Forum Posts

Thanks both of you!

Hi In the libssh2 project we switched from CVS to git, and accordingly the records have been updated here. Although, now I cannot claim to be "Daniel Stenberg" of this project (although of course ... [More] this is me) and instead it says I should use the alias concept. But my previous "this is me" for the libssh2 project were done for the CVS repo user name(s) and they are history and I can't do aliases depending on the old user names!! Can you please perhaps reset the state of "this is me" assignments for the entire libssh2 project to allow us to "get" our commits again? [Less]

Hey guys I've always liked Ohloh since I'm a stats and open source junkie, but the recent rankings show how flawed the algorithms currently are so it's not even funny any more. Now we have a brand ... [More] new user ranked #1 with 464 commits and a #2 with 20 commits. I'm convinced no human ever would rank them this high. That's a sign of the ranking algorithm being a failure. Please consider making them more in line with how ordinary people would consider the ranking to be, as ohloh becomes less useful and interesting when we see stupid results as this output from all the useful input it gets! I blogged about this a while ago but nothing seems to have change since then so perhaps I should leave a link to my post: http://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2008/11/28/4-ohloh-improvements-id-like/ [Less]

libssh2 was last updated in august, almost 4 months ago...

Allow me to draw attention to this little request (even if the title of this thread is very unfortunate). As long as dependencies aren't at least attempted to get tracked, we get a very skewed ... [More] (bordering to completely inaccurate) view on the "used by" counter etc as random users won't mark underlying but important corner stones of the system. [Less]

No, it doesn't make sense and they're not easily split up.

Hello I just noticed that someone submitted libcurl as a separate project, while the already listed curl one includes libcurl. While that could have some merit, we now get duplicated commits if ... [More] "accepting" ownership of stuff done in both the curl and the libcurl project entries! [Less]

I'm not sure I agree those are the only variables you have to play with. You also have for example amount of commits, the time the project has been around and more. If a project gets added to many ... [More] stacks, that is a useful marker for how good and useful a project is. But the question is how to value each contributor in a particular project. If a popular project is made with very few commits over a short time, the effort doesn't seem to be as big and kudo-awarding compared to a popular project done with thousands of commits over decades. That is, persistence and staying-as-a-contributor is kudo-awarding in my eyes. And I agree with MotiveForce that most users most likely will accept a totally new rank if the algo is remade and explained properly. [Less]

I've had my doubts a long time, but today I finally found a great example where the current kudo rankings simply doesn't reflect how any human being would do the rank. I claim that this is a bug or a ... [More] flaw in the ranking algorithm. See here: (I don't know any of my two example persons so I'm not actually biased, and I'm not involved in any of the projects these guys are involved in.) See today's kudo rank #56 and #57. dsaff and Larry Ewing. dsaff being ranked higher, both being level-10. dsaff is ranked #56 with only 173 commits in one single project (JUnit). He has received one single kudo from a leven-1 person. Larry Ewing is ranked #57 with 6800 commits in 10+ projects (several of them being well known and well used). He has receied 23 kudos, and three of them from level-10 people. Any human being looking at these two would claim that Larry is the more prominent, more experienced and thus should have the higher rank of these two. In fact, I would even say that seeing dsaff ranked as a level-10 with 173 commits is another indication the ranking algo is flawed. [Less]

doh, of course I can... sorry for all the noise...