other alternatives for where this type of
information should be collected.
Magazine review, "mixed-ware" Example - I recently read a PC Mag
article that reviewed several download managers (including Star, Fresh
Download, and several commercial programs not infrequently mentioned
in this ng such as Flashget, ReGet, GetRight, and DAP). Strictly as a
trial balloon:
----------
Cat: Internet
SubC: Download Managers
Item: Star Downloader and Fresh Download
Link: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1094855,00.asp
Cite: "Download Managers" by Neil J. Rubenking, (US) PC Magazine,
June 17, 2003
Lang: English
Note: Includes general DLM feature discussion, overall editor rating,
brief reviews of each DLM (two freeware and several commercial), and
features comparison chart (look for "scorecard results")
----------
Please be specific in your comments. For example:
-- Should never reference articles that also reference non-freeware on
PL.org
-- Fine if on a member site, but no comparative links or reviews on
PL.org (including Buzzy's), even if on a separate page.
-- Must include a non-freeware disclaimer.
-- Poor citation format. Recommend _____.
-- Each item should be on a separate line.
-- Useful to see the date of publication.
-- Should include the freeware version(s) reviewed.
-- Should only include comparative reviews if at least one item is PL.
Complex site, some identified adware/spyware/etc - I previously
mentioned the comparison charts in several entries at fabulous
freeware. For consistency, I'll float another trial balloon for
download managers, although this one is even more fragile (i.e.,
"rough" except a rough balloon?).
Home: http://fabfree.av-services.net/index.html
----------
Cat: Internet
SubC: Download Managers
Item: Star Downloader, LeechGet, FreshDownload, NetAnts (adware),
Download Accelerator Plus (adware)
Link: http://fabfree.av-services.net/download.html
Cite: fabulous freeware -- Internet -- Downloads
Lang: English
Note: Mostly 1-2 line reviews; editor's pick; and features table.
arrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh
s-o-r-r-y <cringe> <g>
Constructive comments for the ng below.
BillR
Susan Bugher said:There have been many ACF posts mentioning how helpful Buzzy's reviews
are. The decision to include the links to Buzzy's site in the PL
descriptions was mine alone - it was not discussed (comments welcome
now).
I have had some cause to regret my decision as it adds to the difficulty
of keeping the PL current. Add more review links?
arrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh
So, better a link/reference to a page of annotated links that can be
maintained separately (and potentially by more than one person). If
the link is a full reference where possible, then even if the link
breaks an interested person could easily find it. Here are two quite
different examples and additional commentary. I'll continue a
different branch for other alternatives for where this type of
information should be collected.
Magazine review, "mixed-ware" Example - I recently read a PC Mag
article that reviewed several download managers (including Star, Fresh
Download, and several commercial programs not infrequently mentioned
in this ng such as Flashget, ReGet, GetRight, and DAP). Strictly as a
trial balloon:
----------
Cat: Internet
SubC: Download Managers
Item: Star Downloader and Fresh Download
Link: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1094855,00.asp
Cite: "Download Managers" by Neil J. Rubenking, (US) PC Magazine,
June 17, 2003
Lang: English
Note: Includes general DLM feature discussion, overall editor rating,
brief reviews of each DLM (two freeware and several commercial), and
features comparison chart (look for "scorecard results")
----------
Please be specific in your comments. For example:
-- Should never reference articles that also reference non-freeware on
PL.org
-- Fine if on a member site, but no comparative links or reviews on
PL.org (including Buzzy's), even if on a separate page.
-- Must include a non-freeware disclaimer.
-- Poor citation format. Recommend _____.
-- Each item should be on a separate line.
-- Useful to see the date of publication.
-- Should include the freeware version(s) reviewed.
-- Should only include comparative reviews if at least one item is PL.
Complex site, some identified adware/spyware/etc - I previously
mentioned the comparison charts in several entries at fabulous
freeware. For consistency, I'll float another trial balloon for
download managers, although this one is even more fragile (i.e.,
"rough" except a rough balloon?).
Home: http://fabfree.av-services.net/index.html
----------
Cat: Internet
SubC: Download Managers
Item: Star Downloader, LeechGet, FreshDownload, NetAnts (adware),
Download Accelerator Plus (adware)
Link: http://fabfree.av-services.net/download.html
Cite: fabulous freeware -- Internet -- Downloads
Lang: English
Note: Mostly 1-2 line reviews; editor's pick; and features table.
B
BillR
»Q« said:
<Snip>
Wasn't the first and won't be the last time I'm misquoted.
Unfortunately I'm more often less than clear. (And I didn't even have
to work on that paragraph <g>.)
I can see why you and others are concerned with maintaining the list
as the best-of-the-best as voted. As an infrequent contributor and
intermittent lurker, I would find some changes and additional
information useful. To look ahead, others also feel that more could
be done (although not in complete agreement with me by any means).
Among others:
Simon: "a valuable resource for both comparative info and an
'objective' opinion".
Susan Burgher: "IMO the Pricelessware site could use more content. In
general, I think anything that helps people find freeware to suit
their needs is potential content for the site."
Bill
B
BillR
I like the idea of experts who do the moderation . . .
Reviews and comments by anyone who wants to post, experts to bring order
out of chaos by editing posts and/or preparing new material for the
Pricelessware site . . .
the details are a bit hazy as yet . . .
Susan
I would love to see the result of something like this. The ng would
have to commit to substantial and ongoing work to achieve it. This
volunteer, somewhat anonymous, definitely contentious, and ever
changing group would be more likely to succeed if we start with a
smaller project that can be expanded later.
Collecting reviews already performed by others is much less ambitious.
I personally would prefer a lightly moderated approach, whether a
wiki or something else, that concentrated on critiquing and annotating
reviews. As such, it might be more likely to be sustained.
Those willing to add reviews, or critique the reviews cited, would be
supported, but we would not be committing the ng to a comprehensive
and frequently revised set of reviews. If the group does eventually
develop a comprehensive set of independent reviews, then the non-ng
reviews would support the efforts of the moderators and reviewers and
also would provide additional supporting material for visitors.
BillR
S
Susan Bugher
John said:I suggest a new category such as "Text Editors for large file sizes".
It would be a worthwhile category IMO.
"Large" might need to be defined eg. > 25MB.
Hello John,
Very worthwhile indeed . . .
but perhaps only to an extremely small select group . . .
Do you have a program to nominate . . .
or are you still looking?
Susan
S
Susan Bugher
BillR said:
s'alright
To expand on this a bit . . .
IMO good reviews are likely to be few and far between. At the present
time there are 338 programs on the Pricelessware list. It's a mixed bag
- old and new. We have off-site links to program descriptions for *most*
Pricelessware programs. In some cases we have been unable to find a
description to link to.
IMO review links would not be a good addition to the Pricelessware
program pages. The benefits would be limited - the effort required would
be great.
I went, I saw, I'm underwhelmed.
One link was old news - I receive notification of PCMag reviews directly
via email. FWIW - I've almost given up on PCMag - once in a great while
I'll follow the link - then I wonder why I bothered . . .
IMO links to longer reviews would be more useful.
Sorry to be so negative . . .
Susan
S
Susan Bugher
I do not anticipate a large cadre of volunteers with unlimited free time
on their hands and a burning desire to make program reviews their number
one priority.
OTOH if a project is worth doing people will help - to the extent that
they can. Earlier this year volunteers helped collect the program
information that you see on the Pricelessware 2004 web pages.
Information and reviews are already being posted to ACF. If volunteers
review and assemble this information - and/or create new content as
needed - it could be posted on the Pricelessware site. (I think we might
see more review posts in ACF if the we undertake this project.)
Volunteers would not have to know how to code web pages - I could do
that . . .
The pages could be uploaded *unofficially* for review and comment before
becoming a part of the official web site. I think that might be all the
review that's needed . . .
as I see it, before anything can happen . . .
we need topics of interest to the group . . .
we need volunteers to work on the topics . . .
and . . .
we need more comment in this thread.
Susan