Policy question: custom changelogs

All suggestions about TPFC should be posted here. Discussions about changes to TPFC will also be carried out here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Policy question: custom changelogs

#1 Post by Midas »

[Moderator note: this thread was split from the StreamWriter thread.]

---
SYSTEM wrote:I think we shouldn't try to construct changelogs on our own in the database side.
  • Of course we shouldn't make up info, but we can provide whatever the best info we can summon as a service to our community. It's not like it can't be fact checked...

    I'm partial to that aspect, because I loose a lot of time looking for changelogs myself. I value other people's work and I think it adds value to TPFC, too.
Last edited by Midas on Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: StreamWriter

#2 Post by SYSTEM »

Midas wrote:
SYSTEM wrote:I think we shouldn't try to construct changelogs on our own in the database side.
  • Of course we shouldn't make up info, but we can provide whatever the best info we can summon as a service to our community. It's not like it can be fact checked...

    I'm partial to that aspect, because I loose a lot of time looking for changelogs myself. I value other people's work and I think it adds value to TPFC, too.
Such information can live here in the forums, or in comments. I have grown to expect the "What's New" field to show only official changelogs.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: StreamWriter

#3 Post by webfork »

SYSTEM wrote:
Midas wrote:
SYSTEM wrote:...we shouldn't try to construct changelogs
... we can provide whatever the best info we can summon as a service to our community ... I loose a lot of time looking for changelogs myself. I value other people's work and I think it adds value to TPFC
Such information can live here in the forums, or in comments. I have grown to expect the "What's New" field to show only official changelogs.
Even though we’ve historically erred more on the side of more info rather than less, I also tend to agree with SYSTEM because I don’t want to prioritize one change over another on a given release. I know for example a lot of the really hard, ugly work of development happens in the background on a hundred small things but the tendency is to focus on the user interface.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: StreamWriter

#4 Post by Midas »

SYSTEM wrote:Such information can live here in the forums, or in comments. I have grown to expect the "What's New" field to show only official changelogs.
  • For the sake of argument, why should this expectation trump the ones from other members and be made a policy?

    Especially in regard to those cases where accurate info is actively (re)searched and posted? Less is more? Primus inter pares?
webfork wrote:I don’t want to prioritize one change over another on a given release.
  • I fail to see how that would happen if the poster is working in good faith under the supervision of the community.

    What worries me is an emerging trend of over-restrictive information policies for the database, which is what the majority of TPFC users really use.

    Regarding the forums, I know it took me years(!) to familiarize myself enough to know my way around and be savvy enough with implicit protocols to start being an active forum member -- and judging only from the 2015 software poll, it's a community made up of about 20 regulars...

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: StreamWriter

#5 Post by webfork »

Midas wrote:
webfork wrote:I don’t want to prioritize one change over another on a given release.
I fail to see how that would happen if the poster is working in good faith under the supervision of the community.
That's just it: I don't think that changelogs are going to see a lot of supervision. I for example edit entries a LOT and I very rarely look over the changelog.
Midas wrote:What worries me is an emerging trend of over-restrictive information policies for the database, which is what the majority of TPFC users really use.
Well that's two things:
  • I was just expressing an opinion, not setting policy; if you or anyone on the site puts the time time and effort into custom changelogs I'm certainly not going to delete them and overwrite it with the official one
  • You think the policies are over-restrictive?
Midas wrote:Regarding the forums, I know it took me years(!) to familiarize myself enough to know my way around and be savvy enough with implicit protocols to start being an active forum member -- and judging only from the 2015 software poll, it's a community made up of about 20 regulars...
This is exactly what I wanted to avoid with my intro to PortableFreeware.com and I'll be damned if I'm party to creating an exclusive, cliquey software forum. How can I fix that?
Last edited by webfork on Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: [better wording]

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#6 Post by Midas »

@webfork: my observations, in turn...

1. Mainly as a consequence of the exponential investment of upgrading portables by hand, the fact is I spend a substantial amount of time (re)searching and posting changelogs to TPFC database entries (I usually just point at them in the forums, where the audience is remarkably more tech savvy) -- in spite of that, I have absolute zero wish to be in charge of changelog accuracy quality control, I just expect the same tacit rules that apply to other aspects of community engagement to be applied here;

2. I'm aware of that and my remark wasn't really personal; plus I fully agree with the principle you formulated ("if you or anyone on the site puts the time time and effort into custom changelogs I'm certainly not going to delete them") if you expunge the 'custom' word and somehow acknowledge that by it's very nature, changelogs are temporary and will always be superseded by more accurate/current info; also, please remember this debate sprung from opposing opinions regarding the choice between (non-)official info vs no info at all.

3. Only recently, I witnessed two instances where user input to the database was reversed by forum regulars; both of them could be construed to negate or contravene TPFC expressed policies; as this is quite a charged issue, I will only debate it further, with you or anyone so inclined, via PM.

4. I'm not prone to hand-holding and spoon-feeding newbies, yet I think there lies the main area for improvement -- just not exclusively on a technical level, i.e., in order to build a community, people have to be made to feel they're part of it, so it's mainly a social issue -- e.g., please compare the numbers of active members of the forums with the overall access figures, either to TPFC database, comments, and even forum; I find the contrast rather expressive.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#7 Post by webfork »

Midas wrote:also, please remember this debate sprung from opposing opinions regarding the choice between (non-)official info vs no info at all.
I brushed over the thread topics without looking at them in great detail so I missed that point. Certainly if there's zero changelog info, coming up with a non-official analysis is welcome. Dimio's programs are instructive as he doesn't generally release a changelog. I picture something like this:
  • [TPFC User Note: the developer(s) didn't release a changelog but it looks like there were some updates to the settings and user interface. --Webfork]
Midas wrote:if you expunge the 'custom' word and somehow acknowledge that by it's very nature, changelogs are temporary and will always be superseded by more accurate/current info
I'm not sure I can grant that: certainly programs with rapid release cycles would fall into this category. However, what about tools with a yearly release cycle or go offline?

Could we do both? Standard changelog and something like that "TPFC User note" above?
Midas wrote:I think there lies the main area for improvement -- just not exclusively on a technical level, i.e., in order to build a community, people have to be made to feel they're part of it, so it's mainly a social issue
I've put a lot of time and effort into making the site more inclusive but no doubt there's more to do. What do you recommend?
Midas wrote:please compare the numbers of active members of the forums with the overall access figures, either to TPFC database, comments, and even forum; I find the contrast rather expressive.
From my experience, that's pretty common. On the sites like PFW where I've done work, there's almost always a wide set of viewers and a small set of active members. Also, I've got to ask: what's the right number of users? 30? 50? I'm just worried that it's a blurry metric.

xor
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 11:02 pm

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#8 Post by xor »

As for me, both the CHANGELOG and the MEMBERS POINTS fields (eye and heart glyphicons) are overly relevant to get a more accurate and personal insight about a freeware application's usability and capability, so please... Keep them alive!

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#9 Post by Midas »

@xor: they will, if it depends on me... ;)
webfork wrote:I brushed over the thread topics without looking at them in great detail so I missed that point. Certainly if there's zero changelog info, coming up with a non-official analysis is welcome. Dimio's programs are instructive as he doesn't generally release a changelog. I picture something like this:
  • [TPFC User Note: the developer(s) didn't release a changelog but it looks like there were some updates to the settings and user interface. --Webfork]
  • I'm am not too liberal with the kind of info I post myself, as I tend to adopt more of a Wikipedia stance regarding it: if it can't be quoted off somewhere, preferably well reputed, I don't post it. But the example you introduced wouldn't aggravate me in the least, as attribution is clearly defined.
webfork wrote:I'm not sure I can grant that: certainly programs with rapid release cycles would fall into this category. However, what about tools with a yearly release cycle or go offline?

Could we do both? Standard changelog and something like that "TPFC User note" above?
  • Sure, whatever works and is condoned by the majority. And I'm quite sure this case of long dormant projects you mentioned would be one of the least problematic...
webfork wrote:I've put a lot of time and effort into making the site more inclusive but no doubt there's more to do. What do you recommend?
  • I know and I personally commend you on that. I don't have ready-made effective answers or solutions. TPFC is not the only community I engage with (Medium and XDA-Developers are other prominent examples) and I tend to learn as I go along, profiting from the examples set before me. I can show some pointers, but I'm sure anyone can come up with better ones...

    - A systematic literature review of online participation (http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.5260)
    - How to Build a Social Community: 4 Tips (http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/buil ... ty-4-tips/)
    - How To Build An Online Community (http://www.leadernetworks.com/2010/11/h ... unity.html)
    - 10 ways you can help to build the Internet (http://alexandrasamuel.com/world/10-way ... e-internet)
    - The Truly Monumental Guide to Building Online Communities (PDF: http://bit.ly/1cPGAWZ)

    As one of the leading figures in this particular area (Jono Bacon of Ubuntu fame) once wrote: "My only goal has been to ensure that everyone who participates in the debate trades in facts and not in misinformation and FUD; there is enough misinformation and FUD on the Internet without us all adding to it". I'm sure that if a common reference framework is established, fruitful exploration will ensue.

    But in the end, all I know is I'm getting long in years and would certainly cherish some (virtual) new faces showing around to pick up the slack...
webfork wrote:From my experience, that's pretty common. On the sites like PFW where I've done work, there's almost always a wide set of viewers and a small set of active members. Also, I've got to ask: what's the right number of users? 30? 50? I'm just worried that it's a blurry metric.
  • I am well aware of all that; it's just that our peak viewer to average participator ratio is something around 4%, so you'll have to agree there's plenty of room for improvement, should it be wished for.

    I also have no answer for the golden number question, apart from a further question: who defines right?
Last edited by Midas on Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

xor
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 11:02 pm

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#10 Post by xor »

Now that I come to think of it, instead of removing visual and sensorial clues about an App's functionality and active development.... wouldn't it be great if all of us viewers out here could see the MEMORY FOOTPRINT (exact or aproximate) just aside from the DISK SPACE OVERHEAD (which shows btw an honest uncompressed size and I thank for that)? Come on guys! Let's admit that our conscious says PORTABLE FREEWARE while our unconscious yells for PRODUCTIVE FASTWARE, hence the relevance of all these well thought-out fields that could really incite any lurker to become an active member. ;)

User avatar
tactictoe
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:56 am
Location: A galaxy far far downunder
Contact:

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#11 Post by tactictoe »

xor wrote:Now that I come to think of it, instead of removing visual and sensorial clues about an App's functionality and active development.... wouldn't it be great if all of us viewers out here could see the MEMORY FOOTPRINT (exact or aproximate) just aside from the DISK SPACE OVERHEAD (which shows btw an honest uncompressed size and I thank for that)? Come on guys! Let's admit that our conscious says PORTABLE FREEWARE while our unconscious yells for PRODUCTIVE FASTWARE, hence the relevance of all these well thought-out fields that could really incite any lurker to become an active member. ;)
That is more work to do for the one creating the entry or when updating. Otherwise good idea.
For me, I would like the ability to add more screenshot of the software when needed. But this is not the topic.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#12 Post by webfork »

xor wrote:wouldn't it be great if all of us viewers out here could see the MEMORY FOOTPRINT
I hear you: several programs on the site use a remarkable amount of RAM well above what I think a program of its kind should use. However, the problem with this analysis is the variability of the program itself. TP109’s various tests are instructive here: text file startup vs. the speed of opening large files is cataloged because software behaves differently when put under strain. Browsers in particular have very unclear RAM usage, with Chrome a notorious resource bandit as well as Firefox often seeing a 10x jump with a bunch of tabs open.

Additionally, (as I understand it) many programs don’t use the same RAM under (for example) XP that they use under Win10 due to different system settings and optimizations. If you have different settings giving different results on different settings / operating systems, RAM usage becomes a very fuzzy metric. In other words, I'm just wondering if it's something we could rely on. Wouldn't some programs listed with low starting RAM get an undeserved "lightweight" status?
tactictoe wrote:I would like the ability to add more screenshot of the software when needed. But this is not the topic.
That’s really up to Andrew or tproli if they wants to implement a system beyond the current animated GIF system we have now. I recognize GIFs as inefficient and ancient, but this is a non-simple fix.
Last edited by webfork on Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: (better wording)

xor
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 11:02 pm

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#13 Post by xor »

> I hear you
I hear you too and I read and listen as well, I totally agree about how unprecise and inexact it would be to implement RAM usage specifications for an app on the varios systems, hardware and working scenarios, actually I was meaning to say I'd love to see a visual clue about how similar apps compare to each other in terms of aproximate RAM usage e.g. text editors, clipboard managers, text extenders and so forth, I have always thought that less memory footprint means more productivity, and more disk space used means a more bloated app, I don't expect to be right here, I just can't help being a slave of the word "minimalistic" ;)

User avatar
tactictoe
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:56 am
Location: A galaxy far far downunder
Contact:

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#14 Post by tactictoe »

That’s really up to Andrew or tproli if they wants to implement a system beyond the current animated GIF system we have now. I recognize GIFs as inefficient and ancient, but this is a non-simple fix.
Sure it's no easy fix, a whole database to review and all the implication of such code to get there. Oh well, it was just a wish. Nothing more.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Policy question: custom changelogs

#15 Post by webfork »

Quick follow-up on this thread: there wasn't a changelog for the excellent DiskInternals Linux Reader (http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1159) so I did a quick analysis of the new and old versions to guess about what might have happened between versions.

Post Reply