The results of this survey are starting to look like an old one. Makes me wonder why ticacl.org ever stopped user nomination.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----How should Programs of the Month (POTM) be chosen?

ticalc.org nominates, users vote (old system)
54 votes (27.4%)

Users nominate and vote (current system)
117 votes (59.4%)

ticalc.org nominates and selects
14 votes (7.1%)

Users nominate, ticalc.org selects
12 votes (6.1%)

Survey posted 1999-09-07 01:58:16+02 by Andy

I believe that there should be a POTM for each platform. This way, if I create a program for my beloved 83, I do not need to compete with more flashy, faster games for the 89 and 92+. This way a program is only competing with programs of similar type and capabilities, which is as it should be.

Knight/Rocket's 2 discs of copper-zinc alloy.

>> I believe that there should be a POTM for each platform.

Including the 81? ;)

Yes, because programs for the 81, scarce as they may well be, should still have a crack at POTM-81.

I agree. (But I'm biased because I just uploaded something for the 81.)

More people want the POTM to be terminated than to stay the same! That's really sad, I think. The ticalc.org staff probably puts some work into it every month, for example setting it up and writing the news item. That's why I think it would be pretty disrespectful to reject the POTM completely.

Well, I might as well post this directly to the board rather than on my site, considering that its on topic. If you see anything that should be added, post a reply.


What POTM 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 odds. If there are no programs in a particular category, that category would obviously not be in the vote for that month.

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 would decide the winner by a tie-breaking vote.

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.

Addendum to above:

1) Separating calculators based on OS category would also be acceptable because these calculator's operating systems are virtually identical. (EX 82/83/83+ Basic, 82/83/83+ ASM, 85/86 BASIC, 85/86 ASM) There would be 8 sections total in a system like this.

Great ideas, Ed!

btw, there would be 10 categories. You forgot to mention computer utilities and TI-80/81 programs.

Yes there would be 10 under this, it would be Computer Util1s. and 73/80/81 Programs however. I just never reflected this on the POTM page on my site.

It's too bad that no one seems to have an interest in this type of system. I think it's the best way to go to keep all parties happy.

i like the old system better... a 'nominate me' button would be nice... there needs to be some way to give BASIC programs a chance of winning too...

i voted for termination.

> there needs to be some way to give BASIC programs a chance of winning too...

The best way to do this is to have separate categories for games and nongames. Nongame programs do not benefit from asm as much as games do, so BASIC programs would have a good chance of winningin this category.

Imho, this is a better idea than having the distinction based on asm/basic, because both types of programs would be held to the same standard.

Basic non games would still have to compete with C non games. Take a look at the alchem chemistry package. The c balancing program in there is many times faster than any basic balancing program.

And periodic tables are better in asm than basic.

-Samuel

So, are you suggesting that low-quality programs should be nominated for POTM just because they're written in BASIC?

btw, where can I find a good C compiler for the 86?

A C compiler for the 86? What's that? Does it even exist? Should I have posted this? Do you want to respond to this? Do you think there sould be a C compiler for the 86? And if so, what about a C++ compiler for the 86? And if it was possible to program in C for the 86, shouldn't there be a seperate category for them in ticalc.org's file archives? Do I have too many questions? Do you think this is humurous in any way? Would it be possible to have an on-calc C compiler for the 86?

1. Yes.

2. a program that converts C code to Z80 machine code.

3. Yes, but I haven't found one that supports floating-point math and that's a major drawback for the kind of programs I write.

4. No.

5. Yes.

6. YES!

7. Maybe, but plain ol' C would be good enough for me.

8. Not necessarily.

9. Yes.

10. Slightly.

11. This might be possible, but a PC version would be better.

Oh, alchem's for the 92. That explains it.

Afaik, we Z80 users don't have an 31337 C compiler like TI-GCC, so C programs aren't going be much of a threat to TI-82/83/83+/85/86 BASIC programs.

As for 68k BASIC programmers, my recommendation: If you don't think you can compete against C programs, learn C!

I think WE should nominate, cause it isn't very easy to get a program to be featured, unless, in my case, PHOENIX II which was a garentee :P
anyway, I havent had the slightest chance until PHOENIX II cause I never got a featured program.
It is a little unfair to others who try and get no recognition for some of the best work in TICALC.

Does any one really care about the POTM. I have been using this site for about 2 and half year and I never gave it a look. You do these surveys all the time about it and I just don't care. Maybe I just the 1% of the users of this site but there are better things to talk about then POTM.

as i find time moving on, and now that i'm in college, i tend not to look at this site as much. on the other hand, though, i look as slashdot at least twice, if not more, times a day. okay, new poll please.. how about something related to the NES turning 15? or how about what do you think the most likely update will be on ti's newest graphing calculator? with choices like: memory, color, resolution, speed, functionality.. etc...

Hello, my name is Brett. I was just wondering what the big deal is with POTM. Why did they indefinetely suspend it. Email me.