<!-- Begin Bryan Rabeler style comment>

The links for the file info are incorrect for every program. I'm redirected to tisshot.zip.html (a 404 page) instead of the correct file information page.

<End Bryan Rabeler style comment -->

Wow, I didn't even notice that. You have a good eye. :)

You just need to respond to every single comment, don't you?

($50 says Bryan responds)

He won't.

-Fil

Since I can't get to my E-mail account to submit a suggestion, i'm going to post this here. Tell me what you think.

How the Program of the Month should be like.

1) All open. Absolutely no Interference by any Ticalc.org staff member other than their own personal vote, Tie breaking votes, and removing of any programs that are deemed ineligible.

2) All calculators and programming languages should be separated in their own category. (Ex: 82 Basic, 82 ASM, 83 Basic, ETC. Separating by Shells and program types could also be done, but would be very irrelevant and would separate the program selection too much.) If there was only one program made for a particular category, it would automatically win the monthly award, Thus encouraging people to program more for that particular category based on better award winning odds. If there are no programs in a particular category, that category would obviously not be in the vote for that month and should be noted in the voting page to possibly encourage programming in that area.

3) The voting system would be based similar to the older Nomination system that was used in previous Program of the month entries. All programs submitted during the month are eligible except for ineligible programs. The nomination vote would be the final vote instead of having two votes (one for nomination and then a final vote to award) like the old system had. Each voter can choose one program in each category. Whatever program has the most votes wins the award in its category. If a tie occurs, then the Ticalc.org staff decides by a tie-breaking vote of the tied programs which one should win the award.

4) Programs are deemed ineligible if they have previously won the award before. Sequels of a previous winner would be considered eligible (this can be abused. they should be checked if they are different from the original version). Newer versions of a previous winner would not be eligible due to winning the award before and has already been recognized as an awarded program.

5) Since Featured programs have already been incorporated into the Ticalc.org web page, it would have to be replaced. The best way to replace this would be to erase all featured programs status on all programs and replace it with "awarded programs". This would help in selecting which programs are ineligible for upcoming program of the month votes as well as acknowledging the program's achievement as well.

I agree with that rant. But there should also be icons for featured programs with screenshots, featured programs with animated screenshots, POTM (playmate of the month) winners with screenshots...

Also separate the 89 and 92, and combine the 83 and 83+ (separate SOS/ASHELL from ION, since 83/83+ ION is basicly the same).

And a last thought: "Someone" should go through the list of comments and forward them to that suggestions@ticalc.org.

It's not as if we never read the comment boards :P

--BlueCalx

I have noticed a definite improvement since the featured programs were implemented, and they should be kept. Before programs won POTM because they were popular, and games with merit received nothing. Now programs with merit receive featured program status, and if they are also popular they receive the POTM. Languages should NOT be separated in the way that you list, for the simple reason that an extremely crappy TI-82 program can win by default. If there are going to be categories, they should be Z80 ASM & Z80 BASIC and 68K ASM & 68K BASIC (4 categories).

If a "category" has very few programs each month, such as maybe the TI-85, people know that. They know its not hard to win in that category, and therefore winning in that category will be less important to people. They won't think of it as highly as say the winner in the TI-89 "category". Get my drift here?

This is what I want to see. Even 4 categories will make sure that the most deserving programs win. Zelda 89 deserved something, but was competing against ASM.... it can't win that battle, although it did come close. But when people are downloading stuff, they're probably more likely to download an ASM prog than a BASIC, since it's faster, graphics, etc.

"If there are going to be categories, they should be Z80 ASM & Z80 BASIC and 68K ASM & 68K BASIC (4 categories)."

I can agree with that. This would be a lot fairer that what is currently the one size fits all approach.

if you study the calculators closly, you find out that there are basicially three classes of calculator designs. Ones based on the Ti-82 OS, Ones based on the Ti-85 OS and Ones based on the Ti-92 OS. All the calculators in these classes are link capable, are Ti-basic backward compatible with older calculators in their classes and can run Assmebly that in many cases are compatible or easily portable in their class as well.

In that sense, you can argue that there are 6 catigories, with one award for each. 82-83+ basic, 82-83+ ASM, 85-86 Basic, 85-86 ASM, 89-92+ Basic, 89-92+ ASM.

If your going to group calculator types in any way, this is most likely the farest way to do it in my opinion.

I find it interesting that so many people seem to have a problem with the lack of categories in the POTM competition. Personally, I think that this is the best system. The thing that this contest seems to be attempting to show is which program submitted to ticalc.org during a given month is the best. Quite frankly, it seems that most assembly programs are simply better programs than most basic programs. They require more skill to code and when done well are generally more useful or entertaining than their basic counterparts. It seems logical then that the programs that are most often voted to be the program of the month are assembly programs, since these are generally the better programs. If, however, an exceptional basic program comes along, I see no reason at all that it could not beat an assembly program, if the assembly program was of lower quality than the basic one. Perhaps less people download basic programs than assembly ones, but I think that this is the result of a rather well earned stigma that is attached to basic programs, the fact that they are generally slower and less useful/entertaining than assembly programs. Perhaps some people say will say that the POTM competition is not encouraging basic programmers because their programs don't do as well as assembly programs, but again, I don't really have a problem with this. Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against people who write basic programs or the programs themselves (I've written a few of them myself). However, assembly language takes much more skill and time to do well and the result is often far better than any basic program. Therefore, I think that programming with it should be encouraged much more strongly than programming with the comparatively easy to use basic language. My point in writing this is not to offend any programmers, assembly, basic, or otherwise, but simply to point out my view of the current system and provide a rebuttal to the many people who have been complaining about it. I have no desire to start a flame war, so I hope that this is not the result of my post.

Right, they have turned the POTM award into something that shows the most popular new program(s) released on ticalc.org in the last month. If that's what they want the POTM award to be, then so be it. But if thats so, then they should create an award that recognizes other types of programs, one(s) that BASIC programs have a chance at winning.

The only way a BASIC program could win under this system is if there were fewer than 5 assembly programs released in a given month, or if most of the assembly programs released in a given month were very bad. The likelyhood of those two possibilties is not very good at all. Face it, not very many people download BASIC stuff. Just look at the download stats for this week.

I think you've missed my point here, Bryan. I disagree that the POTM simply shows the most popular program. In my opinion, it shows the best. The POTM shows which program the most people felt compelled to vote for after using it (at least one would assume that a person would only vote for a program after he's used it). That seems to suggest that the best program wins. Even if the POTM simply were a popularity contest, I don't see which ticalc.org simply "should" create an award for other types of programs. You give no reasons for this in your post.

In response to your second statement, I think that a basic program should and would win if it were truly the best program. However, this seems unlikely to happen, since, at least in my opinion, most assembly programs are vastly superior to basic programs. Obviously, fewer people download basic stuff, but ask yourself why this is. If you think about it, I'm pretty sure that it's because basic programs are generally inferior to assembly ones.

What does the "best" mean? Does the best mean the most advanced program, or simply the one that people like the most? The word "best" has several different meanings, depending on how you look at it. Should a game like ZTetris, a popular game that has been around for ages, win the POTM simply because the port to the TI-83 Plus is "new"?

Since ticalc.org is changing the POTM award so its basically only for assembly programs (no pun intended), then why not have an award that BASIC programmers can work for? Can't we all agree here that the current POTM system is not very friendly to BASIC programmers? The system is a good system in theory, but in the real world, assembly is superior to BASIC and you simply cannot compare the two languages on the same level.

At the very least, there should be a POTM for assembly and another one for BASIC. But I also think that there should be categories for calculators, and they shouldn't be all lumped together. Not fair for TI-82 and TI-85 users, those calculators aren't as main-stream. And people seem to be under the impression that its "not fair" to give an award to a program if its the only one in its category. People do know that its harder to win for the TI-89 than it is for the TI-82 or TI-85. Why? Because more programs are released for the TI-89. People will think more of a program thats POTM for the TI-89 than for the TI-85.

BASIC programs are indeed inferior in the sense that the BASIC language is very limited. But that's because of the nature of the language, not the programmer's fault. We should recognize BASIC programs, because they can be very useful. It's easy to program a quick math program in BASIC. Assembly would probably be overkill for such things like that.