6 ms·

Look at the graph - https://api.star-history.com/svg?repos=facebook/react,openclaw/openclaw,torvalds/linux&type=Date https://api.star-history.com/svg?repos=face

Look at the graph - https://api.star-history.com/svg?repos=facebook/react,openclaw/openclaw,torvalds/linux&type=Date https://api.star-history.com/svg?repos=facebook/react,opencl... React and Linux got their 200K stars slowly but surely over 10 years. OpenClaw got their 200K stars in like 3 months! Is this any meaningful comparison? Getting 200K stars today doesn't mean much because today stars can be bought. There's a big shady thriving business of selling stars. Stars today can be generated using swarm of thoughtless agents. What's the use of counting these stars when they don't mean anything anymore?

crumpled 7mo ago
I agree with your point, and am only responding to the last sentence. Starring can be useful to the starer. They are just counted because it is countable. Whether you find the number meaningful remains up to you.
- ASalazarMX 7mo ago
  Besides, stars != installs, these days they're a popularity contest at the level of Facebook likes, not a measure of a project's success. Let's wait for the explorers to return.
theshrike79 7mo ago
Everyone's Clawd has a Github account that most likely has liked the OpenClaw project Would be nice to see a graph of stars by account age, how many of the stars come from accounts that are under 6 months old for example?
- marginalia_nu 7mo ago
  I was looking at the accounts that have starred the OpenClaw project. Many seem relatively old, but I couldn't find more than a handful that seemed to be publicly active in any sense (e.g. making PRs or commits). Same story with the forks. A metric shit-ton ton of forks, no branches or commits or any sign of activity on the forks. Compared that to the people who have been starring my projects, and every single one of them had some sort of activity on record. --edit-- Checked again now, seems more recent accounts have some activity. But still, lots of accounts like these https://github.com/hannhow https://github.com/hannhow https://github.com/197291 https://github.com/197291 https://github.com/Honstanding https://github.com/Honstanding https://github.com/FriTOol https://github.com/FriTOol
d4rkp4ttern 7mo ago
The first use case of OpenClaw is…

crumpled 7mo ago

I agree with your point, and am only responding to the last sentence. Starring can be useful to the starer. They are just counted because it is countable. Whether you find the number meaningful remains up to you.

ASalazarMX 7mo ago
Besides, stars != installs, these days they're a popularity contest at the level of Facebook likes, not a measure of a project's success. Let's wait for the explorers to return.

theshrike79 7mo ago

Everyone's Clawd has a Github account that most likely has liked the OpenClaw project Would be nice to see a graph of stars by account age, how many of the stars come from accounts that are under 6 months old for example?

marginalia_nu 7mo ago
I was looking at the accounts that have starred the OpenClaw project. Many seem relatively old, but I couldn't find more than a handful that seemed to be publicly active in any sense (e.g. making PRs or commits). Same story with the forks. A metric shit-ton ton of forks, no branches or commits or any sign of activity on the forks. Compared that to the people who have been starring my projects, and every single one of them had some sort of activity on record. --edit-- Checked again now, seems more recent accounts have some activity. But still, lots of accounts like these https://github.com/hannhow https://github.com/hannhow https://github.com/197291 https://github.com/197291 https://github.com/Honstanding https://github.com/Honstanding https://github.com/FriTOol https://github.com/FriTOol

d4rkp4ttern 7mo ago

The first use case of OpenClaw is…