> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Vincent Povirk > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Something like this might actually make more sense: > > > > Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up > > Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks > > Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks > > Gold: Mostly functional, does not require hacks > > Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks > > > > This would give a fair amount of information about both the level of > > functionality and the difficulty, and it would mean anything that > > requires hacks cannot be rated Gold. > > That's a step in the right direction. As long as we don't explicitly > mention cracks, I'm ok with that. > - Dan
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. It might not be a good idea, but we could always introduce a new rating so that we have > > Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up > > Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks > > Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks > > Gold: Mostly functional, does not require hacks >> Ivory: Fully functional, requires hacks > > Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks Not saying it's a good idea. Otherwise, adding a 'difficulty' field sounds interesting. This would allow users to easily avoid apps that require a really complicated work-around, such as patching and compiling Wine. Then we could also add an option to turn on warnings if an app requires a crack, or we could censor it automatically based on GeoIP data. Regards, Alexander N. Sørnes
