3 ms·
The number of stars has been not very reliable on its own since a long time. For example, a repository from Google or a random Chinese university always had mu
by speedgoose 4y ago
The number of stars has been not very reliable on its own since a long time.
For example, a repository from Google or a random Chinese university always had much more stars than other similar repositories.
I prefer to look at the number of stars with other metrics, such as the number of issues. 3000 stars and 50 issues? Something is very fishy. 12000 stars and 6000 issues? Perhaps the software is not very good. You have exceptions of course.
I also like to look at the contributors graphs. After some time, you recognize the patterns, and you can quickly notice when the number of stars doesn't match with the graphs you see.
- moondev 4y agoExactly my thoughts. There are so many great metrics available for the repo for anyone to easily evaluate. If anything seeing an obviously massive mismatch of stars is an even better indicator of the project - it's potentially untrustworthy.
- jicea 4y agoMay I ask why you find it fishy? I’m one of the maintainer of an Open source project with ~2000 stars and 50 issues [1] (some bugs, some questions and a lot of enhancement proposal). I don’t think there is anything strange in these kinds of numbers. [1] https://github.com/Orange-OpenSource/hurl https://github.com/Orange-OpenSource/hurl
- suprjami 4y agoSorry, your project doesn't have a .io domain, it must be of poor quality. Or would you rather I look at the what it does, its contributor guide, release history, roadmap, tests, etc instead of some arbitrary cosmetic value?
- speedgoose 4y agoYou have 250 issues, which is a normal number to me. I consider the total amount of issues, not only the open ones. If it was 50 I would think many users did star your repository because the idea sounds useful but few use it.
- jicea 4y agoOk, If you count the total number of issues, I understand you point now.