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
|
Domi Alex
(Web Page)
|
They are so many authors that post literally CRAP, and double their files instead of putting everything in one single zip.
Cought!kermCought! Sorry. It's cold out there.
|
Reply to this comment
|
5 March 2004, 17:27 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
Robert AK
(Web Page)
|
Why not make two categories:
-Temporary
-Definite
When the user posts a program, it goes in the temporary folder when the users can view it. When it is accepted, you can move it to the definite folder.
Voting would make things complicated and too many subfolders would make things harder to get.
Another thing, some people post their programs two times.(ie: TI-83, TI-83Plus) There should be something that let's you copy the program without necesserally having to send it two times and it wouldn't make your programs list two times bigger than it should be.
Someone suggested to start over. If you are thinking about that, you could use PHP and a MySQL database instead of CGI.
If you need anything, do not hesitate to contact me.
|
Reply to this comment
|
5 March 2004, 17:30 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
Keith Pierce
(Web Page)
|
Hey I am not trying to be to some people but why dont Ticalc just get rid of some of the shells that are made in basic and games that arent finished and what not! Some of these programs that are made are really useless! I have to admitt some of mine are useless but i found out some people do use them!
|
Reply to this comment
|
5 March 2004, 18:21 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
spike11
(Web Page)
|
I doubt that I sparked the idea, but I emailed the staff a a couple weeks ago and asked them to clean out my profile. About half of my files (from the begininning of my programming days) were crap. Having realized this and also knowing how it is to look for programs with all the crap around, I told them what I wanted deleted and they seemed more than willing to do it.
|
Reply to this comment
|
5 March 2004, 18:22 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.
|