@bert_hubert Related: I made a pretty useful but VERY niche command line tool. I tried to get it added to Homebrew so that folks didn't have to use a "tap". I was told that they only allow projects with > 100⭐ on GitHub.
(I dunno how buttload of 40yr old unix utilities made it in 🤦♀️)
@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?
"""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."""
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.
@richlv@cuu508@madiko@bert_hubert Github's star system gamifies open source in the first place. It makes people feel like they have to host repos on github, because otherwise people who judge projects on the basis of number of stars won't use it.
Further gamifying this system, including making it useless, is a reasonable response.
Add comment