develooper Front page | perl.qa | Postings from June 2008

Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
chromatic
Date:
June 30, 2008 00:18
Subject:
Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics
Message ID:
200806300017.48202.chromatic@wgz.org
On Sunday 29 June 2008 23:08:50 Jonathan Rockway wrote:

> * On Sun, Jun 29 2008, chromatic wrote:

> > However, does making CPAN a better place require publishing a Hall of
> > Shame on perl.org?
> >
> > 	http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_shame
>
> Good point.
>
> The same could be said for CPAN Ratings also.  Why should my module have
> 1 star next to it because any goof with a web browser can write a
> review?  Why is the opinion of someone with no ties to the community
> considered relevant enough to show in the search.cpan search results?
> (The same goes for positive ratings.  I've seen a lot of high ratings of
> modules that are rated highly for no good reason, or rated that way by
> its own author.)

> I personally don't care and generally ignore the ratings, but it's the
> same thing as Kwalitee, except not even objective.

There are important differences.  CPAN Ratings are much more obviously 
subjective.  No one (so far) has ranked all 16,000 or however many CPAN 
distributions against each other in a canonical list.

Ratings have individual names attached to them.  They're not just "perl.org 
says that these X distributions from these Y authors are particularly 
shameful".  (Note that the Hall of Shame doesn't include the "Kwalitee is not 
Quality" dodge.  Then again, neither does the Hall of Triumph.)

Ratings have text that people can read and analyze on their own, if they want.

None of these mean that potential users *will* use all of their tools, but the 
differences seem important to me.

-- c

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About