6 ms·
Assuming success / adoption, I would be careful with how you approach this. IMDB is centered on reviews and ratings of a static media asset. Open source proje
by jasonjmcghee 3y ago
Assuming success / adoption, I would be careful with how you approach this.
IMDB is centered on reviews and ratings of a static media asset.
Open source projects are often growing/changing. They might have a really intriguing seed of an idea with an interesting roadmap, but the prototype is poorly executed / buggy. Does that deserve a low ranking / poor review?
- lowercased 3y agoIdeally, the rankings should be associated with a time period. Something ranked high... but all those high rankings are from 2 years ago, and there's been none since... that's a different signal that current high rankings and current code changes.
- Moogs 3y agoI think how Steam handles game rankings is a good example of this. They separate out "All Reviews" from "Recent Reviews". Helps identify current reception of a game which may have had a buggy release.
- warbled_tongue 3y agoThere's a case to be made for done-but-not-dead projects that are feature complete and still the go to solution.
- pjerem 3y agoIdeally those projects would still get reviews so timeframed reviews still makes sense.
- perlgeek 3y agoYou probably need to adjust the time scale of what "recent" means based on the number of reviews. If a project has a total of 10 reviews, it's probably best to not just take the average of the 2 newest reviews. On the other hand, if a project gets dozens of reviews a month, taking of the last two months or so would totally make sense.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]