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…
GitHub's fake star economy
351–360 of 403 posts
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#352Earlier 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…
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#353Earlier 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?
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#354Earlier 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
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#355Download 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
#356I 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…
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#357same here on HN as well
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#358https://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…
Re: GitHub's fake star economy
#359Earlier 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 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