Add function implemented

Changes, updates etc. related to this website will be posted here.
Message
Author
User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#106 Post by guinness » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:14 pm

Is there a way to add applications to the Rejected apps list? Or if not would you consider allowing users to add to it. I ask because I have tested applications that aren't Stealth (for example) and I have no idea where to add them. At the moment I am writing an entry in the PortableFreeware Discussion sub-forum.

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#107 Post by guinness » Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:54 am

Suggestion: Upgrading the FAQ to include the Add/Edit function, how does an application become public? What does R5/R4 mean? How to search for unrated applications? I can't find my application I just added! Why can't I edit? I added an application but I can't edit it?

Because for those who are active and read the posts back in Nov/Dec 09, understand how the system works, but for those just joining I think are little confused to how wonderful you have made the system open to us Portable enthusiasts.

I am also sure users here would be willing to create the FAQ sections. For example I just created a (very rough) post about "How does an application become public in the database."

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

(32/64bit)

#108 Post by Wolfghost » Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:34 am

Is it posibillity to add (32/64bit) to program entry to make it more clear to understanding the requirements in future ??

ex: Requirements: WinXP / Vista / Win7 (32/64bit)

This is a suggestion

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

Re: Add function implemented

#109 Post by ashghost » Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:08 am

Since there are two components to 64-bit compatibility (whether an app works on 64-bit and whether it's offered in a 64-bit build), I would suggest a category listing one of five levels of 64-bit compatibility:
  • None : Does not run on 64-bit OS
    Limited : 32-bit only - runs with errors or lacks features on 64-bit OS
    Compatible : 32-bit only - fully compatible with 64-bit OS
    64-bit build available : 32-bit and 64-bit versions - 32-bit build functions properly on 64-bit OS
    64-bit build required : 32-bit and 64-bit versions - 64-bit build required for full functionality on 64-bit OS
I don't think that the fourth level is very common yet - most developers are only making 64-bit builds if they must - but it will probably become more common.

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#110 Post by guinness » Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:30 pm

Suggestion: Show on the main page next to "USERNAME R5 [Add Entry/Logout]" the total number of applications suggested and added e.g. (5/2) Or someway of telling how many applications the user has added and suggested in the database. Obviously I can count by using [USERNAME] but these also have the rated apps too.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2229
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#111 Post by Andrew Lee » Sat Jul 10, 2010 3:18 pm

Thanks for the suggestions! They have all been added to my todo list. Unfortunately, I am a little tied up with First Life at the moment, so I will come back to them when I have more time.
Is there a way to add applications to the Rejected apps list? Or if not would you consider allowing users to add to it. I ask because I have tested applications that aren't Stealth (for example) and I have no idea where to add them. At the moment I am writing an entry in the PortableFreeware Discussion sub-forum.
There's currently no way for a user to add to the rejected apps list. I am toying with some ideas, but nothing concrete yet. So writing to the forum is the only way to go for now. I might even decide to remove the rejected apps list in the future if I can't think of a good way to make it group editable.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2229
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#112 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:33 pm

Suggestion: Upgrading the FAQ to include the Add/Edit function, how does an application become public? What does R5/R4 mean? How to search for unrated applications? I can't find my application I just added! Why can't I edit? I added an application but I can't edit it?
I have updated this announcement to include more information about the submission process.

Feel free to add more information to it!

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2229
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#113 Post by Andrew Lee » Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:24 pm

There's currently no way for a user to add to the rejected apps list. I am toying with some ideas, but nothing concrete yet. So writing to the forum is the only way to go for now. I might even decide to remove the rejected apps list in the future if I can't think of a good way to make it group editable.
I am thinking of creating a separate forum for hosting reject apps, and the search results for rejected apps will take directly from the topics in this forum.

I will find a way to dump the database for rejected apps to this forum, and cut the link after that.

What do you think?

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#114 Post by guinness » Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:41 pm

I would definitely welcome this new addition. I found that by even adding rejected applications can sometimes spur on the developer to create a Portable version.

User avatar
wirrerork
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:53 am

Re: Add function implemented

#115 Post by wirrerork » Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:57 am

Andrew Lee wrote: More importantly, I can look at all the apps (public + private) by using the
special "[@]" operator. In this way, I can see what are the apps recently added
to the database and decide whether to add them to my favorites list (after
testing for portability, of course).
What do you mean with the @ operator. I would like to be able to see all application, whether they have enough votes or not.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2229
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#116 Post by Andrew Lee » Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:19 pm

Type "[@]" in the TPFC search box (without the quotes) then click Search, and you will see _all_ apps, whether they have enough votes all notes.

User avatar
wirrerork
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:53 am

Re: Add function implemented

#117 Post by wirrerork » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:37 pm

thanks

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#118 Post by guinness » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:41 pm

Suggestion: Add the same clickable link of the users favourites that you get in the "updated/added by" field, to the "suggested by" field.

e.g. Suggested by CLICKABLE_FAVS - Updated by CLICKABLE_FAVS

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1788
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Add function implemented

#119 Post by SYSTEM » Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:56 am

Andrew Lee wrote:Here's how the scoring process works. Each member is given a rank (0 to 5)
based on his forum activity and the number of submitted apps that made it to
the main page. For example, a user with 50 posts with get rank 1. A user with
two public apps under his folds will also get rank 1. A user with both will get
rank 2 etc. The rank appears as a little number ("R1") above the username in
the top-right corner of the page. The maximum rank for a user is 5 ('cos
absolute power corrupts absolutely).
I got rank 2 when I reached 75 posts (not 100). Is this a bug?

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2229
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Add function implemented

#120 Post by Andrew Lee » Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:32 pm

It is a bug. Thanks for letting me know.

The function I was using was rounding up 0.5 to 1, so 75/50 = 1.5 was rounded up to 2. This has been fixed.

Post Reply