On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Would you also object to removing high ratings from apps that need cracks? IMHO "Gold" ought not to imply that one has to seek out a crack (and thereby potentially infect your machine with malware).
Not in principle. The rating system doesn't really change the information available on the site. For anything that's not Garbage or Platinum, it's important anyway to look at the entry for more details.
I do agree that treating cracks differently from patches or overrides would be inconsistent, as those are just as difficult to set up.
As others have pointed out, ratings actually express two different things: the maximum possible functionality of an app and the difficulty involved in getting that functionality. Right now, the only rating that addresses difficulty is Platinum (an app that requires an override or hack can be anywhere from Bronze to Gold). The ratings currently look like this:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks Silver: Mostly functional, may require hacks Gold: Fully functional, requires hacks Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks
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. It would also mean a program that works only with a crack can be rated Silver, but I can't come up with anything consistent that would force them to be rated Bronze.