[aur-general] How to see the interest in a package (other than votes)?
oliver at first.in-berlin.de
Thu Feb 28 16:02:21 EST 2013
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:39:04PM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:34:11PM +0100, oliver wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:19:09PM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:09:30PM +0100, oliver wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > is it possible to see the number of downloads of packages from AUR,
> > > > so that it can be detected, how much interest in a package exists?
> > > >
> > > > Say, there are some users who do not have a AUR-login,
> > > > and just would install the packages that are there... which are possibly
> > > > outdated, but would nevertheless be interested in installing
> > > > newer package, if possible.
> > > >
> > > > If the download number is high enough, even if there
> > > > are not much votes (because some people may only
> > > > install stuff but are not interested in package maintaining and so on),
> > > > then at least interest of a package might be detected this way.
> > >
> > > This is an extremely flawed premise.
> > >
> > > > I'm asking, because I think I can adopt some more packages,
> > > > but would of course only pick those that I find interesting.
> > > >
> > > > They might be interesting (topic), even if I wil not use
> > > > them by myself.
> > > > So, from that standpoint, I would then select by my own
> > > > interest and that of other people.
> > > > For packages that I use by myself, of course my interest is clear,
> > > > and I would pick such packages.
> > >
> > > This is really strange (non-)logic. The best maintainer for a package is
> > > one who is actively interested in the package itself and uses it. How
> > > else could you possibly support it?
> > Of course, as I said, I would NOT adopt packages that are
> > completely uninteresting for me.
> > Nevertheless, if I think a topic is interesting, and is somehow related
> > to something I would like to see spreaded, adopting it can make sense.
> > For example, if I want to push the usage of R, and there are GUIs for
> > R, that many people would like to use, supporting a GUI for R can mek sense,
> > even I prefer the shell without GUI for myself.
> > But if it contributes to spreading R - which I think is a wonderful program -
> > it would make sense. E.g. I could show the GUI to some friends, who are GUI-addicted,
> > and in this way introduce them to R.
> > So I would not use it, but would like to provide it.
> > But it makes no sense, if nobody asks for it.
> > Do you see what I have in mind?
> No. I don't.
> > Do you nevertheless think, this is weak motivation?
> Yes, I do. Adopt things because you're interested in them, not because
> they're (potentially?) popular.
Why I was looking for poularity?
Because I thought, it *might* be an indicator (even a weak one)
about some kind of quality.
Some libraries or tools might not be used anymore, because there
are newer or faster or better libs for example.
Maybe it would be better, asking people about quality
of a software, instead of just looking at the numbers... hmhhh.
Maybe the numbers are really to weak to decide this.
But somehow I think, if something is used often, there might be a bigger
number of users who can support other people. Hence more prgress,
and (hopefully) rising quality.
Often people say: a project that was not updates since years is a dead
project. People turn away.
Isn't this most often (of course not always, not hgenerally) some kind of
indicator to see some kind of quality behind these decisions?
> > About the metrics: download numbers are not perfect, but better than
> > nothing?
> What you propose is surfacing raw *data*. I made a counter proposal of
> adding potential heuristics so that useful *information* could be
> displayed. I do not believe there is any value in showing the raw data,
> and, if anything, I believe it would only be misleading.
Ok, I see.
More information about the aur-general