On Sunday 29 June 2008 23:08:50 Jonathan Rockway wrote: > * On Sun, Jun 29 2008, chromatic wrote:
> > However, does making CPAN a better place require publishing a Hall of > > Shame on perl.org? > > > > http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_shame > > Good point. > > The same could be said for CPAN Ratings also. Why should my module have > 1 star next to it because any goof with a web browser can write a > review? Why is the opinion of someone with no ties to the community > considered relevant enough to show in the search.cpan search results? > (The same goes for positive ratings. I've seen a lot of high ratings of > modules that are rated highly for no good reason, or rated that way by > its own author.) > I personally don't care and generally ignore the ratings, but it's the > same thing as Kwalitee, except not even objective. There are important differences. CPAN Ratings are much more obviously subjective. No one (so far) has ranked all 16,000 or however many CPAN distributions against each other in a canonical list. Ratings have individual names attached to them. They're not just "perl.org says that these X distributions from these Y authors are particularly shameful". (Note that the Hall of Shame doesn't include the "Kwalitee is not Quality" dodge. Then again, neither does the Hall of Triumph.) Ratings have text that people can read and analyze on their own, if they want. None of these mean that potential users *will* use all of their tools, but the differences seem important to me. -- c
