R
REMbranded
we need more comment in this thread.
Count me in. I'll try to help on whatever is required.
Count me in. I'll try to help on whatever is required.
S
Susan Bugher
Super!
I plan to upload temporary web pages about Pricelessware and the
Pricelessware site - to help us decide what we want to do and how we're
going to do it. The threads get pretty hard to follow . . .
have been working on this today . . . stay tuned . . .
Susan
B
BillR
Susan,
A difference of opinion. When I was looking for replacement software,
comparative reviews were extremely useful, especially those that
stressed differences between the items.
Why would the effort be great? A link and supporting citation (for
when link breaks) sounds pretty simple to me. What am I missing? To
the extent that few reviews are worth including, then the effort
becomes even less.
Longer reviews would be more useful, but good ones are infrequent. I
have seen a few in local user group newsletters, but most reviews
everywhere tend to gush and rarely mention shortcomings or evaluate
alternatives. I suspect many reviews are written to justify receiving
a free copy and/or after a cursory examination of most features. Even
professionally done ones miss features/capabilities (see comments in
PC Mag link).
I found the comparative tables in the above links helpful. Neither is
great but they do provide more info than I had before. For example,
have you seen a download speed comparison recently? Or to mention an
issue raised in a different branch, a comparative table or review is
where one is likely to find a simple editor that handles large files.
We both apparently subscribe to PC Mag newsletters, but I mostly
ignore what comes and apparently so do you. Did you follow the link
to the one on antivirus packages? I found the info quite valuable. I
also subscribe to several other newsletters, but mostly ignore them.
Who has time? But that is exactly why the collection of good reviews
is useful. Collectively the group is likely to follow the links. If
a PC Mag, PC World, local newsletter, etc., review is useful, we
should include it.
A final point. I would be surprised to find that you are a typical
user of pricelessware.org. A wide variety of people visit these
pages. The least experienced may benefit the most from a simple
recommendation (here is the best). More experienced people may be
able to appreciate the comparisons. Everyone who has a specific need
may benefit from the additional information.
As far as "so negative" goes, you have contributed substantially to
the ng, especially the "grunt work" required for pricelessware.org.
Your comments are typically well reasoned and NOT ad hominem. I have
found that constructive criticism often leads to better solutions and
sometimes even agreement (sometimes!).
BillR
(Apologies in advance if minimal excerpting misrepresented anything.)
A difference of opinion. When I was looking for replacement software,
comparative reviews were extremely useful, especially those that
stressed differences between the items.
Why would the effort be great? A link and supporting citation (for
when link breaks) sounds pretty simple to me. What am I missing? To
the extent that few reviews are worth including, then the effort
becomes even less.
Longer reviews would be more useful, but good ones are infrequent. I
have seen a few in local user group newsletters, but most reviews
everywhere tend to gush and rarely mention shortcomings or evaluate
alternatives. I suspect many reviews are written to justify receiving
a free copy and/or after a cursory examination of most features. Even
professionally done ones miss features/capabilities (see comments in
PC Mag link).
I found the comparative tables in the above links helpful. Neither is
great but they do provide more info than I had before. For example,
have you seen a download speed comparison recently? Or to mention an
issue raised in a different branch, a comparative table or review is
where one is likely to find a simple editor that handles large files.
We both apparently subscribe to PC Mag newsletters, but I mostly
ignore what comes and apparently so do you. Did you follow the link
to the one on antivirus packages? I found the info quite valuable. I
also subscribe to several other newsletters, but mostly ignore them.
Who has time? But that is exactly why the collection of good reviews
is useful. Collectively the group is likely to follow the links. If
a PC Mag, PC World, local newsletter, etc., review is useful, we
should include it.
A final point. I would be surprised to find that you are a typical
user of pricelessware.org. A wide variety of people visit these
pages. The least experienced may benefit the most from a simple
recommendation (here is the best). More experienced people may be
able to appreciate the comparisons. Everyone who has a specific need
may benefit from the additional information.
As far as "so negative" goes, you have contributed substantially to
the ng, especially the "grunt work" required for pricelessware.org.
Your comments are typically well reasoned and NOT ad hominem. I have
found that constructive criticism often leads to better solutions and
sometimes even agreement (sometimes!).
BillR
(Apologies in advance if minimal excerpting misrepresented anything.)
S
Susan Bugher
I intend to upload a temporary web page organized *somewhat* like this
post - what should we do - how should we do it - Pricelessware web page
names at the end.
The web page will show the proposed course of action - to help
facilitate review and comments in this thread.
Please add comments that relate to a specific program category or
subcategory below the appropriate page name. For instance, add:
[comparison charts for file managers would be helpful] below FILE
UTILITIES.
==========
WHAT
==========
Archives - Genna intends to add earlier PL pages to the site (also
nominations pages)
Cumulative PW alphabetical list - *not* including nominations - (TBD
after the archives are available)
spam, spyware etc. links - IMO these should be reviewed and revised -
post suggested new links or comments on the value of existing links
Does anyone know where Little Girl is? Link is dead.
advice for newbies on how to search for freeware programs - add to info
page? (volunteer to write it?)
LINUX etc: link to outside web page - info on Cross OS and Win versions.
lists of freeware for a specific task - including categories that are
not on the PL
links to sites with good comparative or extended software reviews.
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.
listing similar programs with feature lists.
Ranking programs by degree of difficulty
feature comparison.
==========
HOW
==========
a wiki that concentrates on critiquing and annotating reviews.
one or more of us put up a page full of links to suggested reviews, and
have the pricelessware.org site link to that page as it does other
contributors' pages.
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 . . .
Are there enough people to make up a distinguished panel to review
programs (anyone with motive and opportunity <G>)?
An email list will work if anyone has any interest in this. A program or
two a week? Anyone who wants to install it, try it, and write a small
review?
==========
BUSINESS:
DESKTOP:
FILE UTILITIES:
GRAPHICS:
INTERNET:
MULTIMEDIA:
ORGANIZERS:
SECURITY:
SHELL:
SYSTEM UTILITIES:
TEXT:
WEB DESIGN:
========
Susan
post - what should we do - how should we do it - Pricelessware web page
names at the end.
The web page will show the proposed course of action - to help
facilitate review and comments in this thread.
Please add comments that relate to a specific program category or
subcategory below the appropriate page name. For instance, add:
[comparison charts for file managers would be helpful] below FILE
UTILITIES.
==========
WHAT
==========
Archives - Genna intends to add earlier PL pages to the site (also
nominations pages)
Cumulative PW alphabetical list - *not* including nominations - (TBD
after the archives are available)
spam, spyware etc. links - IMO these should be reviewed and revised -
post suggested new links or comments on the value of existing links
Does anyone know where Little Girl is? Link is dead.
advice for newbies on how to search for freeware programs - add to info
page? (volunteer to write it?)
LINUX etc: link to outside web page - info on Cross OS and Win versions.
lists of freeware for a specific task - including categories that are
not on the PL
links to sites with good comparative or extended software reviews.
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.
listing similar programs with feature lists.
Ranking programs by degree of difficulty
feature comparison.
==========
HOW
==========
a wiki that concentrates on critiquing and annotating reviews.
one or more of us put up a page full of links to suggested reviews, and
have the pricelessware.org site link to that page as it does other
contributors' pages.
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 . . .
Are there enough people to make up a distinguished panel to review
programs (anyone with motive and opportunity <G>)?
An email list will work if anyone has any interest in this. A program or
two a week? Anyone who wants to install it, try it, and write a small
review?
==========
BUSINESS:
DESKTOP:
FILE UTILITIES:
GRAPHICS:
INTERNET:
MULTIMEDIA:
ORGANIZERS:
SECURITY:
SHELL:
SYSTEM UTILITIES:
TEXT:
WEB DESIGN:
========
Susan
S
Susan Bugher
BillR said:
I think we have a misunderstanding - there may be useful comparative
reviews for *some* programs in *some* categories. That's a not the same
as useful reviews for *all* programs in *all* categories on the
Pricelessware List.
IMO *some* reviews would not be sufficient. We furnish the same kind of
information for all PW programs (Buzzy's links *are* am exception to
that general rule). IMO an attempt to find good comparative reviews for
*all* programs in *all* categories is doomed to failure (and it's the
links that don't exist that you spend the most time searching for).
Anyway, I think we're putting the cart before the horse . . .
IMO you need to sell the members of alt.comp.freeware on the value of
the links. Some Pricelessware nominations don't make the PL. In order to
win, programs usually need a *champion* - someone who posts about the
merits of the program and convinces others to try it. A lousy program is
not likely to win, but it's easy for a good program to lose. A good idea
won't get implemented simply because it's a good idea - it has to win
out over many other good ideas.
Why don't you start posting review links (mention the freeware
programs). That's easier than putting up a web page. Sell people on the
value of the links - then we can continue the discussion about where to
put them.
I'm hope that isn't what you *meant* to say . . . :-(
The Pricelessware List *IS* <quote>(here is the best)</quote>.
The Pricelessware Site is both by and for the members of
alt.comp.freeware. Visitors are welcome to the site but we're not so
altruistic that we put their needs first . . .
JMHO
Susan
B
BillR
Complete agreement as stated: only _some_. I never intended toSusan Bugher said:
suggest that we would find worthwhile reviews for all (have to work on
that clarity thing, sigh). Furthermore we should only list quality
reviews, not a poor review just for completeness. That said, I would
rather err slightly on the inclusive side.
Why? (Or rather "Why not?")
We furnish the same kind of information _where_available_. For
example not all authors provide a web site with detailed descriptions.
Reviews would be similar: provided if we have something. Initially
coverage would be quite spotty, but this is a work in progress.
I don't have a strong preference yet for the exact presentation
format. If you and others feel strongly that reviews should not be
referenced for individual programs in the main PL pages, OK. I think
visitors, ng lurkers, and intermittent ng participants would still
benefit if this information appeared on a linked supplemental page or
at the bottom of each detailed page.
We could even combine approaches. In addition to segregated/separate
supplemental information: add a review (if one is available) in the PL
description if the author does not provide detailed examples; or only
if the review is developed by this ng; or ....
I absolutely agree that we will not find everything we would like.
Let's _not_ make a huge project of attempting to find a review for
every program. Let's just include those we do find as we go. If
someone is willing to do targeted searches (either of a topic area or
of a particular site) we'll take advantage of that. Otherwise we take
what we find in the normal course of business.
This type of effort will always be "incomplete" unless we undertake
our own comprehensive reviews. I hope we get a few of those, but I
think it is unrealistic to expect the group to develop -- and then
maintain -- a comprehensive set initially. We may eventually get
there, especially if we focus the effort on a table of features, but I
suspect that is at best a couple of years into the future.
I'm working on it. Perhaps a more articulate champion will step
forward. (Please!)
I will post what I find, but I hope several others will as well. Many
of you are far more knowledgeable than I.
Uhmmm, probably not given your reaction, although I don't see my error
yet. (Susan, try rereading with expectation that any "aspersions"
cast in your direction are favorable/respectful? Or am I just too
serious and therefore missed the huge bulge in your cheek made by your
tongue?)
Your posts often raise the level of discussion. I'd have to look hard
to find posts that lower it. (Somewhat like looking for those last
few reviews to achieve 100% coverage.) If nothing else, participants
in this ng are unlikely to be typical visitors because participants
follow the ng. >
<Snip>
BillR
B
BillR
Simon said:
Good point, although I tend to prefer "concise comprehensiveness" (to
borrow a phrase).
Which "these 'additions'"? There have been so many that I got lost.
I'm guessing from the "quite a bit of work" that you mean developing
unique ACF reviews.
I propose that we initially keep things simple: a minimally annotated
list of worthwhile reviews. This could be a worthwhile
work-in-progress by the end of the year.
<Snip>
I share that belief.
I see three general types of ACF and 3rd party reviews: individual
programs, two or three programs, limited survey of an area (possibly
primarily a features table). With some examples, the ng can decide on
general guidelines and whether "some sooner" is better than "all
later" or none.
Let's start small with supplemental briefly annotated links to 3rd
party reviews for the forthcoming PL. In the meanwhile, those so
motivated could develop some sample ACF reviews.
BillR
S
Susan Bugher
BillR said:
To me it reads as if you are missing the point of the Pricelessware list
.. . .
you said:
The least experienced may benefit the most from a simple
recommendation (here is the best).
I replied:
I'm hope that isn't what you *meant* to say . . . :-(
The Pricelessware List *IS* <quote>(here is the best)</quote>.
and I'll add:
what part of:
</quote>
The best of the best in Windows © Freeware, as determined by the readers
of alt.comp.freeware
</quote>
don't you understand?
Susan
S
Susan Bugher
Simon said:
and IMO that ain't going to happen soon . . .
We need a group consensus before adding more content to the
Pricelessware site but that is only *one* of the requirements.
Many people contribute to the newsgroup on a regular basis by posting
information and comments. Some of them have jobs, other interests,
hobbies, web sites, IOW some of these people have lives . . .
Creating new content for the Pricelessware web site is not their number
one priority . . .
and FYI - any addition that requires a substantial additional effort on
my part is NOT going to happen. I *used* to have a life . . .
A list of desirable new content is just a wish list . . .
The next step is *much* harder. Someone has to do the work.
IOW - I agree with your comment.
Susan
S
Susan Bugher
Below is a little list to get you started:
not organized by type - some hex editors in there . . .
Susan
=================
Bifocal Notepad
CodePad (dual pane)
CWordPad
Delphad
Editor2
EditPad Lite
EmEditor 1.27
Emojic
Jext
LCARS Editor (Star Trek)
MDI Pad
MetaPad
MS - Wordpad
NoteKeeper 0.4
Notemaid
NotesBrowser
Pfe
Prolix
Shalom Txt
Side by Side
Stratuspad
TEXT ANALYSER
TextShield
The Gun
TheGun & Win32Pad
TxtEdit
Win32Pad
Winsyntax
Ywriter
eWriter
TextMorph
gbText
AbiWord
Atlantis Nova
Crypt Edit
Jarte
RoughDraft
Word Tabs
Wordsworth & XpertWord
Desktop Writer
Nerdpad
A.X.E.
Frhed
Hexview
XVI32
ConText
emacs
Scite
Syn
vim
Crimson Editor
Jedit
NotesPad
NoteTab Light
S
Simon
<B I G snip>
whew!!! lucky for REMbranded this is only a test!!
rather than reviewing all these (or any) apps, what about a comparative
table of features???
Should be considerably easier to set up and maintain (quickly??) and we
could gauge the groups reaction/support.
perhaps we could also pick a better category than text editors though(sorry
Rembranded, no disrespect), something that may be of broader interest to
the group (graphics apps, CD writing app's, browsers, and email clients
seem to generate a lot of inqiries/comment).
S
whew!!! lucky for REMbranded this is only a test!!
rather than reviewing all these (or any) apps, what about a comparative
table of features???
Should be considerably easier to set up and maintain (quickly??) and we
could gauge the groups reaction/support.
perhaps we could also pick a better category than text editors though(sorry
Rembranded, no disrespect), something that may be of broader interest to
the group (graphics apps, CD writing app's, browsers, and email clients
seem to generate a lot of inqiries/comment).
S
J
John Fitzsimons
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:39:12 -0400, Susan Bugher
< snip >
Let's see. 300+ programs on the PL list ? Reviewed at one a week ?
Six years later the job is done ? What about the new releases during
this six year exercise of yours ?
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 >
Let's see. 300+ programs on the PL list ? Reviewed at one a week ?
Six years later the job is done ? What about the new releases during
this six year exercise of yours ?
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/
J
John Fitzsimons
< snip >
If it is so simple then just get the reviews from this newsgroup.
The *unique* URLs mentioned in this newsgroup over the last few years
numbers in the tens of thousands. Posts are in the region of 70k per
year. Be sure to check each link and post thoroughly. Let us know when
you finish.
As more than 95% of people are probably not interested in writing
reviews for you and/or don't have time to you might have to do some
yourself. After you have done as per the first paragraph of course.
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/
R
REMbranded
Below is a little list to get you started:
Well don't hold back, give it to me straight Susan <G>.
I appreciate your list and I'll do what I can do. As BillR said
looking at this in terms of a long term project is good. If I drop off
I hope someone else will take it on as a hobby.
As to whether or not it merits linkage, we'll see from the suggestions
and critisms, or from the lack of them or objections to the thought. I
think I can spend some time in this area happily in checking them out.
R
REMbranded
Knock yourself out! Any category is great. I like text though and I'll
concentrate in that.
Whatever your interest, can you write an interesting review in a
section of PW?
S
Simon
</snip>
well, I could write something, whether or not it would be interesting is
another question <g>
Actually I had been considering this, but was unsure as to whether I was in
fact qualified for the task (in the even that I do, there will no doubt be
many who will share my misgivings).
I will give it some serious thought, if for no other reason than to maybe
get the ball rolling....
R
REMbranded
Haha. I can see that it might be a long term project for sure.
I think this most definitely will be good. I think I can put them in a
spreadsheet and make a table into html.
Very true. It is going to be dynamic, as new are added and newer
versions of existing are released.
I'm not much on graphics and my cd-writer is on thec fritz. Browsers
might be a nice place to start.
R
REMbranded
I'll bet someone will find it interesting if it is informative.
Anyone is qualified to give an opinion. Or a list of facts about a
program.
Sounds like a bowling alley! <G>
B
BillR
Simon said:
Go Go Go (chant from the stands)
BillR
B
BillR
John F.,
I really must work on that clarity thing. _I_ merely suggested a
minimally annotated list of 3rd party reviews (i.e., already
available) added as we encounter them. I and others would benefit
from new ACF reviews, however (as I have argued previously) new ACF
reviews for all subcategories would such a large undertaking that it
is impractical for this ng to do and maintain.
As for getting reviews from this ng, the number one source before all
others is pricelessware.org followed by a google ACF search. The
"unique" URLs _I_ mentioned was in the context of 3rd party/non-ACF
reviews. I only dabble periodically in this group and I do not have
great recall, but I can only remember one such citation. I am quite
sure there are not dozens "in the last few years," much less "tens of
thousands."
In the spirit of your reply: John F., please review the thread before
you misquote me.
In a kinder(?) spirit: John F., you misinterpreted me in the evolving
context of this thread. I suspect that one of our largest differences
on this issue is that I would have said "100% of people are not
interested in writing reviews for [me]" and 99% for anyone.
Fortunately that still leaves a few who may contribute a useful review
or matrix for the public good (and their own personal satisfaction),
but that is more than I suggested.
Regards,
BillR
PS for the anti-top-post zealots - I thought about where to place my
reply. Before automatically zinging me, please do me the same
courtesy: think.
----------
I really must work on that clarity thing. _I_ merely suggested a
minimally annotated list of 3rd party reviews (i.e., already
available) added as we encounter them. I and others would benefit
from new ACF reviews, however (as I have argued previously) new ACF
reviews for all subcategories would such a large undertaking that it
is impractical for this ng to do and maintain.
As for getting reviews from this ng, the number one source before all
others is pricelessware.org followed by a google ACF search. The
"unique" URLs _I_ mentioned was in the context of 3rd party/non-ACF
reviews. I only dabble periodically in this group and I do not have
great recall, but I can only remember one such citation. I am quite
sure there are not dozens "in the last few years," much less "tens of
thousands."
In the spirit of your reply: John F., please review the thread before
you misquote me.
In a kinder(?) spirit: John F., you misinterpreted me in the evolving
context of this thread. I suspect that one of our largest differences
on this issue is that I would have said "100% of people are not
interested in writing reviews for [me]" and 99% for anyone.
Fortunately that still leaves a few who may contribute a useful review
or matrix for the public good (and their own personal satisfaction),
but that is more than I suggested.
Regards,
BillR
PS for the anti-top-post zealots - I thought about where to place my
reply. Before automatically zinging me, please do me the same
courtesy: think.
----------