On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 03:37:20 -0400, Susan Bugher
<whoisebugher@yahoo.com> wrote Re Re: Top 10 Reasons for not
submitting a PL Program Description:

That's because they know what you are just learning: there is no such
thing as "free". Someone always has to pay the cost of providing a
benefit. In this group it's the software author plus people such as
yourself willing to do some work.

This group by it's nature attracts mostly people looking for a
free-lunch. Not everyone here is like that, but a lot (IMO most) are.
If they can't stand the sight of a square inch of static advertising
banner sullying their screen how much work, sweat and effort do you
think they will contribute?

All good options. Now let me ask you this. You've been here for a long
time. Which option do you think will actually play out?

FWIW, you're one of the very rare selfless hero's in the world, the
kind of people who give of themselves because it's a righteous thing
to do. The rest of the world is not like that. If it was, it would be
a lot nicer.

Caesar Romano <SPAM@UCE.GOV> wrote in
news:r8csk1t71uujtgajb81bqa4dk0sdjvsfvp@4ax.com:

I agree Caesar. I admire Susan for the many, many hours of work she
contributes for the sake of the PL. I personally would not do that in
the face of the personal attacks and constant bickering. Even though it
is only a few people...who needs the aggravation? I don't for sure. My
life is already full of it.

My participation in this group has been driven down to practically
nothing due to all of the childish whining and personal attacks on
others. I realize it's only a few and that the vast majority of
participants here are mature, caring souls. I suppose I'm not
understanding enough to accept the "mix". The few "bad apples" ruin it
for me.

--
burnr
http://freeware4u.com
A member of The Freeware Revolution

Caesar Romano <SPAM@UCE.GOV> wrote in
news:r8csk1t71uujtgajb81bqa4dk0sdjvsfvp@4ax.com:

And you are an ignorant, blind man who doesn't know shit.

--
Mike
It may look to you like nothing much to be
But you should see the way it feels to me.
- David Wilcox, "You Should See The Way It Feels"

Caesar Romano wrote:

dunno. . .

1. Stay with the existing procedures.

The Pricelessware List would probably be shorter than PL2005 (there
might be significant omissions). 350-400 programs were nominated last
year, a little over 200 were selected. To date approz. 200 programs are
on the eligible for nomination list for PL2006.

Comments: If the PL is going to have program descriptions someone has to
prepare them. I'm not willing to do all the work. The group as a whole
has been demonstrating a great unwillingness to assist. Until that
changes this this does not look like a long term solution - it's still a
viable option this year.

2. Revise the procedure to allow *abbreviated* descriptions (the items
of information that are shown on the ACF program info pages). All other
rules/procedure would remain the same. The Pricelessware List would be
shown on one web page - similar to the ACF program info pages.

Comments: Threads about "my favorite programs" are usually pretty
popular. IMO a Pricelessware List without the detailed descriptions is a
viable proposition.

3. Someone else volunteers to prepare the PL
4. The list is retired.


If anyone has a preference for 1. or 2. please post your comments. These
are the *only* options I'm interested in discussing.

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

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:51:51 -0400, Susan Bugher
<whoisebugher@yahoo.com> wrote:


I vote for simplified descriptions - once a programme is voted
pricelessware, why not then have detailed descriptions, reviews etc -
I think Henk de Jong and others have sites which review programmes in
detail - if we vote something as pricelessware, then we can use them
(with permission)

This would return your work to counting votes - a good move ?

Susan Bugher wrote:
Seems to me that doing what is being done seems to work just fine

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

We've discussed this before, but it vaporized.

The best solution is to have people actively checking programs for
changes in versions, keeping the descriptions updated, pointing out
bad changes and noting the last good versions, checking URLs, etc.

This should be done quarterly or so. It looks like this should begin
3-4 weeks previous to the nomination phase. This should leave the past
year's list updated and provide a solid starting point for the present
list.

Count me in.

Nice thought. Henk stated that he was stepping down awhile back
though. He was looking for someone to take over his site. I haven't
heard how that came out yet.

The bulk of the preparation work should be done by volunteers
beforehand, allowing Susan to coordinate and assimilate the
information offered imo.

It might be good to begin a bit earlier in order to free up the
holiday season for all.

Susan Bugher wrote:
2 - if it will keep Susan at the helm :-) :-) :-)

Kind regards from vegard

OK, I've been sitting back and letting this discussion play out for a while.
To date, noone has yet mentioned the reason why I havn't been a more active
participant, and why I would vote for Susan's Option #1 (Keep procedures the
same and let this be a small year for the PW list): The current procedure
confuses the heck out of me! The last time I was semi-active in this group -
shortly before a forced change of ISP and a back injury and a whole lot of
other things that aren't relevant - I tried to figure them out and just got
myself tangled in knots. The time before that that I was involved, Son Of
Spy was the central figure in the group, and there was no such thing as a PW
list.

So I decided to just sit back and watch how it worked so that I could
participate while knowing what I was doing when the next PW list rolled
around.

The second major reason was that the whole PW list debate this time around
came at a time when I was already overcommitted. Knowing now that next year
I can expect to be nominating in September-October, I can keep a bit of time
free for it.

The third major reason was that I find a lot of the discussions to be
nitpicking and pedantic, especially the "this is not freeware"
conversations. While there are times when it's a valid question, the
question seems to get in the way as often as not, with people rehashing
arguements that they have presented before multiple times over and over
again. I wish that people would stop preaching on their soapboxes and accept
that not only do some people not agree with an ultra-pedantic definition of
"Freeware" but that there's room in both this group and the PW list for
those people's opinion. I'm referring specifically to the adware/freeware
debate here.
Is program "x" (eg Irfanview) freeware or not? Nominate it and let the
voting decide - consider "It's not Freeware" a legitimate reason not to vote
for it. Simply include the facts in the description, as has been done, and
get on with it.
Of course, that won't always work - but that's why we have introduced
the option of objecting to the nomination. And of course, spyware is always
a good reason for excluding a program.

When I first came across this group, there was a real sense of community, of
people gathering round to help people find solutions to their problems.
Somewhere along the line, a lot of that seems to have been lost, though it
resurfaces from time to time, for example in the recent thread about being
able to copy-and-paste content from a PDF. Somewhere along the line, a
number of the participants seem to have lost a lot of their patience and
tolerance toward other people, and it's a shame. The first time I
participated here I didn't have to killfile anyone except the occasional
spammer. Times have changed....

Sorry to have been so long-winded, but I felt it necessary to get a few
things off my chest. Susan, you have my support 100%, and my appreciation
for the job you do.

Mike

Vegard Krog Petersen wrote:
I'm still here The options are a reality check. . .

George *isn't* going to check/revise the program descriptions for you,
not now, not later. . . neither is Susan. . .

If *you* don't do *your* program's description chances are good it won't
be on the nominations list. IOW - we won't have the best slate of
candidate programs.

We don't need to have detailed programs descriptions to have a
Pricelessware list. It might be better to omit them in the future.

What am *I* willing to do? That's the decision everybody needs to make.

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

Susan Bugher wrote in <434eba6f_3@newsfeed.slurp.net>:

Assuming a higher percentage of the programs on the "eligible for
nominations list" will be nominated and finally selected this year
compared to last year. Then if 150 of the 200 makes it, well then 75
percent made it, compared to last year only 57 percent (200 out of
350) or 50 percent (200 out of 400) made it to the list. Not bad if
so, or?

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

Mike Bourke wrote:

I like this idea.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:29:03 +1000, miskairal <mehiding@Oz> wrote:

ditto

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:15:38 GMT, "Mike Bourke"
<mbou3355@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

< snip >

Good points Mike. I mostly agree with the thrust of your comments.

Regards, John.

--
************************************************** **
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:41:27 +0100, Alastair Smeaton
<smeaton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

< snip >

< snip >

That gets my vote. :-)

Regards, John.

Bjorn Simonsen wrote:

I think we have a *very* good list of contenders.

but. . . The answer to "Why isn't so and so program on the
Pricelessware List?" has almost always been "because it wan't nominated".

I'm hoping some of the more *conspicuous* absences will at least be
given a chance - else we may see that question a lot more in the coming
months. . .

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