Live data from Hacker News

GitHub's fake star economy

awesomeagents.ai

351–360 of 403 posts

Re: GitHub's fake star economy

#351
post #345
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

VCs mostly invest other peoples' money, not their own. The "rich people" are often pension funds, endowments, and other pools of capital rather than individual morons. VCs themselves probably suffer from chronic overestimation of their own intelligence, but there just aren't many good signals at the stage of companies they're looking at. No customers, no revenue; often just an idea and hopefully a prototype. GitHub s…

> the bar for signal quality is just really low During the Covid-era when money was flowing more readily I worked with a series A startup founder on improving their unit economics. They were spending a lot on customer acquisition but after my analysis I realized that they were losing money on each customer. It didn't matter how long you ran the timeline, with churn they never broke even on new customers. When I recommended cutting marketing spend, they told me that they needed to show topline growth -- because that's what investors were looking for. And they knew from experience that the investors didn't dig into the numbers enough to realize they were growing themselves broke.

Re: GitHub's fake star economy

#352
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think I have ever used stars in making a decision to use a library and I don't understand why anyone would I do it all the time, whenever there are competing libraries to choose among. It's a heuristic that saves me time. If one library has 1,000 stars and the other has 15, I'm going to default to the 1,000 stars. I also look at download count and release frequency. Basically I don't want to use some obscur…

> It's a heuristic that saves me time. A bad one. I listed many other useful heuristics. Do you not find value in them? Do you find stars more valuable than them? Take a moment to consider stars as a useful metric may only be useful for packages created prior to ~2015 when they weren't such a strong vanity metric, and are already very well established. This is preconditioning you to think "stars can still sometimes b…

you're arguing with people who are fundamentally unempathetic. it's a lot of words spent on vamping about stars instead of contributing to stuff everyone actually uses, which hardly anyone does, which should tell you everything you need to know about the value of having open source users: most of them only care that something is free as in beer.

Re: GitHub's fake star economy

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If one library has 1,000 stars and the other has 15, I'm going to default to the 1,000 stars. Will you continue to do this after reading TFA?

Why not? Buying stars is also a positive signal on commitment. i.e. if the maintainer is serious enough to buy stars, is not in theory likely to spend time /money in maintaining /improving the project also ?. Presumably he wouldn't just want fake users but also real users, which is a signal than a just purely hobby project, that is vibe-coded on a whim over a weekend and abandoned?

It's a positive signal for fraud and willingness to deceive.

Re: GitHub's fake star economy

#354
post #72
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time when total number of hyperlinks to a site was an amazing metric measuring its quality.

at that time having a website took work, while having a github account can be cheaply used to sybil attack/signal marketing

Forums, news groups and mailing lists counted towards pagerank in the early days.

Re: GitHub's fake star economy

#355
I briefly mentioned it in a talk at minidebconf a couple years ago.

Download counters are abused similarly and are even easier to inflate.

Understanding the real popularity of a project is now even harder with all the AI bots spamming about it.

Re: GitHub's fake star economy

#356
post #143

I 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 don't think I have ever used stars in making a decision to use a library and I don't understand why anyone would I do it all the time, whenever there are competing libraries to choose among. It's a heuristic that saves me time. If one library has 1,000 stars and the other has 15, I'm going to default to the 1,000 stars. I also look at download count and release frequency. Basically I don't want to use some obscur…

The problem is that you will mis-evaluate unknown projects that aim to be (or already are) VC funded.

Re: GitHub's fake star economy

#357
post #45

same here on HN as well

The software to detect voting manipulation, collusion abd sockpuppet/astroturf commenting on HN is both the oldest and the most actively developed, and is the main reason it’s considered a strong signal of credibility when a project makes it to the front page. The service that claims to sell upvotes has never had any impact on HN.

Re: GitHub's fake star economy

#358
post #59

https://x.com/garrytan/status/2045404377226285538 “gstack is not a hypothetical. It’s a product with real users: 75,000+ GitHub stars in 5 weeks 14,965 unique installations (opt-in telemetry, so real number is at least 2x higher) 305,309 skill invocations recorded since January 2026 ~7,000 weekly active users at peak” GitHub stars are a meaningless metric but I don’t think a high star count necessarily indicates boug…

Garry Tan is an imbecile though.

Re: GitHub's fake star economy

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If one library has 1,000 stars and the other has 15, I'm going to default to the 1,000 stars. Will you continue to do this after reading TFA?

Why not? Buying stars is also a positive signal on commitment. i.e. if the maintainer is serious enough to buy stars, is not in theory likely to spend time /money in maintaining /improving the project also ?. Presumably he wouldn't just want fake users but also real users, which is a signal than a just purely hobby project, that is vibe-coded on a whim over a weekend and abandoned?

> i.e. if the maintainer is serious enough to buy stars, is not in theory likely to spend time /money in maintaining /improving the project also ?.

i mean if maintainers clearly spend much more time and effort on fraud than actually improving the project, why should I at all believe they would, let alone trust their judgement with regards to other things such as technical choices for example

Post reply on HN