[PL] Touting NOMINATIONS

[Jim Scott]

The new round of 'touted' nominations of programs that did not make the
grade puzzles me. If people could not be bothered to vote in the first
round why should they be given a second chance?
Just because someones favorite didn't make the grade does not mean that we
can all have a second go to keep them happy.
GWB would approve. Polls close, but I lost, so go round and find people who
didn't vote and let them vote tomorrow.

This is not how it's supposed to work. Is it?

 

[Susan Bugher]

The new round of 'touted' nominations of programs that did not make the
grade puzzles me.

This is not how it's supposed to work. Is it?

Wink and Free Download Manager were not nominated for PL2005. When
programs are overlooked, this discussion gives us a last chance to
propose their addition to the PL.

AFAIK the addition of programs during final discussion has always been
allowed. The purpose of that provision is to ensure we have the best
possible selections for the PL.

Susan

 

[BarryTone]

The new round of 'touted' nominations of programs that did not make the
grade puzzles me. If people could not be bothered to vote in the first

Did you vote for a program that you had not heard of or knew anything about?

This is the case with some of the programs that were nominated and did
not receive a lot of votes. I think some extra justification is needed
to show why an application belongs on the PW site.

 

[BarryTone]

The purpose of that provision is to ensure we have the best
possible selections for the PL.

Bingo!

 

[Aaron]

Wink and Free Download Manager were not nominated for PL2005. When
programs are overlooked, this discussion gives us a last chance to
propose their addition to the PL.

AFAIK the addition of programs during final discussion has always been
allowed. The purpose of that provision is to ensure we have the best
possible selections for the PL.

Hmm could you provide details (if possible) on how many entries were
admitted into pricelessware using this backdoor method in prior years?
Seems to me , there is a lot this year, while I don't recall any such
entry last year.

I would prefer to minimise the number of entries that get in this way,
since it would make a mockery of the whole pricelessware voting process.

If I were cynical, I would even say it's easier for a new app to get in
this way rather than via the traditional method, since it's easy for
something new to get lost in the masses during the earlier stages.

Also, now that all your favourites are already inducted into
pricelessware it's easier to be generous and allow others as well. I know
this isn't logical since you don't have any limit to the votes you can
cast, but there you go...

 

[REM]

Aaron <[email protected]> wrote:

Hmm could you provide details (if possible) on how many entries were
admitted into pricelessware using this backdoor method in prior years?
Seems to me , there is a lot this year, while I don't recall any such
entry last year.

I would prefer to minimise the number of entries that get in this way,
since it would make a mockery of the whole pricelessware voting process.

If I were cynical, I would even say it's easier for a new app to get in
this way rather than via the traditional method, since it's easy for
something new to get lost in the masses during the earlier stages.

Also, now that all your favourites are already inducted into
pricelessware it's easier to be generous and allow others as well. I know
this isn't logical since you don't have any limit to the votes you can
cast, but there you go...

The main thing is that the best of the best be nominated and
hopefully, included. Would it be more a mockery to turn great apps
away because they were offered late? Or, that great apps which fall a
couple of votes shy of the arbitrary number required to make the list
not be included?

I haven't used any of those mentioned, but I trust the people who
wondered after the fact why they weren't included that they are great
apps. I have no problems in kicking things around before the 2005 dust
settles. As you point out, it is tough to keep track of everything
while nominations and such are in full swing.

Your last paragraph is unclear. "your" and "you" refers to who?
Everyone casts a vote once for each program they think should be
listed, right? I hope this is the case anyway.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Hmm could you provide details (if possible) on how many entries were
admitted into pricelessware using this backdoor method in prior years?

I don't have a list of such programs - a Google search will give you the
info. "Backdoor" method is a misnomer - it's done openly by discussion
in a [PL] thread.

Susan