Ability to add new categories & "additional features" field

[Andrew Lee]

The submission editor has been updated so now you can add new categories in the editor. With new power comes new responsibility. I hope the list of categories will not mushroom out of control.

I think this could be a better alternative to tagging, so I am putting tagging on the backburner at the moment.

I have also implemented lautrepay's suggestion to split the category field into primary category and additional features. This is reflected in the submission editor as well, and you can see the updated format in Irfanview's entry.

Although it doesn't seem like much has changed, there is actually quite a substantial amount of code/database changes beneath the surface. So as usual, if you spot any bugs, just let me know and I will fix them ASAP.

Thanks!

[SYSTEM]

Thank you!

[spicydog]

Dear Andrew,

Thanks a lot for the amazing job you are doing!

A minor consideration: Would it make sense to add also an "Alternatives:" section?

For some applications it would be indeed very nice to directly jump to another database entry (not only to a category or sub-category) with the same (or similar) features.

Curious to read your thoughts

All the best!

[Checker]

The submission editor has been updated so now you can add new categories in the editor. With new power comes new responsibility. I hope the list of categories will not mushroom out of control.

Thank you

I have also implemented lautrepay's suggestion to split the category field into primary category and additional features. This is reflected in the submission editor as well, and you can see the updated format in Irfanview's entry.

Great work, thanks

[Midas]

With new power comes new responsibility.

Ain't that so right...

In the field, if you want to enhance description control you have to go the (pre-)controlled description language way (AKA thesaurus, e.g.); if you allow for keywording, which BTW is much more favored by users, you yield away finer control and have to resort to so called post-control...

[Checker]

@ Andrew Lee: Can you make it, that the item "Additional features:" is not visible if there are no?

[lautrepay]

Thanks for the great job, Mr. Lee!

@ Andrew Lee: Can you make it, that the item "Additional features:" is not visible if there are no?

That would be nice.

[webfork]

Very cool -- thanks for your work lately behind the scenes on the site.

The submission editor has been updated so now you can add new categories in the editor. With new power comes new responsibility. I hope the list of categories will not mushroom out of control.

[Andrew Lee]

Can you make it, that the item "Additional features:" is not visible if there are no?

Fixed. It was meant to be that way, but there was a bug in the code.

[Andrew Lee]

@spicydog: Could you elaborate on the usage scenarios you have in mind?

For example, if I am thinking of Firefox, the alternatives are pretty much all other browsers (Chrome, Opera), which are already in their own primary category (Internet - Browsers).

[Checker]

Can you make it, that the item "Additional features:" is not visible if there are no?

Fixed. It was meant to be that way, but there was a bug in the code.

Good work, thanks

[spicydog]

@ Andrew

Well, obviously in the case of Firefox there not so much room for versatility (I cannot think of another purpose for an Internet browser but to browse the web)... So for this particular typology, the primary category (Internet - Browsers) will suffice and obviously the "Alternatives" section would fully overlap.

Please allow me to give you another example... No, don't worry I won't pick "Ubiquitous Player", which would fit basically everywhere and be an alternative to everything :

Swap'em is in the "Files - Renamers" category (which currently contains 18 apps spanning over several pages).

The "Alternatives" section mentioned in my post would merely contain "Switcheroo" and "Name Swapper", which would allow the TPFC user to jump directly to only 2 database entries with the same or similar features, rather than having to go through a much larger (18) category or sub-category.

I guess that the "Alternatives" section would provide the unique ability to fine search the database in a more streamlined way and I would assume that adding this additional sub-class would not constitute a major effort for the person providing the page code (you ) and for the nice folks suggesting and making the individual app entries.

Probably in the sub-class "Alternatives" it might even be useful if TPFC members could enter (with/out adding external links) references to alternative apps even if they are not fully portable and/or freeware (in this case with a short note). After all, how many times are we confronted with the same old dilemma?

With all best intentions I am unable to totally avoid using shareware and non-portable apps on any of my machines... If your computers are only running 100% portable freeware I really envy you and would really like to know your secret but if you (like me) sometimes wonder whether a specific job can be better handled by a non-portable (or even non-free) application, you are likely to become a regular visitor of the "Alternatives" section.

Hopefully this post will not raise controversy but rather stimulate a productive debate which may lead to the implementation of the "Alternatives" section.

Thanks

[freakazoid]

I don't necessarily agree that there should be an "Alternatives" field because each one of us has our own subjective criteria as for what an alternative would be for a given piece of software.

Like say we want to list an alternative for Opera, I'd say the closest thing to Opera would be Seamonkey (and perhaps Maxthon), but others might put down Firefox and Chromium Portable as well. Which isn't to say that would be wrong either!

[spicydog]

Lol, before somebody else comes forward with another example involving Internet browsers let me rephrase the first passage of my previous post.

Obviously in the case of Firefox (as well as Opera, Seamonkey, Maxthon etc.) there is not so much room for versatility since there is no other purpose for an Internet browser but to browse the web... So for the particular typology of Internet browsers, the primary category section will be sufficient and since the "Alternatives" section would fully overlap and be therefore redundant it could be simply omitted.

In other words, just as it was done for the item "Additional features", also the "Alternatives" section could be kept hidden if there are no entries listed as alternatives.

Probably freakazoid confused the word "Alternatives" with "Preferences", regardless of the fact that he/she might prefer Opera (or another browser) over Firefox, it remains undisputable that these 2 applications are both serving the same main purpose and are therefore to be considered alternatives to each other.

Another explanatory example: "ProEject", in the "Miscellaneous" section (8 pages to search!) together with other 37 applications which -despite being in the same category- are not at all alternatives to "ProEject"... If there would be an "Alternatives" section the only application inside that section would be "EjectUSB"... Just 2 clicks away from "ProEject".

Hope this concept is now somewhat clearer

[Midas]

Another explanatory example: "ProEject", in the "Miscellaneous" section (8 pages to search!) together with other 37 applications which -despite being in the same category- are not at all alternatives to "ProEject"... If there would be an "Alternatives" section the only application inside that section would be "EjectUSB"... Just 2 clicks away from "ProEject".

That definitely did it for me...

+1