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
|
Enchanted Coders
(Web Page)
|
I like options 2 and 3. I think #1 will cause lots of arguments - it seems like more trouble than it's worth. #2 would help deal with the excess junk, and #3 would help people find the good stuff more easily. I think #2 and #3 would work well together.
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 March 2004, 23:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
Ben Cherry
(Web Page)
|
I fully agree. A simple rating system would be great. You could do like a 5 star system or something, and on the file info page put a box labeled "Help Others, Rate This Game" or something. It would have 5 stars and you click the rating and then it sends it in and leaves you on the file info page for the program. Then just average all of the ratings. Advanced sorting methods would be in order as well. Option 3 is a good idea, but i know that some people just want to find a good game, and not any specific type. So you should be able to view the entire game directory, or in subcategories, and you should be able to sort it all by average rating, # of ratings, etc. I think over time this will really get the archives better organized without deleting programs. I dont like the idea of deleting programs, but eventually it will probably have to happen. So we can prepare for that time now by starting a rating system. In a year or two we will need to clear out the archives and can use the ratings to guide decisions. Until then, lets start rating and sorting.
|
Reply to this comment
|
5 March 2004, 02:04 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
Michael McElroy
(Web Page)
|
I think that a combination of a ratings system and further category subdivisions would be very helpful.
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 March 2004, 23:10 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
ti_guy
|
I like option number 3. You wouldn't need to delete people's files but it would still be organized.
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 March 2004, 23:17 GMT
|
|
Re: The Quality of Our Archives
|
Matt M
|
Since download statistics obviously indicate what is the best/most popular, why not simplly sort all the pages by number of downloads, most to least.
I also saw someone suggesting the deletion of files that are un-completed demos that have never been finished. I like that idea too.
$0.02
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 March 2004, 23:23 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.
|