Procedure for Adding Apps to the Database

[tomcat]

I find the present procedure for enriching the database with new apps (proposal, private invisible entries, members ranks votes, popularity score etc) unnecessarily complex and off-putting. Such complexity is rendered further meaningless by the fact that an app can radically change with an update, becoming payware, infected, not portable etc.

As a result, many useful programs are left out. I bring the example of Free Alarm Clock, which I personally found better than any of the included similar tools. But though there’s a long favorable thread on it in the “Portable Freeware Submission” section dating since Feb 2011, it continues to be left out, apparently because no one added it to the database.

I consider that this is to the disadvantage of this excellent reference site. Visitors search for something and if they can’t find it, they leave disappointed, downgrading the site in their esteem by one notch. Nothing is to be gained by a poorer database, only infected and problematic programs should be left out.

Consequently, I suggest the following alternative simplified procedure for consideration:

- An established member, say over a week and 10 posts, to start a thread proposing the app, giving info about it as well as justification for its inclusion in the database.
- Members can post their comments in the thread.
- The staff considers the app, say within a month, and decides about its inclusion.
- If the staff is too busy for reviewing all submissions, a special Task Force can be formed consisting of old, experienced members that will undertake this. The members of the Task Force to be given a distinguishing rank/color for their valuable work.

The reviewing of apps and decision shouldn’t be too difficult. In principle, all submissions should be accepted, except infected or problematic ones, or perhaps where a clearly superior similar app is already included, though this is a matter of opinion.

[Midas]

Hi, tomcat. Thanks for taking the time for sharing your input with us.

It's my belief that your laboring under a false impression, that somehow TPFC is a commercial venture. It is not.

TPFC is the result of years of voluntary work by its founder (Mr. Andrew Lee) and a reduced set of regular members of the community.

Although I wholly agree that some procedures could be streamlined, in its present state it has proven over time to be working satisfactorily and, as resources are scarce, so is the willingness to enterprise drastic changes...

[tomcat]

Thanks for the quick reply Midas, it’s a coincidence that I saw the app I cited as an example in a comment by you.

Your above comments merit the following clarifications.

Actually, I did not have the impression this is a commercial site, but I’m sure its popularity would help meet costs, as I see an ad at the top of the page. And the idea is to increase popularity further by attracting more satisfied visitors.

The resources input is certainly an important consideration and of course I fully agree it shouldn’t increase. My effort was to simplify the procedure without increasing resource requirements, hence my suggestion to assign the work to a Task Force of volunteers, which would not require resources, hopefully reduce them.

[SYSTEM]

I find that the process of adding a program to the database is not complex at all:

1. Whoever wants to submit a program creates an entry in the database and a thread in the "Portable Freeware Submission" subforum.
2. Members can post their comments in the thread.
3. Two members with rank 5 vote for the program.

That's all it takes for a program to become a public part of the database. In my opinion the procedure you suggested is more complex.

I consider that this is to the disadvantage of this excellent reference site. Visitors search for something and if they can’t find it, they leave disappointed, downgrading the site in their esteem by one notch. Nothing is to be gained by a poorer database, only infected and problematic programs should be left out.

Where do the disappointed visitors go? As far as I know, our database is the largest portable software database on the Internet.

Consequently, I suggest the following alternative simplified procedure for consideration:

- An established member, say over a week and 10 posts, to start a thread proposing the app, giving info about it as well as justification for its inclusion in the database.
- Members can post their comments in the thread.
- The staff considers the app, say within a month, and decides about its inclusion.
- If the staff is too busy for reviewing all submissions, a special Task Force can be formed consisting of old, experienced members that will undertake this. The members of the Task Force to be given a distinguishing rank/color for their valuable work.

I think the hardest part of the submission process is creating the database entry. Your suggestion doesn't really make that any easier: it only introduces a requirement that "the staff" or the Task Force must create entries regardless of whether they want to do it or not. I'm afraid that the Task Force would soon stop operating.

[joby_toss]

Continued from here: But what can be more liberal than anyone (registered here, obviously) being able to add programs to the database?

In the time it took you to write this post, you could've added the app (Free Alarm Clock) yourself (and I'm not trying to be rude). As I've stated already, I would've voted for it. Did you find more programs that you consider should be added? Please, add them and I'll consider voting (along with any other member). I invite you to be a part of the Task Force!

[Andrew Lee]

@tomcat: Did you know that you can add an entry to the database yourself? Or has that part not been made very clear?

[webfork]

The members of the Task Force to be given a distinguishing rank/color for their valuable work.

First, drawing community interest at any level is a neat trick. Often we've got to take what we can get from users that will often be active one week, disappear for a month, then come back with a host of updates. It's kind of the nature of the site. With the exception probably of Checker, there's nobody that's consistently active and involved; we all have dry spells.

Second, like any voting system, we have something that's flawed but necessary. It's a problem for reasons like your Free Alarm Clock example and some programs I think should get added. It's necessary because the main focus of the voting system was to take the burden off the admin (Andrew) to find, test, and post, giving it back to a collective of users. Now, no single person is responsible for getting a program posted and no single user can prevent it.

Anyway, stick around and see if this system is functional. It's a democracy but it's also to some extent a meritocracy; decisions are made by votes but are influenced by what you've done.

[Napiophelios]

....meritocracy....

Man what a great word to just pull out of the ole hat
nice job Webfork

[Midas]

[webfork]

Man what a great word to just pull out of the ole hat
nice job Webfork

Hehe ... thanks