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
Jeremiah Walgren Account Info
(Web Page)

Perhaps you could ask each of the authors to review each of their files and then send a list of their files that they feel are useless. These particular files could then be removed, if the staff feels they should.

After this has been done, a committee (or something similar) could be created to review each of the files in archives and delete them if they're useless or junk. Programs worth being there would stay.

But that's just an idea. Other than that, I'd go with #2 or #3.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 01:30 GMT

Keep in Mind
Andy Kukwa Account Info

The really difficult thing about this decision(s), is that, no matter what the final decision is, somebody's going to be unhappy with it, whether it be a downloader who is looking through the hundreds of files, or a person whose file has been sent to a junk folder, or a beginning programmer whose demo was blown off the web.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 01:40 GMT


Re: Keep in Mind
joeman3429  Account Info

thats why nothing should be deleted (just very very very similer programs)

see above post by Joe Pinsonault, A.K.A. me

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 01:49 GMT


Re: Re: Keep in Mind
Final_Epsilon  Account Info
(Web Page)

or... we could have a rating system, in which a kind benevolent commitie is only allowed to use.

Reply to this comment    6 March 2004, 05:58 GMT


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

> Perhaps you could ask each of the authors to review each of their files and then send a list of their files that they feel are useless.

Ever heard of the fifth amendment?
Ok, so maybe ticalc.org isn't bound to it, but that idea would probably create a very nasty atmosphere on this site.

Reply to this comment    8 March 2004, 08:06 GMT


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

How about if an author wants to they put up a notice when oyu click on file info that says
[author name here] is condering removing this file [file name here] what do you think
o Delete It
o Keep It
o No Opinion

Reply to this comment    12 March 2004, 22:59 GMT

Re: The Quality of Our Archives
jordan krage  Account Info

i think that numero dos would be the best choice overall, because it filters out the 'junk', to a degree, but we dont pissoff the people who uploaded the 'junk' by delting their files

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 01:58 GMT

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

I like the ranking system idea. It would not decrease the time for file uploading, and some of the stupid pointless programs are sometimes usefull to people who want source code.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 02:48 GMT


Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
Peter Bailey  Account Info

I think that most of the "useless" programs are just that - useless. If someone is smart enough to look through ticalc.org for a program as simple as a quadratic solver, they can just write their own utils.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 03:02 GMT


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

I have to strongly disagree with most of the comments that say that repeatative programs should be deleted. The web site is (mainly)used to upload programs into a personal and collective archive. For most of us, we use the web site to further test our programs and to see how others like our programs( download stats). In my case if it wasn't for the publishing of my beggining programs I probably wouldn't have ever got so interested in programming!(+ Vortex Productions would have never been created) The last thing I want to see happen is new programmers being turned away from ticalc.org because they aren't "good" enough.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 03:13 GMT

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

If it is knowing what other people think of your programs that you want, I think that a rating system would be the best. Download statistics really don't show how good your program is -- only how good you advertised it.

Hey, how about this idea: Have it so that we can post comments about a program on its file description page! That way, people can easily explain what they think of the program, ask questions, et cetera.

MWM

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 03:37 GMT


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

Do you mean have a discussion board type thing? Like the one we're in now? We already have the reviews, but i have thought a lot about how cool it would be to have a discussion for each program, but that would probably get hard to manager, and in the end might not be worth it. But I think it is worth giving thought to.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 04:06 GMT


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

I was thinking the same thing. That way we wouldn't have to write some long reveiw thing that has to be so long and be approved if we only wanted to say some simple little thing like, "DON'T DOWNLOAD THIS PROGRAM!!! IT'S JUST A PEICE OF CRAP!" Ya know, like I don't want to write a whole review, I just want to get a simple mesage across.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 04:21 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

Well, if you are going to write a review on a program, you'll need more information than just, "DON'T DOWNLOAD THIS PROGRAM!!! IT'S JUST A PEICE OF CRAP!" You'll need to back up your claims, of course, or your review won't be uploaded.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 21:27 GMT

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

That is why I am saying that there should be a discussion board for each program. That way I don't have to write a book to get my thoughts through.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 23:03 GMT


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

I was actually surprised the other day...I saw a program that had a review that said that in its essence, and somehow wasn't rejected. However, I totally agreed with the reviewer...the program DID suck...

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 05:51 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
MaxReviewer14 Account Info

I strongly agree with you.

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 03:45 GMT


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

me too

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 14:15 GMT

Re: The Quality of Our Archives
jordan krage  Account Info

i think we should organize the archives, or get the search back up, and add a feature allowing you to search just part of the archives, ie-

search: 89/asm/games for "LightsOut"

sry for the shameless plug ;)

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 03:12 GMT


Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
joeman3429  Account Info

yeah, how long has this site been without a search.....

Reply to this comment    5 March 2004, 04:29 GMT


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

What's wrong with the way the search works now?

Reply to this comment    6 March 2004, 04:38 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
jordan krage  Account Info

it wont let you search the archives for a specific calculator, this would help a lot when u are trying to find a program

Reply to this comment    6 March 2004, 14:28 GMT


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

um, I think with google if you searched 89-assembly-games (with dashes...this searches for phrases instead of words) it would filter out anything that didn't have that exact phrase in it...however you would have to learn exactly how ticalc names each category.

Reply to this comment    7 March 2004, 05:53 GMT


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

You can also put "quotes around the words" to Google a phrase.

Reply to this comment    8 March 2004, 02:55 GMT


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

aaaah ... "Google" is the name of a corporation based in Mountain View, CA -- NOT A VERB!
They "0wnz y00r 3r41n"!
*pet peeve, sorry*
I think I'll just continue on my way Mozilling this website, Logiteching my comments and Intellimousing my way down the page.

Reply to this comment    8 March 2004, 07:43 GMT

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

hey, thats the same thing im doing!

Reply to this comment    8 March 2004, 17:53 GMT

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

>> I think I'll just continue on my way Mozilling this website, Logiteching my comments and Intellimousing my way down the page.

You have a Logitech keyboard, but a MS mouse? (I think IntelliMouse is from MS)

Reply to this comment    9 March 2004, 03:30 GMT

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

whats wrong with that? I have a dell/microsoft keyboard and a logitech mouse. (Ok, so its not really the same as him like i said above, but pretty much the same i guess) My keyboard is just a pretty standard piece of equipment, but my mouse is a brand new mx700. I love the mouse, highly reccomended.

Reply to this comment    9 March 2004, 06:44 GMT


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

I have a Dell keyboard, microsoft mouse, Panasonic monitor, and IBM speakers on a IBM cpu. Oh and did I mention the Logitech joystick and Hewlett Packard printer?

Reply to this comment    10 March 2004, 00:43 GMT


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

The only reason that I am not reading Old English when I scroll down this page is because the english laungage evolves.

Reply to this comment    21 April 2004, 04:22 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