[aur-general] Package voting alternatives

Ray Rashif schivmeister at gmail.com
Sun Dec 27 06:28:15 EST 2009

> Perhaps the fix for that
> is to reset the votes on all packages every 6 months or something?

That's not good. If users forget to vote, the stats are of no use.
After 6 months, the only number still updating and voting may just be

> Offer
> 3 "vote options" like: "Great package." "Meh." "Rubbish." and that'll likely
> give the best idea of package usage/quality.

Packages should be judged by what kind of software they
contain/provide, not "packaging quality". The purpose is to get
popular/useful software to the user, regardless of the quality of the
packaging itself. Even if it's a bad package but of good software,
more votes will make sure that it gets noticed and the right person
maintains it.

Often times, and this I can only guess, someone may be annoyed by a
failed/bad build and would refrain from voting just because of that.

The solution to this is to educate ourselves :)

> If you like a package, you'll probably update it regularly.

Also not a very good assumption. Remember that a lot of users run an
AUR client, so updates happen whether or not they like it (as long as
they have it installed).


The current mechanism works fine, except for the "package quality vs
software quality" thing.


More information about the aur-general mailing list