Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam

<< < (17/36) > >>

vlastimil:
Let's look at what is valuable on a software download site. In my opinion:
* categorization (good searching capabilities, related software)
* completeness (contains all software, inluding newest releases)
* unbiased, regularly updated reviews (by people, who really know what they are talking about)
* accessible web (good web design, not too many ads, links to useful resources)

All users and all honest developers want this. As developers, we may have different opinions about the quality of services the software directory must offer to add our software to it. I for example require higher quality when I am adding a freeware application to a directory than when I am adding a commercial one.

Currently, there are 3 types of directories:
1. link farms - all runs automatically, they add any software, sending award badges to everyone and hoping to get some backlinks
2. proprietary directories - owner checks the listed software titles, occasionally writes a review (usually of average quality) for free or for payment (sometimes outrageous payment as is the case with tucows)
3. crowd-sourced directories - owner delegates the review task to the willing crowd; review quality is not guaranteed; reviews do not get paid and their goal usually is to give some love to the software they like, not to write an unbiased review

In my opinion, all of the above types have serious drawbacks. #1 is useless and hopefully dying. #2 is hard to scale, reviewing software costs time and hence money. #3 has scaling problems as well - review quality gets down when the site grows - spam would be a big problem. And let's not forget, that there is still a single owner that can decide to flip the switch.

We need another, better type of software directory that will ensure balance of power. I do not know how to achive it, but here are some concepts:
* contributors (developers, reviewers) must remain in control of their contributions, they must be able to change, delete, deny access to their content
* contributors shall have reputation and fields of expertise
* reviews of low quality (outdated, biased, stating false information) shall be buried

As mad as it sounds, a serach engine + a social network could be the solution. How far is the time when everyone will be able to post a review on their blog and Google will know it is a review of software X? Google (and+) is scary in its effectiveness.

skwire:
As mad as it sounds, a serach engine + a social network could be the solution.-vlastimil (August 25, 2011, 02:07 PM)
--- End quote ---

Wakoopa is almost that.

Renegade:
Check out JoS:

http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?biz.5.839442.24

A fair number of people are pulling their software from CNet.

I don't know if it will make a difference though, as it's only the top few hundred programs that drive things, and the rest is all just long tail. Being in the long tail is like screaming at the sky from the bottom of the ocean. Useless.

Jibz:
Like I mentioned here, two things get me about this.

Firstly, as much as you may advocate their right to make money from the site, I know a lot of developers struggle to make a living without resorting to putting adware into their software. For them to go and add adware and take the money is a slap in the face.

And secondly, I feel this is a shift of advertisement from their website and onto executables running on my computer (perhaps even with admin privileges), which is not something I really like.

Anyone know if the downloader is localized or English only? If it submits any "non-personal information"?

Some good comments in that JoS thread btw.

mahesh2k:
A fair number of people are pulling their software from CNet.I don't know if it will make a difference though, as it's only the top few hundred programs that drive things, and the rest is all just long tail. Being in the long tail is like screaming at the sky from the bottom of the ocean. Useless.
--- End quote ---
Why useless ? Developer is not getting donations from the small-traffic coming from that site. I even doubt that there is 1% of traffic coming from Cnet or any other downloader site. Most of the casual users with mindset 'use-n-throw' hardly care about developer sites or who is the developer behind software. CNet is not even posting developer information properly as it is leak to their traffic. So why exactly it is useless ? I don't think developers lost their right to take down software from such leechers, even though software is free or open source. As this man said once, small change always makes big difference if we start from our own home.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page