Categories

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

Is it possible to rename the category "Graphics - Icon Editors" to "Graphics - Icon and Cursor Editors" and create the category "System - Disk Cleaners" or "Files - Disk Cleaners"?

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

Neither pro nor con... :?:

Another question: the category assigned by the proposer of a software addition can be subsequently modified or complemented by other users?

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Tue May 24, 2011 11:21 pm

lautrepay wrote:

Another question: the category assigned by the proposer of a software addition can be subsequently modified or complemented by other users?

Yes, other users can freely edit the list of categories where the application is.

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

Thanks, SYSTEM!

Andrew Lee · **Joined:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am **Posts:** 1879

Done!

1) Changed "Graphics - Icon Editors" to "Graphics - Icon and Cursor Editors"
2) Created "System - Disk Cleaners"

ChemZ · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2011 12:02 am

How come I'm not seeing "System - Disk Cleaners" in All categories?

I can see it when you add/edit an entry, perhaps nothing is in there yet?

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

Andrew Lee wrote:

Done!

1) Changed "Graphics - Icon Editors" to "Graphics - Icon and Cursor Editors"
2) Created "System - Disk Cleaners"

Thank you for considering the suggestions!

ChemZ wrote:

I'm not seeing "System - Disk Cleaners" in All categories?

Me neither...

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

Taking advantage of this time of changes, I have one suggestion and a half.

1) The half one is the final inclusion of the System - Disk Cleaners category (see above).

2) With regard to the second, I am aware that it is virtually impossible translate it into reality, but I will also submit it:
The idea is to add a field, that could be named "Secondary Features" "Accessory Features", "Additional Features" or something like that, with the same elements of the "Category" field.
In this way we would avoid the clutter in the field "Category", which can become very confusing.

For example:

Quote:

IrfanView V4.33
Category: Graphics - Viewers (27)
Additional Features: Audio - Players, Graphics - Processing, Graphics - Screen Capture, Video - Players

This way we avoid another problem: it is common to see IrfanView at the top of the Audio - Players, or XnView at the top of Video - Players when you select Most popular first (right now IrfanView is the second in Audio Players and Video Players, XnView is fifth in Video Players, and I don't think that's an accurate reflex of the reality)

freakazoid · **Joined:** Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm **Posts:** 618

I like the general idea of a primary category for a portable app, lautrepay!

tproli · **Posted:** Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:10 am

I also like it. "Additional features" resembles a tagging system in this format imho.

Andrew Lee · **Joined:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am **Posts:** 1879

Quote:

1) The half one is the final inclusion of the System - Disk Cleaners category (see above).

Done!

Quote:

2) With regard to the second, I am aware that it is virtually impossible translate it into reality, but I will also submit it:
The idea is to add a field, that could be named "Secondary Features" "Accessory Features", "Additional Features" or something like that, with the same elements of the "Category" field. In this way we would avoid the clutter in the field "Category", which can become very confusing.

As you may well guess, this cannot be implemented immediately, but I will give it high priority (together with better search). Will consider this together with tagging and see what is the best way to implement this. If you guys have any insight, feel free to post your comments!

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

Thanks, Mr. Lee!

@freakazoid & tproli:
I'm glad you like the idea! Thanks!

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

I suggest the remotion of the "Others - .NET Apps" and "Others - Java Apps" categories and the addition of .NET and Java to the dependencies field, where they belong by logic.
Due to the well known incompatibilities, .NET would be accompanied by the version required (.NET 1.1, .NET 2.0 and so on).
If somebody thinks that the requirement is not enough visible without these categories, it can be added to the description (e.g., "XX is a .NET program...", "YY is a Java based application...", "... written in Java...") as a last resort.

Midas · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:04 am

I disagree. IMHO, Java and DotNet dependencies are not your 'run-of-the-mill' libraries that can easily be placed alongside the executable to make it portable, so I think the programs that rely on them should be kept in separate categories of their own to simplify user selection...

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:02 am

I agree with lautrepay here. .NET and Java requirements would be even more visible in the description.

Categories

Who is online