The Quality of Our Archives
Posted by Michael on 4 March 2004, 22:29 GMT
You may have noticed the low numbers of new files added to our archives. We're having a debate about what to do with a growing problem: Programs that simply aren't very useful to anyone. There are more quadratic solvers in our archives than should ever exist, notwithstanding the fact that most models have this as a built-in feature. Our possible solutions are:
Currently, all files that meet the site policies are processed and uploaded to our archives. Since this doesn't seem to be working well, here are the ideas under consideration:
- The file archivers could manually screen programs for those deemed "junk", in the sense that they lower the signal-to-noise ratio of our archives rather than increase it. Authors would have to e-mail an appeal for rejected programs. This would cause a longer waiting time for processing files.
- We could implement a rating system and organize programs by rating. This allows all programs to remain on the site, but the most useless could be filtered out. A method of dealing with new programs and low/high numbers of votes would have to be developed.
- Our current folder system stops at games, programs, math, et cetera. For ease of browsing, this could be expanded to sub-categories like games/board, games/shooter, and games/guessthenumber. This doesn't limit the number of files added, it only categorizes them so folders are more concise and relevant.
- Lastly, we could just leave everything as it is now.
We're asking for your input on what to do. There is a survey posted in conjunction with this article where you can vote on this issue. Thank you.
Update (Archiver): We will not be deleting files (at least not this time around), that was never one of the options. If you do want some of your programs deleted e-mail filearchive@ticalc.org.
|
|
Reply to this article
|
The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
Daniel DeGraaf
|
Survey - where?
I like 1 and 2: perhaps implement both? Updated files would not have to be re-screened
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 March 2004, 22:36 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
Andy Kukwa
|
I have noticed that. There are a lot of pointless math programs, as well as tons of demos that were never completed, that should be deleted also. I have also noticed that there have been few file updates lately: I've been waiting about 2 weeks for some Mario levelsets I've made to get online.
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 March 2004, 22:37 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|