The Portable Freeware Collection Forums

Like to suggest perhaps two more Graphics - Editors categories

• Graphics - Artistic Editors
• Graphics - Photo Editors

... or something along those lines.

Some of the editors we have on the site are more about drawing and artistic expression (e.g. X-MyPaint, http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2088 ArtWeaver http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1390) while others are more focused on photography (SunlitGreen Photo Editor http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1844) or mechanics (Jcropper http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2381 )

Would be more appropriate in the "Additional features" field I think?

Andrew Lee wrote:Would be more appropriate in the "Additional features" field I think?

Yeah that makes sense

Help: can't find "Others - .NET Apps" category on "All" page.

joby_toss wrote:Help: can't find "Others - .NET Apps" category on "All" page.

I think the reason is that it's an empty category: http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?sc=261

More accurately, no app has "Others - .NET Apps" as the primary function. (Can you imagine such an app? )

I'd still like to see this link somewhere; could be at the bottom of the page; also one for Java apps...

Just noticed this: in the database entry form, the "Categories" list includes "PDF Converter" and "PDF Tool" headers with likewise named categories under them; I searched for the first and it doesn't appear to be in use -- plus there's a "PDF - Conversion" category already in active use...

There's also a notoriously wrong "similar pictures search" header with the same category. None of them show up in the "All categories" page, so I'm at loss on how to remove them from the user side. Is that even possible?

On the edit entry page, the category list includes all categories, included those attached to private entries.

One way to clean it up is to find the private entry attached to the offending category, then edit it to remove the offending category.

For example, the entry attached to "similar pictures search" is:

http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=2553

So I assigned it to "Graphics - Processing" and save. And the offending category is now gone.

There is currently no easy way to search for the private entry listed under the offending private category (other than hit the database directly with SQL). If you guys think it is necessary, I can work something out.

Thanks for that -- I had assumed as much but couldn't make it work in my first tries. Will try harder, so don't bother with the SQL...

EDIT: I retried several search strategies for private entries containing "pdf converter" and was unable to find the culprit. As, for example, the "PDF - Conversion" category is retrievable via http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?sc=204, would it be too much to ask for the index (sc=?) of the remaining categories?

I retried several search strategies for private entries containing "pdf converter" and was unable to find the culprit.

Apologies. I forgot to mention I took care of those too.

No problem. In fact, great! Thanks.

When I click on Categories->Text->Notepads link, I go to this webpage with 16 entries.
When I click on a secondary category link from a database entry (like the one from Notepad++ entry), I go to this webpage, with only 2 entries (Additional features->Text->Notepads). I can see the footnote, so this must be by design.
Should it really be a difference?

Those are two separate fields. The secondary category is for features that are not the primary focus of the app eg. video player that can also play music. So I think the separation makes sense. For example, if you are looking for a music player, I doubt a video player that can also play music is what you are looking for.

In the example you mentioned (Notepad++), this is programmer's text editor that can, by a long stretch, function as a notepad. I think most people who are looking for a notepad app are looking for something much smaller and simpler. So again, I think the separation makes sense.

I get that logic, Mr. Lee, and I agree it means well -- but from the maintenance POV it just doubles the work for little added value... from this standpoint, that feature should just be more of a hierarchical classification than a parallel one.