ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: The Quality of Our Archives

The Quality of Our Archives
Posted by Michael on 4 March 2004, 22:29 GMT

You may have noticed the low numbers of new files added to our archives. We're having a debate about what to do with a growing problem: Programs that simply aren't very useful to anyone. There are more quadratic solvers in our archives than should ever exist, notwithstanding the fact that most models have this as a built-in feature. Our possible solutions are:

Currently, all files that meet the site policies are processed and uploaded to our archives. Since this doesn't seem to be working well, here are the ideas under consideration:

  • The file archivers could manually screen programs for those deemed "junk", in the sense that they lower the signal-to-noise ratio of our archives rather than increase it. Authors would have to e-mail an appeal for rejected programs. This would cause a longer waiting time for processing files.
  • We could implement a rating system and organize programs by rating. This allows all programs to remain on the site, but the most useless could be filtered out. A method of dealing with new programs and low/high numbers of votes would have to be developed.
  • Our current folder system stops at games, programs, math, et cetera. For ease of browsing, this could be expanded to sub-categories like games/board, games/shooter, and games/guessthenumber. This doesn't limit the number of files added, it only categorizes them so folders are more concise and relevant.
  • Lastly, we could just leave everything as it is now.

We're asking for your input on what to do. There is a survey posted in conjunction with this article where you can vote on this issue. Thank you.

Update (Archiver): We will not be deleting files (at least not this time around), that was never one of the options. If you do want some of your programs deleted e-mail filearchive@ticalc.org.

  Reply to this article


The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.


Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Daniel DeGraaf  Account Info

Survey - where?

I like 1 and 2: perhaps implement both? Updated files would not have to be re-screened

Reply to this comment    4 March 2004, 22:36 GMT


Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Michael Vincent  Account Info
(Web Page)

The survey isn't up yet. It will be when the survey editor comes online.

Reply to this comment    4 March 2004, 22:50 GMT


Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

Yeah sorry about that, I forgot I had to go to work. It's up now, if that's any conselation?

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 11:51 GMT

Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Andy Kukwa Account Info

I have noticed that. There are a lot of pointless math programs, as well as tons of demos that were never completed, that should be deleted also. I have also noticed that there have been few file updates lately: I've been waiting about 2 weeks for some Mario levelsets I've made to get online.

Reply to this comment    4 March 2004, 22:37 GMT

Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Lewk  Account Info

I've been waiting for 2 weeks too. But be warned, there are about 200 files waiting to be uploaded so it may take a while. :(

Reply to this comment    4 March 2004, 23:36 GMT


Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Joey Gannon  Account Info
(Web Page)

The sooner we come up with a plan, the sooner Morgan and I can take care of it. Keep in mind that Morgan and I processed 1278 files in seven days... it can be done. :-D

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 00:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Lewk  Account Info

If you give an infinite number of mokeys typewritters and give them an infinite amount of time they will produce the entire shakespearian collection.

I like the idea of reorganizing but lets not waste all our time trying to save time.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 04:32 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Lewk  Account Info

I hope you didn't think I was calling you a monkey, I was just saying, of course it can be done.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 04:34 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Travis Evans  Account Info

If you have an infinite number of computer programs running on a multi-tasking system with a really fast CPU generating a random sequence of ASCII characters, it might produce the entire Shakespearian collection in an even less infinite amount of time. ;)

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 14:03 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
PlaidPhantom Account Info

But it's still infinite...

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 19:23 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
KermMartian Account Info
(Web Page)

No, it's finite. If you consider that there's x number of characters in all of WS's works, and there are 70 possible characters (letters (u&l), numbers, and punctuation), then there are only 70^x possibilities, and one of them is 100% correct.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 20:10 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Lewk  Account Info

But you must have in infinite amount of time because it may repeat itself.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 22:50 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
molybdenum  Account Info

yes, a random sequence, not a list of sequences read until the good one comes out...

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 01:13 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
jrock7286  Account Info

but with an infinite number of programs running, at least one of them HAS to write it correctly the first time (if it is truely random) and thus it would be done in a few minutes (depending on processor speed)

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 05:27 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Justin McKinley Account Info

The only problem is which one did it...

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 14:19 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Lewk Account Info

With an infinite number of prossesors it would take an infinite amount of time to process the prossesors data and match it to the shakespearean collection.

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 17:22 GMT


Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Travis Evans  Account Info

That's an idea... they could separate programs into demo and finished versions. That would save a lot of people's time.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 14:05 GMT


Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
PlaidPhantom Account Info

Demos could have an expiration date, after which they would be removed.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 19:24 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
miscellaneousprogrammer  Account Info

and demos could have a seperate folder...

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 20:20 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
BlackThunder  Account Info
(Web Page)

Problem is, some demos are worth downloading, whether or not they're done.

Reply to this comment    6 March 2004, 00:47 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Joey Gannon  Account Info
(Web Page)

...like Super Alien Strike, for instance. *points at link above*

Reply to this comment    6 March 2004, 04:33 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Lewk  Account Info

Darn it! I have a 83+

Reply to this comment    6 March 2004, 05:14 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Ben Cherry  Account Info
(Web Page)

wow, that game looks awesome. I mustve overlooked it 100 times. Thanks for pointing it out.

Also, if a demo is up as "[game]demo.zip" and then the game was finished and uploaded as simply "[game].zip" then the demo should be deleted. Same goes for updates that have different file names. The only exception is expansions or sequels.

Reply to this comment    6 March 2004, 05:49 GMT

ยค
burntfuse  Account Info

Yes.

Reply to this comment    6 March 2004, 15:13 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Joey Gannon  Account Info
(Web Page)

It is our policy to remove such files, but we sometimes (often?) overlook them. Send an e-mail off to filearchive@ticalc.org detailing the problem, even if it isn't your file, and we'll take care of it.

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 04:54 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Ben Cherry  Account Info
(Web Page)

I know ive seen files like that more than once, but i dont remember what files. If i find them ill send an email.

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 04:57 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
molybdenum  Account Info

Egad! an 89, HW2, OS 2.09, PreOS 0.67. Like so many other programs, it gives me "invalid relocation data in ASM program," which often causes the need for a complete calc restart. Any idea how to fix this?

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 03:56 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
BlackThunder  Account Info
(Web Page)

"invalid relocation data in ASM program"? I think that means that you're using an older file launcher. Try getting the latest version of TTStart.

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 20:25 GMT

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2011, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer