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
|
Ben Cherry
(Web Page)
|
I noticed that there has been a very quick influx of new programs. Good job on getting through that large-ish mess of new programs Morgan and Joey. I wonder though, does this mean that a decision has been reached on what to do? As I understand it, this debate is what caused the back-up in the first place (I assume that this is the "internal debate" Morgan mentioned earlier as backing up the archives, although I cant seem to find that post anywhere...)
|
Reply to this comment
|
9 March 2004, 06:57 GMT
|
|
Not only the archives, but...
|
qbman
|
Does anyone else notice the problems with the news and message boards. I have a really hard time trying to find information and sort through old info. Sometimes my posts end up at the beginning, sometimes at the end, or even better, somewher lost in the middle. While we're looking at quality issues, why don't we try to make a more logical message board (like order threads by date).
This isn't bad for some of the small boards, but if you look at this one (well over 400 replies), You will find that times and dates posted for the threads are way out of order. I've made posts before, then spent minutes trying to find where it went. I just want to see if anyone else has problems with the current message boards.
|
Reply to this comment
|
9 March 2004, 17:40 GMT
|
|
Other Sites Section
|
Eugene Talagrand
(Web Page)
|
How about Reviews/Comment Boards/Rankings for the "Other Sites" section? If the solution is already going to be implemented for files, it shouldn't be too hard to add...
Maybe also a browseable index?
I know some of these sites might be competing with ticalc, but there are a lot of other useful resources on TIs out there, which have a different goal than ticalc (ti-cas, ti-fr ?)
|
Reply to this comment
|
9 March 2004, 23:07 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
Charlemagne
(Web Page)
|
Heck, do all of it! Make new folders... make a rating system.... either way, new folders would be a great idea and very useful. *shrug* just my opinion!
|
Reply to this comment
|
10 March 2004, 23:16 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
Nick_S
|
It's funny that this article complains about how bad are archives are and then three very good games come out.
|
Reply to this comment
|
14 March 2004, 06:35 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
darkhydra21
|
Actually, I think that many of the programs in the archive are uneccesary. Take the quadratic equations solvers, for example. On a normal TI-83+, there is a Solver (under the [MATH] menu) that can solve for quadratic equations.
|
Reply to this comment
|
13 April 2004, 18:11 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
drfishopoulis
|
I think there should be a separate DEMO folder for games. All files in the game folders should be fully working, playable games. That may help to filter out the games folder a little bit. And, people could still post their demos without wasting people's time.
|
Reply to this comment
|
26 April 2004, 19:23 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.
|