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expunge the 'custom' word and somehow acknowledge that by it's very nature, changelogs are temporary and will always be superseded by more accurate/current info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.