- I think the zero follower account might be the weakest signal of a low quality account, I think I had zero followers for maybe 5+ years.
GitHub's fake star economy
261–270 of 403 posts
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#262Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and to be clear, one uses "TFA" to imply annoyance that TFA hasn't been read. e.g. "TFA covers this already."
That’s not something I wanted to imply. It can also stand for "the fine article". Is there a better shorthand for "the article linked at top of the page" / "the original article"?
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is compounded by young, newly rich tech workers (no kids, no mortgage, maybe not even a car) experimenting with being a VC because they've recently reached accredited investor status. and it's not just ZIRP. every recent IPO or liquidity event creates literally 500 more of these guys.
They say Silicon Valley was more of a documentary than a comedy, and now we have one more way life imitates art: A growing army of Erlich Bachmann's.
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#265I don't think I have ever used stars in making a decision to use a library and I don't understand why anyone would. Here are the things I look at in order: * last commit date. Newer is better * age. old is best if still updating. New is not great but tolerable if commits aren't rapid * issues. Not the count, mind you, just looking at them. How are they handled, what kind of issues are lingering open. * some of the co…
I do.
I don't review the whole repo, but every single time I update dep versions, I always look at the full diff between the two. It doesn't take that long
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#266Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The answer isn't that they're morons. It's that they aren't people who "invest" in "good businesses" to make money, but instead on the whole a class of individuals classed with gambling on high risk ventures that will have absolutely massive returns and they don't care if 90% of them fail and 9% flounder because the 1% that succeed bring in absolutely apeshit amounts of $$ when they are acquired by someone else. Usin…
If you mentally say “well 90% fail so I’ll just throw in this dog shit to see what happens” then you increase the failure rate.
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#268Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#269I think people expect the star system to be a cheap proxy for "this is a reliable piece of sorfware which has a good quality and a lot of eyes". I think as a proxy it fails completely: astroturfing aside stars don't guarantee popularity (and I bet the correlation is very weak, a lot of very fundamental system libraries have small number of stars). Stars also don't guarantee the quality. And given that you can read th…
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#270These kinds of articles make you feel like there are specific, actionable problems that just need an adjustment and then they disappear. However, the system is much worse than you'd expect. Studies like this are extremely valuable, but they don't address the systematic problems affecting all signaling channels: most signals themselves have been manufactured into a product. Build a SaaS and you'll have "journalists" a…