AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine

[M.Kiesel]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote:

> If I had a nickel for every times I've seen platinum and gold ratings 
> for apps that had dozens of native dlls or complicated scripts to work 
> around wine bugs, I'd be a much richer man.

What about clarifying the wording on
http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings
?

My suggestion for "Platinum":
"Application installs and runs flawlessly completely/at highest 
settings ‘out of the box‘. No changes required in winecfg."
(add "completely/at highest settings")

For "Gold":
"Application works completely/at highest settings flawlessly in the latest 
Wine development release (no patches needed), possibly with DLL overrides, 
other settings, or third party software."
(add same as above; add "latest Wine development release"; remove "*some* 
DLL overrides)

I feel that games that are playable only at low settings shouldn't get 
Gold or Platinum ratings at all. Other opinions?

Austin: I think for apps that run completely with tweaks a Gold rating is 
okay regardless of the number of tweaks involved; for the user it doesn't 
matter really whether one or ten DLLs have to be overridden. I wouldn't go 
as far as allowing patched Wine versions though.

I also suggest to hyperlink every mention of "Rating" in the browser with 
that page. Otherwise it isn't completely clear (without searching) what 
the individual ratings mean really.
Who has the rights to change AppDB on that level?

Regards