Tomas Carnecky wrote: > Vincent Povirk wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure if we should remove the option for 'fully functional, requires >>> hacks'. A lot of people come to the AppDB to find out how they can make >>> their apps work, and are more interested in the end result as opposed to >>> how >>> to get there. >>> >> In practice, is there really enough difference between "fully >> functional" and "mostly functional" that we need another rating? >> People who only care about the end result would know that anything >> Silver or above will just about work. >> >> I've seen Gold applied to software that is really "mostly functional, >> requires hacks", i.e. there are some other minor problems that can't >> be worked around (and Platinum for software with minor problems as >> well). >> >> >> Then again, if we add a few more variables, we can express the ratings >> with radar charts. ;) >> >> http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9466/screenshot5ec1.png >> > > Yeah, use a multi-dimensional rating system. Have different criteria and > not just one. Rate each with zero to four stars. The overall rating > (platinum, gold, garbage) is then a function of all the criteria ratings. > > Rating: > - 0: Does not work > - 1: Works but ... > - 2: Works but requires dlls (download from internet) > - 3: Works but requires local changes in winecfg (sound settings etc) > - 4: Works with vanilla wine > > Criteria: > - Installation > - Functionality > - Usability > - ??? > > > The radar chart is not a bad idea. smartvote.ch, a site that helps you > find out who to vote for (in switzerland), creates nice charts: > > http://dbservice.com/ftpdir/tom/smartspider.png > > tom Yay nested quotes.
I think adding this kind of rating is exactly what the Appdb needs. It has enough flexibility and simplicity to concisely inform what's needed to run the program.