Gregory's Server@madiko @bert_hubert It’s not involvement, it’s gaming the GitHub “starring” feature. Basically makes the repo stars useless.
|
8 comments
  @hnapel Thank you. The post you're replying to is the most perfect piece of sealioning I've ever seen. I love the fediverse. Just learned a new terminology: "sea lioning" (didn't got it from the link to the wikipedia article of sea lions though): Thank you! @madiko @richlv @bert_hubert from a HN comment thread: """This cheats the other users (like me or you) -- if we are looking at the project's star count, you are likely trying to judge project's popularity and get a measure of how many people like it. And dae's star count is basically a lie - it does not represent how many people liked it, but rather how many people had found annoying bugs in it. [...] And as you said, other projects who don't have this practice are in disadvantage."""  @cuu508 @madiko @bert_hubert And to be pedantic, it's gaming the system, not gamification - the latter is more often associated with something positive, like StreetComplete introducing small gamification elements in mapping. Gaming the system harms other users and makes the metric useless, so Github could as well drop "starring" now. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I had a "feeling" grumbling in my stomach (that is why I wrote "intresting" with the thought-face behind it 🤔) But I could not put a finger to name my grumbling. It makes sense to me, what you are writing. From my experience in moderating and supporting an engaged open source community I share your experiences. Recently we wondered how to "know what peeps need". It's not easy to know. The blind spot is huge. |
@richlv
trying to understand your way of thinking: Why do you call it gamification? And also: Why do you think it makes the repo stars useless? Which experiences do you have concerning that?
// cc @bert_hubert