COMMON COUTRESY
Posted by ureadit
on 5/25/2005
ureadit
5/25/2005 2:56 pm
Some in this forum remind me of the word "professionalism" and of the time I was a professor and taught a math class for high school teachers. I had to give five points to the participants just to get them to put their NAMES on their test papers. (Remind anyone of your high school days?)
All of the people in this forum appear to be professionals. Yet, several here refer to "it" or "the program" WITHOUT there being an obvious antecedent. Would anyone do that in work they are paid for?
What's WORSE are those who comment on a program WITHOUT giving ANY indication as to HOW MUCH they have ACTUALLY USED it. This can result in others either rejecting a program that might be of great use to them or in spending money on a mangy dog.
For example, InfoRecall appears to be a wonderful program with a plethora of features. Years ago, I purchased it, but then found it to have many bugs. (I readily admit to giving most PIMS a tough workout.) I spent a great many hours helping the developer find bugs to fix and testing the fixes, but I eventually gave up. Years later, I tried IR again, but again found it to be buggy. I do not know about the current version and so will only suggest that a prospective purchaser try all of the functionality s/he intends to use -- before purchase.
Might I suggest that it is COMMON COURTESY when commenting on a program to also say how much one has or hasn't used it.
-Steve Cohen
All of the people in this forum appear to be professionals. Yet, several here refer to "it" or "the program" WITHOUT there being an obvious antecedent. Would anyone do that in work they are paid for?
What's WORSE are those who comment on a program WITHOUT giving ANY indication as to HOW MUCH they have ACTUALLY USED it. This can result in others either rejecting a program that might be of great use to them or in spending money on a mangy dog.
For example, InfoRecall appears to be a wonderful program with a plethora of features. Years ago, I purchased it, but then found it to have many bugs. (I readily admit to giving most PIMS a tough workout.) I spent a great many hours helping the developer find bugs to fix and testing the fixes, but I eventually gave up. Years later, I tried IR again, but again found it to be buggy. I do not know about the current version and so will only suggest that a prospective purchaser try all of the functionality s/he intends to use -- before purchase.
Might I suggest that it is COMMON COURTESY when commenting on a program to also say how much one has or hasn't used it.
-Steve Cohen
srdiamond15
5/25/2005 6:15 pm
It depends on the nature of the comment, don't you think? If I'm evaluating whether the program is buggy or not, and I say it is NOT then certainly I'm obliged to say how much I used it and what tests I put it through. If I say it *is* buggy, it isn't clear the same information is relevant. It doesn't matter how long it took me to find the bugs, but only if they infect the program. I would, however, owe information on steps I took to find that the bugs are repeatable and not a function of other programs on my system.
Even more so, if I say, Program A lacks feature x, how long I used the program to discover this absence is completely irrelevant in most cases. But if I'm less than certain of the absence, I need either to qualify accordings or, better yet, enumerate the bases I did touch in making the tentative assessment.
Stephen Diamond
Even more so, if I say, Program A lacks feature x, how long I used the program to discover this absence is completely irrelevant in most cases. But if I'm less than certain of the absence, I need either to qualify accordings or, better yet, enumerate the bases I did touch in making the tentative assessment.
Stephen Diamond