ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Community :: Surveys :: Should ticalc.org continue to retroactively feature older programs in the archives?
Results
Choice Votes   Percent
Yes, but don't include them in POTY voting 12 32.4%   
Yes, and include them in POTY voting alongside recent programs as was done this year 10 27.0%   
Yes, but they should have a separate voting category from the programs released during the year 13 35.1%   
Yes, but it should be handled in some other way 0 0.0%   
No, features and POTY should be reserved only for new programs 2 5.4%   

Survey posted 2010-12-30 10:34 by Travis.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

  Reply to this item

Re: Should ticalc.org continue to retroactively feature older programs in the archives?
Kevin Ouellet Account Info
(Web Page)

I think it should remain the way it is, unless there are A LOT of retro-active features in one year (in which case the programs should be separated). I think ticalc.org should continue retro-active features because otherwise, some great programs get missed, even when ticalc.org is e-mailed for feature suggestions, or the staff is busy, so it would be unfair for those programs.

Reply to this comment    31 December 2010, 02:57 GMT

Re: Should ticalc.org continue to retroactively feature older programs in the archives?
Michael Ride Account Info

I think they should be featured, but have a different category for the POTY voting. For example, xLib was a great program when it came out, but it has been overshadowed. It might have gotten the POTY award if it was featured the year it was released.

Reply to this comment    31 December 2010, 19:26 GMT

Re: Should ticalc.org continue to retroactively feature older programs in the archives?
AJLitzau13  Account Info

I think you should continue to feature old programs, as there is some old stuff that was overlooked at the time it was released. However, having old programs compete with new ones for POTY takes the meaning out of "Program OF THE YEAR". I think it would have been pretty strange for xLib, released in 2007, to be the 2010 program of the year, don't you think? It's also kind of unfair for new programs to have to compete against older programs which were only featured because of the random whim of a ticalc.org staff member. If there are going to be old programs included in a poll, then there needs to be a better way of determining which programs to include, because this year, it was just like "Oh, remember that one program? It was never featured! Let's go ahead and treat it as if it was brand new!", which seems kind of strange to me.

Reply to this comment    2 January 2011, 06:58 GMT

Re: Re: Should ticalc.org continue to retroactively feature older programs in the archives?
Kevin Ouellet Account Info
(Web Page)

xLIB APP actually came out in 2005. The last update was in 2007.

Reply to this comment    2 January 2011, 07:19 GMT


Re: Re: Should ticalc.org continue to retroactively feature older programs in the archives?
nyall Account Info
(Web Page)

> ... older programs which were only featured because of the random whim of a ticalc.org staff member.

Aren't new programs featured on random whims as well ?

Reply to this comment    3 January 2011, 00:37 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Should ticalc.org continue to retroactively feature older programs in the archives?
AJLitzau13  Account Info

Not exactly, because new programs are featured on the basis that they are new and have some high quality/merit to them. Who determines which programs are good enough to be featured is another question...

Reply to this comment    3 January 2011, 03:58 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Should ticalc.org continue to retroactively feature older programs in the archives?
Duncan Smith Account Info
(Web Page)

Are you saying that ticalc.org staff are without merit? :(

Reply to this comment    8 January 2011, 23:41 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should ticalc.org continue to retroactively feature older programs in the archives?
AJLitzau13  Account Info

No...not at all. My comment was about the system used to determine if a program should be featured. I was just pointing out that what one person considers good enough to feature may not be what another person considers good enough. In ticalc.org's case, the final decision is ultimately made by the opinions of a small group of people (the ticalc.org staff), which inevitably brings a little randomness into the feature system.

Reply to this comment    9 January 2011, 05:23 GMT

Voter turnout and statistical significance?
nyall Account Info
(Web Page)

I'm wondering whats the point of POTY when the the largest category (ti83) only gets about 100 votes. Much worse is that the 68k category only got 49 votes.

Also, the ti81 category got 60 votes but I'd be surprised if even 10 of them were done by people who owned that calc. Granted that this year you probably didn't need to own it to vote, because it was apparent what should win, but what about next year?

Just to be really opinionated: the POTY concept always seemed like bored ticalc staff slapping a contest onto something that never needed it. We should be happy that people spend hundreds of hours making great programs for us to use for free. Trying to decide which one is the best is silly.

Reply to this comment    3 January 2011, 00:51 GMT

  Copyright © 1996-2009, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer