[Oops, forgot to reply all - sorry for the duplicate, Martin!]
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:42 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[email protected]> wrote: > To put some objective data into the discussion: here is the number of > ratings that got posted recently, by month: > > 2010 | 9 | 41 > 2010 | 10 | 51 > 2010 | 11 | 42 > 2010 | 12 | 51 > 2011 | 1 | 76 > 2011 | 2 | 71 > 2011 | 3 | 47 Thank you. Here are some more numbers: I took a look [1] at how many ratings packages have received. Here's the distribution (# of ratings: # of packages): 0: 13452 1: 427 2: 91 3: 22 4: 12 5: 10 6: 3 7: 8 8: 4 9: 2 10: 1 11: 2 13: 1 21: 1 So 96% of packages have no ratings. Only 1% have more than one rating. I ask again, how is this useful? Django, with 7 ratings, is in the 99.9th percentile among all packages, so if anyone could find this useful I suppose it might be me. But 7 ratings isn't in any way a significant sample: PyPI shows 11,000 downloads of Django 1.3 alone (which is just a few weeks old); there's no *way* this provides *any* useful data whatsoever. Jacob [1] Using this script:: from collections import defaultdict import xmlrpclib pypi = xmlrpclib.ServerProxy('http://pypi.python.org/pypi') all_packages = pypi.list_packages() all_counts = defaultdict(int) for p in all_packages: ratings = pypi.ratings(p, "", 0) print p, len(ratings[0]) all_counts[len(ratings[0])] += 1 open('counts.txt', 'w').write(str(all_counts)) print all_counts _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
