Small paid job


in regards to screening, there could be a group of trusted moderators on my repo check each file b4 allowing it to go live, but i do not know if this might annoy some devs, as they know there application isnt malware, and it most probably been tested before bringing forward to the public anyway... its a fine line really.
Currently, the site keeps track of who uploads each PND. If you trust the uploader, you can probably trust the app. I intend to build such "web-of-trust" stuff into my native client, so users can get trusted apps quickly, but are warned if an app is from someone untrusted.


Perhaps we could could extend this idea into a crowd-sourced verification thing. All apps appear on the site immediately after uploading, then any user of the site can "approve" it; all such approvals are listed for each app, and if someone you trust is on that list, you can feel safe in using it. After that, we just need to convince users to test apps and then give approvals.
 
Perhaps we could could extend this idea into a crowd-sourced verification thing. All apps appear on the site immediately after uploading, then any user of the site can "approve" it; all such approvals are listed for each app, and if someone you trust is on that list, you can feel safe in using it. After that, we just need to convince users to test apps and then give approvals.
But isn't that already covered by the currently implemented rating system in combination with comments ? If a pnd is rated low - take a look at the comments, if something like "turned my keyboard into a touchscreen, and suddenly Nintendo appeared on the back of the lid" comes up - you should be careful
 
But isn't that already covered by the currently implemented rating system in combination with comments ? If a pnd is rated low - take a look at the comments, if something like "turned my keyboard into a touchscreen, and suddenly Nintendo appeared on the back of the lid" comes up - you should be careful
The voting is on-site only and therefore not in the Repository specification, or in short, the client doesn't know about it nor about the comments. And putting that in the repos spec might not be a good idea, because it would require potentional other repos to have all this comment and rating stuff too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps we could could extend this idea into a crowd-sourced verification thing. All apps appear on the site immediately after uploading, then any user of the site can "approve" it; all such approvals are listed for each app, and if someone you trust is on that list, you can feel safe in using it. After that, we just need to convince users to test apps and then give approvals.
But isn't that already covered by the currently implemented rating system in combination with comments ? If a pnd is rated low - take a look at the comments, if something like "turned my keyboard into a touchscreen, and suddenly Nintendo appeared on the back of the lid" comes up - you should be careful
Ratings are certainly useful for this, but, as averaged aggregate data, they don't say who likes it. A malicious uploader could create a dozen dummy accounts to vote an app up, but if those dozen dummy accounts are on the approval list, other users will say "I've never heard of them and therefore don't trust them". Maybe rating and approval would be combined such that adding a rating gives implicit approval of an app's safety; this would be easier for users, but give less fine-grained data, so I don't know. Whatever, this is all just an idea.

The voting is on-site only and therefore not in the Repository specification, or in short, the client doesn't know about it nor about the comments. And putting that in the repos spec might not be a good idea, because it would require potentional other repos to have all this comment and rating stuff too.
With recent updates to the PXML spec, we might have to make major changes to the repo spec. At that point, we might as well add in rating and approval information if we think they might be useful. Of course, I would leave such information as optional so not all repos would have to implement them.
 
If you check Pandora apps it's now filling up nicely. We might make it out-of-beta tomorrow.

Great. Would it be possible to have a "Latest Apps" link please? That way I can easily see what files have been uploaded on a weekly basis.


Many thanks if possible.
 
If you check Pandora apps it's now filling up nicely. We might make it out-of-beta tomorrow.

Great. Would it be possible to have a "Latest Apps" link please? That way I can easily see what files have been uploaded on a weekly basis.


Many thanks if possible.

Yes, once it is up to date, you can also use twitter to see, which I will turn back on soon (didn't want to flood it).

If you check Pandora apps it's now filling up nicely. We might make it out-of-beta tomorrow.

what deams the app-store out of beta? it cant just be on how up to date it is surly has there been unseen improvments to the code?

I was fixing a few bugs yesterday, also there are some new features.
 
I've been using my pandora a lot so I now will start rating the apps, I think if a lot of people do this it will become a very nice measure of 'must-have' apps :)
 
And the ages old issue that you end on an error page when going to http://apps.openpandora.org and directly click "New Uploads" still ain't fixed. A workaround is first clicking in the top left corner when going to apps.openpandora.org. Though this is really not nice, since a plain apache redirect on apps.openpandora.org itself (when going there) would solve this issue!


The page you end at is: http://apps.openpandora.org/latestapps.shtml


The correct page you *should* end at would be: http://apps.openpandora.org/apps/latestapps.shtml

BTW a comment regarding a 100% wrong entry: http://apps.open-pandora.org/cgi-bin/viewapp.pl?/Emulator/snes9x4d4p.inf


The license is NOT gplv2! It is a "as-is non-commercial" kind of license.
 
Why are GEdit, Code::Blocks and RText Misc, not Applications?


Otherwise it's nice to see it filling even though Firefox/Fennec are present in to many versions for me :)
 
Because these are development tools and better fit the category "Other - Development".
Appplications - Development makes much more sense to me.


Stuff like firmware upgrades, runtime environments, codecs etc... I would not look for in applications, others I would


(that includes stuff like e.g. brasero and GRsync).
 
the way the official app-store works is relativly simple, there cant be lots of categories, its done this way to keep it simple for new users.


games, emulators, apps, other thats all your going to get so its hard to put certain apps into certain categories.
 
Back
Top