NANY 2011 :: A New Concept -- Have your say!

[Perry Mowbray]

NANY 2011 :: A New Concept

NANY has always had two purposes:

• To encourage anyone who is interested in coding to create something new, for the pure fun of it.
• To provide motivation and a platform for coders who want to work hard to create a useful new application for others to use, and help them spread the word about it.

It's not always easy to organize NANY in a way that makes sense for both of these purposes -- so in 2011 we are planning to try something new.  In addition to the existing NANY set-up we are going to create a new category for Entrants who want to submit a more significant application, which will have a more rigorous set of guidelines for successful entries.  We are calling this category First Class entries.

We still strongly encourage everyone who is interested in creating something new for the New Year to participate, whether serious or fun, big or small, application or game, novice or professional programmer.  But those who want some motivation and encouragement to create something really special, with wide appeal and extra promotion, are encouraged to pledge a NANY First Class entry.

NANY entries that qualify as First Class entries will be featured more prominently in our wrap-ups and in our presentations to other sites as they'll have the widest appeal, ease of use and clarity of documentation.  In other words, the "First Class" applications will be the applications that we feel most comfortable recommending to people who have never heard about DonationCoder.com, and which we think are ready for wide promotion to the general public.

While anyone can submit a NANY entry, the "First Class" entries will also require:

• Clear instructions for installation and use (help files or readme's etc.)
• Earlier pledging of the author's desire to participate.
• Initial Submission well before the deadline so that we can help test and provide feedback.
• Most of all, a commitment from the author to incorporating feedback and suggestions from testers prior to the deadline.
• More time spent by the author on polishing the application so that it is suitable for a general audience.
• Will almost always be more substantial applications that require more development time, and will exceed the normal scope of a Coding Snack.

It is our intention to keep the same spirit of NANY that we have always:

• A fun and rewarding event for everyone involved.
• Encouragement to everyone who wants to participate to participate, regardless of coding experience.
• Trying not to have winners and losers.
• All entrants that Pledge and Submit by the due dates "winning" a NANY prize.

This new concept has been the focus of much, and at times, intense discussion.  We think/hope we've struck a good balance between the original NANY spirit and the need for improvement.  But NANY is all about you, the DC members: This is your opportunity to give us your feedback on the new ideas and influence its implementation...

[mouser]

Perry and I and a few others have been discussing this back and forth for quite a while and are pretty excited about it, but i think we really need to get some feedback from the rest of the forum and some encouragement, etc. So we want to hear from you! 

[jpprater]

Sounds like an awesome idea to me.
That kind of thing takes a really serious app, though.  You won't get more than a few, if that.  NANY, from what I've seen of it, has always been about small apps (typically single purpose).

[cranioscopical]

Sounds great to me. Are you going to encourage collaborations?

[Perry Mowbray]

One of the things I love about NANY is that it's developed into a community event where the whole community is involved 

Sounds great to me. Are you going to encourage collaborations?

-cranioscopical (April 14, 2010, 08:15 PM)

We already have "collaborations" of a sort with our NANY Volunteers. I'd definitely love to see that expanded more; and with the introduction of the more serious category there is more scope for Help authors, icon artists, etc.

And I'd absolutely love joint entries. I think we had one last year? Hopefully with more time it will allow more joint applications.

That kind of thing takes a really serious app, though.  You won't get more than a few, if that.  NANY, from what I've seen of it, has always been about small apps (typically single purpose).

-jpprater (April 14, 2010, 02:52 PM)

Yes, it will be interesting to see what happens. We're hoping that the earlier start will enable more of the more serious applications. Previously we had the slightly bizarre situation where ideas were being added to the suggestion thread with no hope of being coded in time. 

[mouser]

there is definitely a risk with this approach.. a risk that the added emphasis on "first class" apps will discourage people from submitted smaller less involved submissions, and that the larger apps will prove to be too much of a commitment from DC coders.  i hope that's not the case.

but i do think it's worth trying this -- and i hope very much that the challenge to produce a new larger application will serve as some motivation and encouragement and reward to those coders who are wanting something to motivate them to creating a new application.

[Target]

what sort of leadtime are we talking about for First Class entries, and how do we determine what qualifies?

Given that these are likely to be more sophisticated or (for want of a better term) comprehensive is it perhaps a situation where an entry needs only to be useable and with most of the intended functionality in place by the end, but actively being supported/developed towards 'completion'?

[mouser]

i think it's going to be a learning process for us, but i suspect that we won't be faced with any tough calls -- those who are interested in and working on an application they intend for "First Class" status will have the support from us they need to comfortably achieve that.  I think this is really going to be a self-selective process -- if you *WANT* to product a "first class" entry, you will and there won't be any close calls, because you will have been working on it and getting feedback throughout a more extended time period, and posting beta versions for feedback on the forum, etc.

[skwire]

I know I'm going to sound like a dissident but I don't like this idea at all.  I feel it takes away from the everybody-is-equal-and-can-submit-anything-new mantra that I think is key to NANY.  In addition, I feel the fast-paced, thirty-day rush up to release day is one of the endearing features of NANY.

I suppose I get the feeling that this is a solution in search of a problem...

[mouser]

i hear ya -- we knew this could be controversial, and it's not a commitment to do it like this every year, but after a LOT of discussion we thought it was worth trying for at least one year.

it really wasn't a "solution in search of a problem" but the result of a struggle to come to terms with where NANY fits in on DC.

we had long talks about it, but the main motivation is described in the bullet list that starts off Perry's explanation.  Last year's NANY highlighted that these two kinds of NANY entries are in real conflict.

If NANY is a way to encourage everyone to code something for the experience of doing so, then it probably doesn't make sense to try to spread the word about the finished applications and encourage people new to DC to visit to try them -- because that's going to result in frustration when people discover the programs weren't really designed to be easy to use and serve a purpose necessarily.  But then NANY loses the specialness it has to some coders in terms of helping them get an audience for something they worked really hard for.  One idea was to have 2 different events.. but i didn't feel like we had the resources for that.

What we hope is that this new idea of NANY can solve this problem, by providing an open set of arms welcoming everyone who wants to create something to join in as always, and just "make something!" without worrying about it having to reach some level of quality or usefulness.  While still telling those people who want a kick in the pants to really work their heart out for 3-6 months that we are ready to encourage, test, and help spread the word about a project that you really are going to work hard on.

And that this will also help us solve the problem of how to explain to outsiders which NANY programs may not really ready for them to use.

No doubt we will have to tweak and modify some of these ideas -- nothing is cast in stone, let's give it a try and see how it works?

[skwire]

I just feel this is getting WAY too complex.  Here are some more of my random thoughts on things.

Disclaimer: Please, Perry, don't view any of the following as me discounting the work and effort you put into NANY.  Know that I recognise and very much appreciate all that you do.

• I get great satisfaction out of simply submitting a NANY app.  To me, that is the reward.  The fact that I get a $20 gift certificate (mug collection!) for participating is icing on the cake.
• I don't feel the need to single out applications in any form.  I feel the more popular apps stand on their own merit; thread views and replies attest to that.  I never saw the need for Mini-NANYs because of this.
• I feel that NANY is a group effort between all the coders and all the users.  In other words, NANY is a DonationCoder event, not a single coder/app event.  All these coders take time out of their holiday schedule to write code and submit stuff.  That is the real magical part.  Singling out applications ruins this, in my opinion.
• Too many new rules, deadlines, guidelines, etc.  I don't have time to follow all the newly proposed stuff.  Heck, I didn't have time to follow all the new stuff this past NANY.  I abhor the inefficiency of forums.  I got rather frustrated this past NANY with all the teaser/pre-release/release stuff.  I feel that if an app isn't ready for release, don't release it.  No need for a teaser, no need for a pre-release etc.  Let's get back to simplicity...less work for all.

I can only speak for myself when I say that participating in NANY is a reward in itself.  I don't seek or want any extra or artificial attention drawn to me or my applications.  I much prefer to let them stand on their own.  Maybe the other coders feel this way as well?

[mouser]

thoughtful points from someone who has been a serious and reliable NANY participant.. maybe we have been overthinking things and should try a simpler NANY next year instead of this proposed change..

[Perry Mowbray]

I can't give you a sure-fire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time.
Herbert Bayard Swope

We are appreciating all comments, so bring them on... It's going to be interesting juggling the coder's comments against the user's comments (as improved user-ability of the resultant software list was a significant reason for change)...

Disclaimer: Please, Perry, don't view any of the following as me discounting the work and effort you put into NANY.  Know that I recognise and very much appreciate all that you do.

-skwire (April 15, 2010, 03:14 AM)

It's all good. The position we came to here was after a lot of discussion, sometimes quite difficult, and is not anyone's idea, more of a collaboration; so there are bits of it I'm not fond of as there'll be other bits the other's are not too keen on too. But we all felt that it was the best resolution to the considered problems.

I just feel this is getting WAY too complex.

-skwire (April 15, 2010, 03:14 AM)

We've certainly discussed what NANY's developed into, and where we'd like to take it. One of the major problems that was identified from the recent NANYs was that the NANY Entries were extremely varied in quality and level of effort and it was becoming an issue promoting them (as a group) externally; as well as not being very user friendly (as a group).

One option available is to make NANY more of a DC event, for DC members (and their guests) and back away from the external promotion. That is certainly an option.

We also discussed multiple events as well, but were concerned with the level of resources required to run multiple events, so we've attempted to keep one event but trying to accommodate a more "simple" NANY (that I think you are wanting) with a more rigorous NANY that will hopefully help correct the promotion problem. So I thought that we'd have got pretty close to hitting your nail on the head?

But... I honestly thought the idea presented actually embodied the "everybody-is-equal-and-can-submit-anything-new" much more efficiently than previous years:

• You want to do something simple without any bells or whistles: it's OK (even if you want to punish yourself with time constraints)
• You attempt something and don't get done: it's OK too, your efforts rewarded but it's not promoted
• You want to do something bigger: it's OK too, as your big application doesn't get lost amongst the crowd of little ones

And you are right: it's trying to make the most of external promotion, attracting new coders and members, ensuring that we don't sell a lemon to other software sites when we promote the Event, that complicates the Event. If it was just DC, and any external promotion happened by itself, the Event would be a lot easier to organise (there almost wouldn't be any...). But I was hopeful that we'd kill two birds with the same stone (no duck reference intended).

Keep the comments coming (the more the merrier), it all helps in processing the ideas... but as mouser suggested, it'll probably come down to experimenting and see how it turns out.

[Perry Mowbray]

In addition, I feel the fast-paced, thirty-day rush up to release day is one of the endearing features of NANY.

-skwire (April 14, 2010, 11:53 PM)

That is not supported in entrant surveys; in fact, I think it was the opposite.

But: My hope with the proposal is that both could be accommodated effectively. I would not like to loose the rush, excitement and anticipation, but I'm hoping we can also offer that bit extra to the entrants that wanted more time etc.

[Veign]

What resources are required for NANY?  Have you quantified what it truly takes to run the event?

The two event system may work on 6 month cycles/  This all depends on the resource to run an event.

Something like:
NANY 20## - The event as it is with the fast paced effoft for developers to complete their apps.  This is what forced me to finish an idea I had for a long time - now that idea is being turned into a business because the NANY event gave me a kick in the ass to complete it
Summer Blockbuster 20## - The new first class event as proposed.

Basically offer a Winter and Summer event.

[Jibz]

I can see the dilemma you are facing here. The new people who come to the site through the NANY advertisements may be discouraged if they run into some of the more 'lightweight' entries, but on the other hand the current format seems to get a lot of people to at least participate.

I think skwire has some points .. dividing it into first class apps and "rubble" that people can just ignore is not making it everybody-is-equal. Of course everybody isn't, and some of the apps do deserve more attention, but I could fear this change might discourage people in the normal category from entering.

I think what I am objecting to here is that it feels a bit like you are insinuating that first class apps will be better or more useful, while it sounds like they will just be better documented and easier to install.

[JavaJones]

I think what I am objecting to here is that it feels a bit like you are insinuating that first class apps will be better or more useful, while it sounds like they will just be better documented and easier to install.

-Jibz (April 15, 2010, 01:08 PM)

I would say that's probably more an issue of how it was stated than an actual reality. And perhaps it's all just about figuring out how to communicate this to people so that the spirit is maintained, while also allowing room for the growth and improvement that is desired.

I think it might be valuable in the discussion to reference some of the statistics that informed the original admin discussion that led to these potential changes. These ideas didn't just come out of the blue, as far as I know there has been decreased involvement, and more and more rushing as the event has aged through the years, so changes seemed necessary. That's my understanding anyway.

I agree also that if NANY is not considered a partly promotional event, then these changes are less necessary, and it alters the goals a lot. At the same time perhaps we could also consider a half measure, removing the *result* promotion and simply promoting the contest participation as a way to get people into DC. It's really the post-event results that have the potential to get outsiders using apps that might not be ready for "prime time". As far as I have seen the most useful and interesting apps tend to get their own unique and specific publicity from the "usual suspects" sites. Word of these apps' existence may have been spread through the NANY result announcements, I'm not sure, but it does seem like other popular DC software gets the word out there without NANY promotion. So perhaps the results should not be a focus at all, and just trust that the apps that shine the most will, er, shine and become popular.

- Oshyan

[mouser]

I have to confess i was the main person who thought there might be a problem in search of a solution.. Maybe i was overthinking and underestimating the value of keeping things simple..

What if we reversed and said that NANY is whatever you want it to be, and cut down on the rules/guidelines/etc.

But simply said:

• If you DO want to make a substantial, well documented, feedback tested application for NANY, get started early and let us know so we can help you get it to that state.
• At the end of NANY, we may try to categorize applications based on how ready we think they are for casual visitors to use, or how "finished" they are.

[mouser]

I should clarify that I have no interest in NANY as a way to "promote" DC.

But i do think that one way DC says thank you to the NANY coders is by getting their hard work and newly created applications some notice that they might not otherwise have.  I think one of the pleasures of coding something is having people discover and use it, and that can be really hard these days.

So one thing that did motivate this discussion was the thought that this was something desirable about NANY, and a worry that it might be losing this aspect if there wasn't some kind of focus on producing applications that could be useful to, and would be worth checking out by non-dc-regulars.

One thing skwire has been saying is "don't worry about it" -- that the applications can stand on their own, and people will be able to see which would be useful to them and which wouldn't, and we don't need to make a special effort to segregate them or manage them differently.  This may be true and i may be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

[Jibz]

I think what I am objecting to here is that it feels a bit like you are insinuating that first class apps will be better or more useful, while it sounds like they will just be better documented and easier to install.

-Jibz (April 15, 2010, 01:08 PM)

I would say that's probably more an issue of how it was stated than an actual reality. And perhaps it's all just about figuring out how to communicate this to people so that the spirit is maintained, while also allowing room for the growth and improvement that is desired.

-JavaJones (April 15, 2010, 01:17 PM)

Yes, I think you are right. Basically, if you take the presentation of the idea and cut out this paragraph

NANY entries that qualify as First Class entries will be featured more prominently in our wrap-ups and in our presentations to other sites as they'll have the widest appeal, ease of use and clarity of documentation.  In other words, the "First Class" applications will be the applications that we feel most comfortable recommending to people who have never heard about DonationCoder.com, and which we think are ready for wide promotion to the general public.

it would be easier to agree with I think.

[cranioscopical]

Perhaps there's a slight difficulty with the terminology.

Suppose there were, say, 107 NANY entries.
Further suppose that 5 were "First-Class".
Then suppose that the remaining 102 were generally regarded to be of equal merit, one to another.
Now you have 102 second-class entrants.

Can I interest you in an array of second-class applications? Any takers?

[Target]

sorry, thinking out loud here...

I can see the value of giving people more opportunities to contribute, but is there a danger that the longer lead time for apps with more substantial development requirements may dilute their association with NANY?

As skwire said part of the appeal for NANY watchers may be the frantic rush to finish entries within a relatively short window, and the availability of a slew of new apps all at (more or less) the same time.  

Apps that have been under development over an extended period will have had (possibly) substantial exposure well before the normal NANY window, and as such may not be seen as being part of that exercise.  This isn't necessarily favourable for the developer(s), but then again this may offset the fact that some of these applications might overshadow some of the more 'traditional' NANY offerings

[Perry Mowbray]

Can I interest you in an array of second-class applications? Any takers?

-cranioscopical (April 15, 2010, 08:26 PM)

True: it wasn't meant to infer lesser class -- just different. Suggestions?

[Jibz]

True: it wasn't meant to infer lesser class -- just different. Suggestions?

-Perry Mowbray (April 15, 2010, 11:07 PM)

Maybe "extended entry"? .. to me that doesn't convey any distinction in quality, merely that the entry contains something more. Of course I am not a native English speaker, so my vocabularity is not that high.

Target has some good points .. maybe we just need to make sure to inform any new visitors that (some of) the NANY apps are coded in a short time frame and do not always represent the production quality applications available on the rest of the site?

[Perry Mowbray]

I think it might be valuable in the discussion to reference some of the statistics that informed the original admin discussion that led to these potential changes. These ideas didn't just come out of the blue, as far as I know there has been decreased involvement, and more and more rushing as the event has aged through the years, so changes seemed necessary. That's my understanding anyway.

-JavaJones (April 15, 2010, 01:17 PM)

OK: these are the stats from the surveys that I posted in the Admin area. The questions where reduced to Yes (Y), No (No), Undecided (U), No Answer (-), Rate is the Answer Rate (Percentage of people answering) and Rank is the Rank of the Answer Rate (1 highest).

In addition, I feel the fast-paced, thirty-day rush up to release day is one of the endearing features of NANY.

-skwire (April 14, 2010, 11:53 PM)

That is not supported in entrant surveys; in fact, I think it was the opposite.

-Perry Mowbray (April 15, 2010, 09:25 AM)

  My memory was in the ball park but not concerning numbers. It was about 2/3 happy with time 1/3 not: still, we felt that was significant.

DonationCoder Support

  Enough Support?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	93%	0%	0%	7%	100%	1
Last Year	86%	10%	0%	0%	95%	2

Everyone answered this question: 93% Yes! Improvement on last year

Areas of more support?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	14%	71%	0%	14%	100%	1
Last Year	24%	67%	0%	0%	90%	5

Most people (71%) didn't have areas of more support, though the 2 who did were both around volunteers/helpers:

• Helpers Pledge sooner
• Finding volunteers to give assistance.

More support comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	21%				21%	30
Last Year	38%				38%	16

Less comments than last year: I'm not sure this means that there should have been more comments -- the whole event this year seems burdened with apathay

Too much Nagging/Not enough communication
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	7%	86%	0%	7%	100%	1
Last Year	5%	86%	5%	0%	95%	2

Most people were happy with the level of communication, though one person did say that they thought it was too much (and one didn't answer).

Redmine
Set up Redmine
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	14%	86%	0%	0%	100%	1

Only 2 members (14%) set up a Redmine account.

This is interesting given the fact that last year it was mentioned in the survey that more project management tools would be appreciated.

Set up Redmine later
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	21%	21%	0%	50%	93%	13

A further 21% (3 members) said they'd set up Redmine later: that's a total of 35% (5 members) who have intentions of using Redmine.

Redmine Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	93%				93%	13

Some of the reasons that Entrants didn't set up RedMine:

• I didn't want to have to deal with learning how to do RedMine while I was concentrating on getting my project completed.
• I wouldn't know what to do with it.
• Forgot
• I've waned to use Mercurial CVS integration but it did not work.

RedMine was a bit of a last minute thing which is reflected in this comment:
  

• There were also small problems with getting any kind of information about default account types to set them properly for participants.

Redmine was installed to enable Entrants to use a bug tracker, wiki as well as a files area. This produced problems as not everyone wanted a RedMine project, which left them wanting for a place for storing their files (for example)

NANY Challenge
Enough Time?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	64%	29%	7%	0%	100%	1
Last Year	62%	29%	10%	0%	100%	1

64% said they had enough time and 29% not. Very similar to last year.

This year I started NANY this year quite late as I had personal issues on the other side of the country, but it did feel shorter.

The time length comments seem to indicate that a month is good for something small or not quite finished (bugs), or otherwise you use something that is unreleased that you've been working on.

Time Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	79%	0%	0%	0%	79%	19

• Never enough time
• Just not enough to fix bugs
• It felt shorter this year had enough time but i didn't use my time wisely enough.
• The rush is what makes the event fun. If more time was given there would be some loss of interest in the event.
• It was enough to produce something small. For anything larger the time is too short. Especially in this time of the year.
• Found announcement quite late
• Only because the app was in divelopment for 2.5 years!!

Working with Template, Happy with form
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	86%	0%	7%	7%	100%	1
Last Year	76%	10%	5%	0%	90%	5

Nearly everyone was happy with the Template.

Some good thoughts from the suggestions that can be implemented:

  

• "Support this Entrant" field
• "Volunteers" field
• Maybe different templates for different types of applications

Template Suggestions
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	43%	0%	0%	0%	43%	26
Last Year	67%				67%	12

• Supporters Field needed
• should be a bit more emphasis on supporting the projects, by putting a "donate to author" link in the top table like the review template has.
• Not particularly relevant to games
• Can use Form Letter Machine?

Comments on Requirements
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	64%	0%	0%	0%	64%	22
Last Year	48%				48%	14

Some discussion of requirements, probably the most common was the disparity with "no attaching" to the thread.

How we manage files needs some more careful thought.

Happy with existing Statistics

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	43%	14%	14%	29%	100%	1
Last Year	29%	38%	14%	5%	86%	9

I managed to make a complete mess of Statistics and Attachments as it was again, a last minute thing. When we made the requirement to host the file somewhere apart from the forum we were thinking that would make it easier for Entrants and managing the files later on: this needs to be rethought as it is definitely not the case.

43% satisfaction indicates this, although it was better than last year. Of the 43% most focused on page views their thread attracted.

Comments on Statistics
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	50%				50%	24
Last Year	62%				62%	13

Most comments focused on the fact on the one hand we said no attachments then maybe did not make it clear that those statistics were available if they set up RedMine.

Entrant's statistics needs to be carefully thought out for next year, as not everyone will want the hassle to set up a RedMine account just for download stats.

NANY Rewards
Happy with Reward
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	86%	0%	7%	7%	100%	1
Last Year	86%	0%	0%	5%	90%	5

I was surprised that one person said "what reward": seriously.

Happy with Graphic options
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	79%	0%	14%	7%	100%	1
Last Year	67%	0%	5%	5%	76%	11

Graphic Option Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	43%				43%	26
Last Year	43%				43%	15

• include generic DC Logo
• twiggles cartoons
• graphics are a bit too graphical for me. Maybe a Badge type option that is a simple DC Branded, with cody, Nany graphic. Then each event the year changes and the badge remains the same. This way someone can line-up there prizes and have a consistent look.
• More white background

Challenge Management
Teaser / Pre-Release / Release worked
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	57%	29%	7%	0%	93%	13
Last Year	57%	5%	5%	29%	95%	2

Nearly a third of Entrants didn't use the Teaser / Pre-Release / Final, although well over half did.

Enough exposure (blogging, updates, etc)
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	71%	21%	0%	0%	93%	13
Last Year	62%	10%	19%	0%	90%	5

21% (3) said they felt that they did not receive enough exposure -- which falls to my management.

This highlights that a more organised approach if the blogging / updates are an important part of the process.

Use Ribbons?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	14%	86%	0%	0%	100%	1

Only two people used the ribbons: I was mildly disappointed in this, though it may reflect on the rush that 1 month can create…

Ribbon Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	93%				93%	13

• Forgot x2
• felt like it would be overkill and i have no other site to put them on.
• No other website x3
• didn't know x2

Use Volunteers?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	36%	57%	0%	7%	100%	1

Last year 24% said that they would have used more support and 36% gave suggestions of more support.

Interestingly, this year 36% used volunteers: so that makes me happy that those that complained / suggested seemed to make use of…

Volunteer Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	86%				86%	18

• 2 people said they needed skills not provided.
• 3 of the 7 that didn't said that because not required
• most of the help was graphics / icons

Check Suggestions?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	57%	43%	0%	0%	100%	1

Use Suggestions?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	14%	86%	0%	0%	100%	1

There were 32 suggestions in the thread 10 of which were added by Members of less than 50 posts: there is quite a deal of interest in getting their ideas implemented.

Although half of our Entrants checked the Suggestion Thread, only 2 Entrants found something to code. Most were more happy to do their own idea, a couple felt that they didn't have the skills.

Suggestion Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	64%				64%	22

Happy with Screencast?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	50%	0%	7%	43%	100%	1

50% were happy with the screen casts: the rest either didn't answer or didn't have a screencast to be happy about.

Interesting that no one equated the screencasts with support.

Other Linking
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	14%	0%	0%	0%	14%	#N/A

only 2 were using the sceencasts on other sites; this should increase over time... surely??

NANY Future

Impacted by quality criteria
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	57%	14%	29%	0%	100%	1

Positive Impact
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	43%	36%	7%	14%	100%	1

A very mixed response, and strong on both Y and N sides.

Negative comments focused on:

• Lack of Time
• Lack of Fun
• Issue of App Type

Positive comments focused on:

• Better Quality

Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	86%				86%	18

• I'm not sure I'd have time to roll out something that took more development effort.
• I wouldn't participate. NANY was supposed to be a fun event, not a release-a-commercial-quality-app-on-new-years.
• Great Idea
• It is a Challenge: improved requirements are optional, but all apps that meet the requirement will receive a special NANY Spotlight, or Featured NANY Project. Extra publicity, more praise, and maybe even a slightly improved reward. In the spirit of NANY, however, I don't think that any apps should be rejected.
• Depend on available time
• Need more time
• As long as there is a category for the little guys
• I don't think this is a good idea simply because there are people out there that won't even bother thinking about NANY let along writing something if there was a stipulation like this in place.
• As long as it's in my skills
• I believe that good quality is must have so any sort of guideline or coding standards to be followed will definitely be welcome. I do believe it would make the contest event better, more interesting/fair, etc.

Ready to Run Typing OK?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	79%	0%	21%	0%	100%	1

No one disapproved of a "Ready to Run", though 3 were unsure: which is seen in the comments.

The negative comment address:

• programmes of other OS (how to test)
• disappointment from downgrade

Typing Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	86%	0%	0%	0%	86%	18

• Alpha, Beta, Release Candidate, Release are all fairly common terms in the industry. So I see no reason not to use them regarding the entries. I actually seems rather irresponsible not to.
• I have always thought that alpha, beta, pre prefixes are meant to tell something. People should usually be aware that if something is not marked as final it can sometimes backfire.
• Give time to correct
• what happens if an app is submitted that is meant to be run on an OS other than what the testers have available? (I am thinking Mac here) Would these apps be automatically barred from the "Ready to Run" label, even if they are ready to run under the right circumstances?
• This is why I don't "Teaser"
• Good for users
• Great idea
• It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would submit as a final release a program that doesn't run. If it's not ready to run, then it seems to me that the deadline was not met.
• Benefit the event

Excellence award pursued?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	50%	36%	14%	0%	100%	1

Only 50% said that they'd pursue an excellence award and 35% said they definitely would not.

This highlights the differing motiviations of NANY Entrants.

Excellence Award Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	71%	0%	0%	0%	71%	#N/A

• Depends on criteria
• I code for fun. If it starts feeling like a job, I want to get paid.
• How about voting?
• I would aim towards it, for sure. I think that fits in with the NANY Spotlight mentioned above.
• further encouragement to come up with something good, instead of just with something.
• I'd have to disagree with this. I think part of the charm of NANY is that there is no specific singling out of apps. The top ones seem to do it of their own merit and that's more "fair" to me. Let it naturally happen, I suppose.
• I am not experienced enough to submit a substantial entry.
• It may be nice for some people but I am not one of them. I do not look for fame
• If something truly stands out…I see no problem with saying so. Not to mention that it couldn’t hurt as an incentive to try a bit harder to create something wonderful.

Mini NANYs good idea?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	57%	14%	29%	0%	100%	1

The Mini NANY Experiment received mixed thoughts from our Entrants this year: 57% thought it was a good idea, but only 43% thought it was good for them (make an entry)

Use Mini NANYs?
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	43%	50%	7%	0%	100%	1

The mix of comments is rather interesting:

• 4 didn't like the idea that Mini NANY was a safety net
• 6 Thought it was a good idea for something small

This indicates that the Entrants would prefer Mini NANY to be a type of NANY rather than a class, that you still aimed for a Mini NANY rather than fell into it because you didn't succeed at NANY.

Mini NANY Comments
  

	Y	N	U	-	Rate	Rank
This Year	93%		93%	13

• If I failed to properly grasp the size/scope of an application, and effectively bit-off-more-than-I-could-chew deadline wise … Then I would be compelled to consider myself as having failed (e.g. Did Not Finish). Mini NANYs tend to bring the smaller Coding Snack class applications to mind…and there is really nothing wrong with that assumption … Especially if it is (a perfect “fit”) done exceptionally well.
• There are two different ways of doing things: small steps and big ones. I know I could post something for Mini NANY right away because I have dozen of small tools I wrote and use often. But this would mean no more pressure and systematic work. I know I prone to be lazy and it would be easier but[span style="mso-spacerun: yes"]  [/span]with small submission I could not fully use my skills. I prefer to be pushed sometimes. It may sound little bit S/M but it is better to push me in such situations. I just hate lazy part of me and appreciate rough lessons 'cause sometimes this is the best way to improve.
• Good safety net
• If you are expecting more substantial projects, not knowing exactly what that means, I could assume that everything I have ever written would probably have been a Mini-NANY.
• I didn't like this idea/section because I think it dilutes NANY and makes things confusing. If something is PoC, maybe it doesn't belong in NANY?
• If it didn't fit as a NANY
• I believe that the Mini NANY section should be for any Entries that are either a proof-of-concept (as suggested) or apps/extensions/plugins that do not add significant functionality; things like themes, dictionaries, or small useful shortcuts would fall into this category, in my mind.
• I would venture to suggest that this is already a preferable solution to your "Ready to Run" idea. But I would want to try an all-or-nothing personally.
• I use Nany to give me a push to complete ideas that I have. I strive for a complete, polished submission.
• However the main event is what counts
• Have lots of ideas not suited to full NANY