Priclessware site is pathetic!

[Atomhrt]

I nominate this post for most ill-tempered attempt at a ludicrously
obvious troll using an anonymising service (2004).

You should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe!

 

[Susan Bugher]

Even if the votes are not in the main part of the PL site
it would be interesting to see the votes added as a new
column in the program list table on this page:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2004/PL2004ProgramIndex.php

so that one could sort it by votes to see which are the
extreme vote getters or sort it by category to see the
distribution of votes within category. Perhaps in some
categories the first one listed (i.e. highest vote attractor)
has a lot more votes than any of the others whereas in other
categories perhaps its much closer.

Alternately (or in addition), perhaps a table, augmented
with a vote column, could be provided either on the site or
in a posting to acf in some common format, such as .csv,
so people can do their own analysis.

The PL2005 nominations page is where the vote counts will be shown. The
page can be saved for future reference (the vote count columns were
removed from the PL2004 nominations page after the PL selection process
was complete).

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/2005PL-Nominations.php

Susan

 

[Nicolaas Hawkins]

You should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe!

Was they kickin him in de po, then?

--
Regards,
Nicolaas.


- One often gets much more than one asks for, not all of it necessarily
good.

 

[Mister Charlie]

You should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe!

 

[Mike Henley]

Pricelessware site is pathetic, and I do vote every year, and I'm
disappointed every year, no more, I'm not voting anymore! unless they fix
this problem!

Your public skills are pathetic!

Anyhow, the site is wonderful and I commend those who put in the
effort to make and maintain it.
I have found it quite useful and serves its function pretty well. As
far as i know, it's function is *not* a freeware popularity contest,
but freeware recommendations. I'd rather have recommendations and
options rather than follow the pack/herd to what everyone else is
using.

 

[Glenn]

stan said 12 and 112, but in either case, the app with over 100 votes
would be on the list and the comparable one with twelve would not.

I'm sure it was obvious to *most* people I was just throwing out numbers to
illustrate an idea as opposed real numbers.

Glenn

 

[Phred]

I dunno so much, there could never be a valid reason for listing, eg,
Sygate over Kerio. And there is no such thing as a 'best' text editor.
I work on the assumption that inclusion on the list is good enough in
itself. I reckon the list would lose credibility if it were restricted
to one app per category.

Yeah. You really need to know *why* people voted they way they did.
It could be a simple as the OS they are using (that would certainly
apply to security apps I imagine) or what they use the software for.
(For example, lawyers would undoubtedly vote for the most obfuscatory
word processors. ;-)


Cheers, Phred.

 

[Frank Bohan]

It might be a bit forceful ie: snippy, but it is a valid question. As
stated, if one gets 12 votes and another gets 200 votes, it would be nice
information to know to help in the choosing process.

Glenn

I'm not sure that I like the idea of grading the programs -- if they are on
Pricelessware they are well worth trying!
If voting is displayed this should be as a percentage. To say a program got
12 votes is meaningless. Is it 12 out of 13 or 12 out of 500? In any case
there is nothing to prevent the same person voting for two or more programs
in the same category.

===

Frank Bohan
¶ Lawyers are the larval stage of politicians.

 

[Frank Bohan]

It might be a bit forceful ie: snippy, but it is a valid question. As
stated, if one gets 12 votes and another gets 200 votes, it would be nice
information to know to help in the choosing process.

Glenn

I'm not sure that I like the idea of grading the programs -- if they are on
Pricelessware they are well worth trying!
If voting is displayed this should be as a percentage. To say a program got
12 votes is meaningless. Is it 12 out of 13 or 12 out of 500? In any case
there is nothing to prevent the same person voting for two or more programs
in the same category.

===

Frank Bohan
¶ Lawyers are the larval stage of politicians.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I'm sure it was obvious to *most* people I was just throwing out
numbers to illustrate an idea as opposed real numbers.

Your numbers obscure your point. If there is a large difference int
the number of votes, both apps don't make the list. The contrapositive
is that if both apps do make the list, there is not a large difference
in their vote counts, and in this case the slight margin is not
significant when choosing an app.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of grading the programs -- if
they are on Pricelessware they are well worth trying!

I agree, Frank.

 

[Glenn]

Your numbers obscure your point. If there is a large difference int
the number of votes, both apps don't make the list. The contrapositive
is that if both apps do make the list, there is not a large difference
in their vote counts, and in this case the slight margin is not
significant when choosing an app.

I yield already. The argument is getting silly and this will do it for me.

As I said *most* people understand.

Glenn

 

[stan]

I agree, Frank.

So you both deliberately want to make it more difficult for
people to choose freeware? those are the facts , think about it..
and then admit the facts!

regards
stan

 

[Frank Bohan]

I agree, Frank.

So you both deliberately want to make it more difficult for
people to choose freeware? those are the facts , think about it..
and then admit the facts!

regards
stan

I presume that your reasoning would lead logically to everyone choosing the
*best* of everything, wearing the identical *best* clothes, watching the
identical *best" TV and films, choosing the identical *best* hobbies etc
etc. The trouble is, unless there is a choice, it is impossible to decide
which is best, and we would all think exactly alike. Long live 1984!!! <g>

===

Frank Bohan
¶ Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.

 

[Leo R.]

stan <[email protected]> wrote in message

Your public skills are pathetic!

Anyhow, the site is wonderful and I commend those who put in the
effort to make and maintain it.
I have found it quite useful and serves its function pretty well. As
far as i know, it's function is *not* a freeware popularity contest,
but freeware recommendations. I'd rather have recommendations and
options rather than follow the pack/herd to what everyone else is
using.

And I second that. I get most of my freeware from the Pricelessware site
and find it very good. A vote of thanks to Susan and the team. :~)
Leo R.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of grading the programs -- if they are on
Pricelessware they are well worth trying!

Agree. And if grading is introduced (by showing vote count next to
each app) - it will also affect the voting behavior of participants
here. For example, with the current procedure, I am likely to nominate
and vote for both Pegasus Mail and Foxmail. But if grading is
introduced, I will either be forced to vote for only one app in each
category (in my example I would choose Pegasus) - or alternatively we
will have to introduce a vote with ranking of applications in each
category (in my example my vote would be 1-Pegasus Mail, 2-Foxmail).
Think about the work involved! But say we do. Well then another
consequence is that it will not be possible later (after the vote)
for Susan and us to move any application from one category/subcategory
to another presumably more appropriate and "telling"
category/subcategory on the web site. Another "side effect" might be
that someone (like me) will demand that the current nomination is
started over again, for the above stated reasons.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[stan]

Agree. And if grading is introduced (by showing vote count next to
each app) - it will also affect the voting behavior of participants
here. For example, with the current procedure, I am likely to nominate
and vote for both Pegasus Mail and Foxmail. But if grading is
introduced, I will either be forced to vote for only one app in each
category (in my example I would choose Pegasus) - or alternatively we
will have to introduce a vote with ranking of applications in each
category (in my example my vote would be 1-Pegasus Mail, 2-Foxmail).
Think about the work involved! But say we do. Well then another
consequence is that it will not be possible later (after the vote)
for Susan and us to move any application from one category/subcategory
to another presumably more appropriate and "telling"
category/subcategory on the web site. Another "side effect" might be
that someone (like me) will demand that the current nomination is
started over again, for the above stated reasons.

hello Bjorn

yes I have seen people who vote for "example" 3 firewalls,

if you think this is ok , then everyone must vote this way! because if
they dont! the results get contaminated! because there are many people
currently using another method, they only vote for the top firewall,

if you "MIX" both methods like whats happening RIGHT NOW!
the vote results are contaminated and INVALID!
thats another issue thats needs urgent addressing. (and there are more)

I'm trying to be 100% logical here, I hope you understand..

adding the vote count does not limit choices!
it provides more informative choices! (the reason I vote)

regards
stan

 

[Glenn]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of grading the programs -- if they are on
Pricelessware they are well worth trying!
If voting is displayed this should be as a percentage. To say a program got
12 votes is meaningless. Is it 12 out of 13 or 12 out of 500? In any case
there is nothing to prevent the same person voting for two or more programs
in the same category.

===

Frank Bohan
¶ Lawyers are the larval stage of politicians. (I like that!!)

Most of us dumber people will try only one program. If it works at all, we
use it. That's just the nature of us dumb folks.

If one version makes it to the list and we try and use that but another
version is much better as the vote would seem to indicate (if known) why
would you be against letting us know about it? Maybe it has a lot of
features we would like if we were steered that way.

I do believe there should be a choice. One may have a feature we want that
the other one may not have but chances are the most popular one has the
features we want. Percentage would be fine however 75 out of 100 will do as
well. Even we dumb folks can figure that out.

Glenn

 

[REM]

"Glenn" <[email protected]> wrote:

Most of us dumber people will try only one program. If it works at all, we
use it. That's just the nature of us dumb folks.

If one version makes it to the list and we try and use that but another
version is much better as the vote would seem to indicate (if known) why
would you be against letting us know about it? Maybe it has a lot of
features we would like if we were steered that way.

I do believe there should be a choice. One may have a feature we want that
the other one may not have but chances are the most popular one has the
features we want. Percentage would be fine however 75 out of 100 will do as
well. Even we dumb folks can figure that out.

Speaking for myself, once I see a program clinched that I would
recommend for the list, I don't vote. To me, it only complicates the
vote counting process. I know Kerio 2.1.5 will stand, so normally I
would not muck up the process to vote for it again. If the program
were in peril of being replaced by another, then I would vote.

Maybe it's just me, but the process is pretty complicated and the
fewer posts, the easier to tally the best programs. Susan will shortly
be inundated with posts of all kinds, late nominations, as I sent
awhile ago, discussions, debates (possibly flames), votes, late votes
coming in, etc.

The fact I love Kerio and have never used other freeware firewalls
does not necessarily mean Kerio is the best. I simply know Kerio 2.1.5
is good for me. The fact I don't vote because I know it's clinched
does not mean the other firewalls are better, by the same logic.


I'm sure any volunteer help will be greatly appreciated! If you think
this is important, start a vote thread. I'll vote and I will change
the way I vote (or don't vote) if the majority prefer to have vote
stats listed with the programs.

That is, copy\paste the entire nomination list and delete all programs
that I do not use, or know to be buggy? I can do that. It just hasn't
been an important deal before.

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

yes I have seen people who vote for "example" 3 firewalls,

if you think this is ok , then everyone must vote this way! because if
they dont! the results get contaminated! because there are many people
currently using another method, they only vote for the top firewall,

There can't be a restriction, IMHO. To follow your example: Maybe one
firewall is best for Win9x while another works better with Win2k. Or
maybe one is specialized in blocking incoming traffic while another
allows good rules for inside->out data flow (= restrict programs from
net resources.)

Other sub-categories enclose tools which are even more different by far!

So I think everybody should vote for *any* program (s)he thinks worth.
There can not be a weigh out of programs 'against' each other, but only
an act to honor the best.

Besides: You'll very seldom find programs with an *identic* range of
functions. ;-)

BeAr