PWH 2006 Banner vote

[burnr]

I really should have had a chat with Ronald Sandee before the voting, to
suggest he picked out a couple of the submissions to be entered in the
contest. With 8 entries he's gonna "kill himself".

But perhaps burnr would count votes for 8,9,10 as one; and similiar for
11,12,13 and 14,15 ???

I hear what you're saying , but the intent is to pick one favored banner
and not a favored creator or style. I also like all of Ronald's, but there
needs to be only one singled out.

 

[Buzzy]

From now through the 11th, we'll accept votes for the favorite banner to be
used on the Pricelesswarehome pages. The submissions are here...

The 2 please!

Cheers,
Buzzy


--
--- Buzzy's Stall Wall ---
www.buzzys.net
"The World Wide Web's Rest Area"
Warning: This site contains MY
version of freeware! All are welcome!

 

[Vegard Krog Petersen]

I hear what you're saying , but the intent is to pick one favored banner
and not a favored creator or style. I also like all of Ronald's, but there
needs to be only one singled out.

OKIDOKEY


--
Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway

http://vegard2.no -
Solitaire MahJongg guide, Sarah Michelle Gellar Solitaire,
Freeware Logo & symbol, Halma & Chinese Checkers,
Pachisi & Ludo, Freeware Solitaire, My fishy site (fishing
games), a.c.f.g information, Fredrikshald Havfiskeklubb
18+ sites: Firefoxy, Adult Solitaire, Fishy Pictures,
Sexy Chess, Sexy Librarians, Sexy Football
---------------------------------------------------------

 

[JayJay]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:50:55 -0500, Buzzy wrote:

Number 2

 

[jimpgh2002]

From now through the 11th, we'll accept votes for the favorite banner to be
used on the Pricelesswarehome pages. The submissions are here...
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/banners/

Please vote for only one and indicate your preference using the banner's
number listed on the left side.

RSandee by far gets the "most submissions" award. All I need to do now
is figure out how to stuff a box of Twinkies through my cat.5 and send it
on through.

#2

 

[ellis_jay]

From now through the 11th, we'll accept votes for the favorite banner
to be used on the Pricelesswarehome pages. The submissions are here...
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/banners/

Please vote for only one and indicate your preference using the
banner's number listed on the left side.

RSandee by far gets the "most submissions" award. All I need to do
now is figure out how to stuff a box of Twinkies through my cat.5 and
send it on through.

number 7. Easy on da eyez and still classy.
I'm a Honda man-ride quiet and hear da boids-a-singin'!

--

Their ethics are a short summary of police ordinances: for them the
most important thing is to be a useful member of the state, and to air
their opinions in the club of an evening; they have never felt the
homesickness for something unknown and far away, nor the depths which
consists in being nothing at all. ___________Soren Kierkegaard

Ellis_jay

 

[Chris L]

From now through the 11th, we'll accept votes for the favorite banner to be
used on the Pricelesswarehome pages. The submissions are here...
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/banners/

Please vote for only one and indicate your preference using the banner's
number listed on the left side.

RSandee by far gets the "most submissions" award. All I need to do now
is figure out how to stuff a box of Twinkies through my cat.5 and send it
on through.

#11

 

[miskairal]

From now through the 11th, we'll accept votes for the favorite banner to be
used on the Pricelesswarehome pages. The submissions are here...
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/banners/

Please vote for only one and indicate your preference using the banner's
number listed on the left side.

RSandee by far gets the "most submissions" award. All I need to do now
is figure out how to stuff a box of Twinkies through my cat.5 and send it
on through.

Number 2

 

[George]

I like #2 but it doesn't say anything about freeware so I will have to go
with #10.

 

[REM]

Jeez, I like them all!

If we could rotate them we could use them all.

Otherwise, I vote for #7.

Very nice efforts all!

 

[REM]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

I eliminated 3 and 6 onwards since they read "best of the best" but
that's inaccurate since its really what the acf readers are willing
to create descriptions for and vote on which is not necessarily
equivalent to the best of the best.

Well, it is a group project. Most programs had links and we simply had
to check the info to see if anything changed. This is simply way too
much for one person to do. I think that it will go smoother next year,
now that we've passed the learning curves.

This really needs to be done on a regular basis. Programs are updated,
sometimes for the worse. The point program was PGP, which was updated
to a badly crippled version. Unnoticed, it was voted as priceless the
next year.

Perhaps a few of us can divy up and check the programs quarterly or so
to make sure there were no downward changes to the version that made
the list?

 

[man-wai chang]

15

 

[Boomer]

snip

Hi Boomer...long time no see.
Someone suggested using the same font (black chancery) as was
used on the first one..I am still not sure if it is a free font
or not. good to see your posts again btw..
granpaw

Great seeing you here too!!!!

Thanks for the info.

 

[Boomer]

Yes.

Too bad.
Thanks for the info.

 

[Boomer]

I like #2 but it doesn't say anything about freeware so I will
have to go with #10.

Why are you telling me?

 

[ggrothendieck]

Well, it is a group project. Most programs had links and we simply had
to check the info to see if anything changed. This is simply way too
much for one person to do. I think that it will go smoother next year,
now that we've passed the learning curves.

The FAQ describes the list as "freeware that the members of
this newsgroup consider to be the best available in
different categories".

Of course, the reality may be slightly different. Focusing
on the phrase "best available", note that over 90% of the
programs with descriptions were nominated and seconded and
over 90% of those had 10 or more votes and will presumably
be on the list possibly along with a selection of the rest.
Thus its really what descriptions exist that mostly
determines the makeup of the final list. The nominations
and seconding has almost no effect (in fact, I suspect if
they were eliminated the list would be exactly the same) and
the voting removes the bottom few as opposed to taking the
top few. This seems reasonable since its work to create a
description so no one is going to bother to do it if they
don't think there is a very good chance that the program in
question will get selected but it nevertheless remains a
potential quirk in selecting the best.

Consider AutoHotKey and AutoIt as examples. These are
actually derived from the same source code but the first
had a description submitted and the second did not.
Regardless of their relative merits (e.g. AutoHotKey is
open source whereas AutoIt is closed source but AutoIt
includes AutoItX for which there is no counterpart in
AutoHotKey) it would seem that if one of them is acceptable
for voting so is the other. Thus the vagaries of which programs
happen to have list participants motivated enough to promote
those programs by writing a description and possibly getting
other users to vote for it seems to be a key driving factor,
not just which is best in some ideal sense.

Of course, even if the result does not entirely reflect its
FAQ description I still find the list useful.

 

[Susan Bugher]

The FAQ describes the list as "freeware that the members of
this newsgroup consider to be the best available in
different categories".

Of course, the reality may be slightly different. Focusing
on the phrase "best available", note that over 90% of the
programs with descriptions were nominated and seconded and
over 90% of those had 10 or more votes and will presumably
be on the list possibly along with a selection of the rest.
Thus its really what descriptions exist that mostly
determines the makeup of the final list.

I think not. This year there was a requirement to *check* existing
descriptions to ensure they were up to date or create a new description
if none existed. This web page has existing descriptions of 570 programs.

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_programs.php

That includes all PL2005 programs. Many programs with existing
descriptions were not posted in the program description thread and
therefore were not elegible for nomination.

The nominations

and seconding has almost no effect (in fact, I suspect if
they were eliminated the list would be exactly the same) and
the voting removes the bottom few as opposed to taking the
top few. This seems reasonable since its work to create a
description so no one is going to bother to do it if they
don't think there is a very good chance that the program in
question will get selected but it nevertheless remains a
potential quirk in selecting the best.

Consider AutoHotKey and AutoIt as examples. These are
actually derived from the same source code but the first
had a description submitted and the second did not.
Regardless of their relative merits (e.g. AutoHotKey is
open source whereas AutoIt is closed source but AutoIt
includes AutoItX for which there is no counterpart in
AutoHotKey) it would seem that if one of them is acceptable
for voting so is the other.

Both AutoHotKey and AutoIt are on the 2005 Pricelessware List. Both
programs have existing descriptions. AutoHotKey was proposed for
nomination (IOW - it's description was posted), AutoIt was not. . .

Thus the vagaries of which programs

happen to have list participants motivated enough to promote
those programs by writing a description and possibly getting
other users to vote for it seems to be a key driving factor,
not just which is best in some ideal sense.

"Quirks" and "vageries" are an integral part of the Pricelessware
selection process. By definition Pricelessware programs require a
champion - some ACF participant to nominate them. Pricelessware programs
are not chosen by a panel of experts whose job is to create a
comprehensive list of the best apps. They are the *favorite* programs of
participants in alt.comp.freeware.

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2006/2006PL-Procedures.php

Criteria for Selection

The program should be one of the best Freeware programs available. The
Pricelessware List is a compilation of the favorite Freeware programs of
the readers of alt.comp.freeware. The goals of the Pricelessware List do
NOT include selecting programs to fit every subcategory. The programs
picked are not meant to be an exhaustive list of the best available
Freeware, but rather an answer to the often asked "which _____ is best?"
</q>

EVERY YEAR in the months that follow the selection of the Pricelessware
List an all-too-frequently asked question is "Why isn't program XXX on
the Pricelessware List?" The answer almost always is "because no one
nominated it".

That was true when the only requirement for nomination was to submit a
program name and URL, it was true when the previous year's PL apps were
grandfathered on to the nominations list, IMO that question will be
asked and the answer will be the same no matter how we proceed. . .
even if we *attempt* to list every Freeware app in existence on the ballot.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[dszady]

]

1

 

[bambam]

Please vote for only one and indicate your preference using the banner's
number listed on the left side.

I vote for #8.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

From now through the 11th, we'll accept votes for the favorite banner to be
used on the Pricelesswarehome pages. The submissions are here...
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/banners/

Can't see any. Tried Opera, Mozilla and IE.

All the best,
Bjørn Simonsen