http://sourceforge.net/top/mostactive.php?type=week&offset=200
We made 246th on the list of most active projects on SourceForge. We are cranking!
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams
We made 246th on the list of most active projects on SourceForge. We are cranking!
well, yesterday we had a cvs changelog of 400k ;-)
t
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
http://sourceforge.net/top/mostactive.php?type=week&offset=200 We made 246th on the list of most active projects on SourceForge. We are cranking!
We are now 326th on the list with a score of 98.00000, ex-aequo with dozens if not hundreds of other projects.
Before rejoicing, the question that should be asked is whether the ranking system is bogus or not. It does seems very bogus to me.
The "activity" measure doesn't have any definition obvious to everyone, so if they don't post anything about how they decide the level of activity, then the measure is bogus.
Also, if everyone is very, very close the same value, and dozens of people are ex-aequo, for a system for which a more spread-out score distribution can be designed, this looks very, very fishy. It's as if the people who created those measures in SF and FM did so with a wild heuristic and they never bothered to check whether it gave good results at all because in the end they stopped caring and didn't bother looking back.
PS: Executive Summary: "WTF?!"
_____________________________________________________________________ Mathieu Bouchard -=- Montréal QC Canada -=- http://artengine.ca/matju
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Matju wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
http://sourceforge.net/top/mostactive.php?type=week&offset=200 We made 246th on the list of most active projects on SourceForge. We are cranking!
Before rejoicing, the question that should be asked is whether the ranking system is bogus or not. It does seems very bogus to me.
Never mind, I figured out what you mean by cranking.
_____________________________________________________________________ Mathieu Bouchard -=- Montréal QC Canada -=- http://artengine.ca/matju
Matju schrieb:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
http://sourceforge.net/top/mostactive.php?type=week&offset=200 We made 246th on the list of most active projects on SourceForge. We are cranking!
We are now 326th on the list with a score of 98.00000, ex-aequo with dozens if not hundreds of other projects.
Before rejoicing, the question that should be asked is whether the ranking system is bogus or not. It does seems very bogus to me.
Well, my project PhpWiki is usually 30th, and is from time to time under the top ten. Even without CVS stats and with only one single developer (that's me), and with no img src pagehit counters, but a lot of users asking stupid support questions.
I believe the ranking system ranks the forum and tracker stats very high, because when I was under the top ten, I just answered a lot of forum questions in a bulk, and closed some bug reports.
I have steady 200 downloads per day also. The other top ten have at least 100 times higher download and pagehit figures.
The "activity" measure doesn't have any definition obvious to everyone, so if they don't post anything about how they decide the level of activity, then the measure is bogus.
Also, if everyone is very, very close the same value, and dozens of people are ex-aequo, for a system for which a more spread-out score distribution can be designed, this looks very, very fishy. It's as if the people who created those measures in SF and FM did so with a wild heuristic and they never bothered to check whether it gave good results at all because in the end they stopped caring and didn't bother looking back.
PS: Executive Summary: "WTF?!"
-
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Matju -
Reini Urban -
Tim Blechmann