Application categorization

Changes, updates etc. related to this website will be posted here.
Message
Author
User avatar
PhrkOnLsh
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:23 pm
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Contact:

#16 Post by PhrkOnLsh » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:37 pm

Thanks Andrew! :)
Looks 10x better!
/*PhreakOnALeash*/
Ryan Rix -- Coadministrator
TamsPalm - The PalmOS Blog

User avatar
Checker
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Ingolstadt [DE]

#17 Post by Checker » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:12 am

@ Andrew
I like your work !!! ... but one question:
I searched for Notepad ++ ... and I found it within "text - editors".
Of course it is a text editor, but you also have a category "text - notepads"
where I first searched it.
Is it possible for you to put this app into both categories?

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

#18 Post by Andrew Lee » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:16 am

@Checker: Done! Thanks for the suggestion.

User avatar
Checker
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Ingolstadt [DE]

#19 Post by Checker » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:33 am

Thank you, that's very helpful.
I think there are a lot of applications, that not only fit into one particular category.
This will make it easier for you, if you are not quite shure where to put the application in.

User avatar
teobromina
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Spain

Simpler is always better

#20 Post by teobromina » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:18 pm

With the purpose to help: I think that any classification is arbitrary. Thus the more sophisticated is the classification the more arbitrary. I would preffer a simpler classification. For instance I am in favor to keep the 15 main classes without subclasses. More than 1000 as we have at present is something not useful. :(

As information: I am currently using only 5 classes with my collection of hundreds of programs, that are related to the kind of files they manage:
-EDIT for programs that serve as main purpose to edit a 'static' text or a document. The files they use to open and transform are: TXT, INI, LOG, C, HTML, RTF, DOC, PDF, and so on...
-IMAGE for programs that edit 'static' images: BMP, JPG, TIFF, PSD, etc...
-PIM for programs which deal with Personal (and Professional) Information, including spreadsheets, contact-managers, databases, browsers, servers: TXT, SQL, DBF, MDB, HTML, PHP, etc...
-PLAY for programs that open and work with 'streams' or that serve information sequentially, including players, speak-machines, games, language trainers, astronomy simulators, readers and education apps: AVI, MP3, WMA, WMV, etc...
-SYSTEM for programs that serve to tweak or clean or improve the control on the operating system: Registry files, Virus files, MBR and Partition files, etc...

I understand that someone else needs more classes, but I am 'playing' with programs and making test the last years (since the 'venerable' windows 95) and I arrived to this conclusion, after trying lots of possible choices, just one year ago :roll:

In conclussion, although I do not need any classification at all thaks to the very efficient work of the search engine in the site, my vote goes to simplify as much as possible.

Sorry if my emphasys could offend to somebody but it is not my intention, but on the contrary to help to improve... 8)

Regards.

*JT.
"Lo que tengas que hacer, hazlo pronto" (Juan 13, 27) / "What you do, do quickly" (John 13, 27)
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teobromina / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobromine

ashghost
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: South Carolina

simple categorization

#21 Post by ashghost » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:31 am

@Teobromina: As I see it, the biggest problem with your approach is that the program listing view is limited to 5 results. With over 1000 programs in the database, classification into 15 categories would mean on average 12+ pages of results in each category.

If Andrew expanded each page to include 10 results, it would still mean 6 pages to look through if you're looking for a particular type of program, and it would also mean the need to at least scan the descriptions of each of them to see if it had the specific function you were looking for. It might be nice to change result pages to brief listings one or two lines apiece in order to fit more results on each page, but it would require pretty much a complete site redesign.

I think your idea of limited categorization is more useful for a personal database where you can recognize each result by name, but it's not as useful for browsing and discovery.

User avatar
teobromina
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Spain

Re: simple categorization

#22 Post by teobromina » Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:18 am

ashghost wrote: I think your idea of limited categorization is more useful for a personal database where you can recognize each result by name, but it's not as useful for browsing and discovery.
OK, you are right, my classification fits better for a personal collection. But look at the page of Freeware World Team:
http://www.all4you.dk/FreewareWorld/links.php

They have two dozens of categories and a database. If you want to open a 'full' category, you can browse lots of pages of the same type, at a rate of 10 entries each. If the search in the database is not selective, the same thing happens, but if you perform a more selective search, then you can get sometimes a few or very limited number of results... :wink:

This is what I mean.

Thank you.

*JT.
"Lo que tengas que hacer, hazlo pronto" (Juan 13, 27) / "What you do, do quickly" (John 13, 27)
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teobromina / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobromine

User avatar
Wolfghost
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:14 am
Location: Norway

Re: Application categorization

#23 Post by Wolfghost » Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:24 am

Nice work you have done ;)

I have a suggestion !

Can you add a new entry under categories: named: Others - Multiple Catalogers

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7792
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Application categorization

#24 Post by webfork » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:27 am

Wolfghost wrote:Can you add a new entry under categories: named: Others - Multiple Catalogers
What's that? Example?

User avatar
Wolfghost
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:14 am
Location: Norway

Re: Application categorization

#25 Post by Wolfghost » Fri Jul 16, 2010 11:30 am

webfork wrote:
Wolfghost wrote:Can you add a new entry under categories: named: Others - Multiple Catalogers
What's that? Example?

Data Crow

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7792
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Application categorization

#26 Post by webfork » Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Oh duh. This should have sounded familiar.

Do any other software fit into this or is it just Data Crow?

User avatar
Wolfghost
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:14 am
Location: Norway

Re: Application categorization

#27 Post by Wolfghost » Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:50 pm

webfork wrote:Oh duh. This should have sounded familiar.

Do any other software fit into this or is it just Data Crow?
Never mind, just forget it !!

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7792
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Application categorization

#28 Post by webfork » Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:04 pm

Wolfghost wrote:Do any other software fit into this or is it just Data Crow?
MyLib seems to (http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=795)

User avatar
Wolfghost
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:14 am
Location: Norway

Re: Application categorization

#29 Post by Wolfghost » Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:27 pm

webfork wrote:
Wolfghost wrote:Do any other software fit into this or is it just Data Crow?
MyLib seems to (http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=795)
Ok good start for a new entry I think ;) (allready 2 prog)

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Application categorization

#30 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:04 pm

Done. I have added the following:

* Audio - Catalogers
* CD/DVD - Catalogers
* Others - Multiple Catalogers

Post Reply