Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
On 27/05/2014 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Herbert Duerr wrote: The "localized" and "stable" folders only provide the old 3.2.x, 3.3.0 and 3.4.x releases, so getting more than 28000 weekly downloads there is an alarming signal. ... This could be our fault too. It seems that "localized" is mainly used to serve these languages (using numbers from http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/localized/ ): pl 9500 nb 3400 da 2700 es 2100 One month later, after the fixes to our own site (i.e., updating download pages), we are down to: pl 930 nb 120 da 80 es 750 The whole "localized" folder is down from 25,000 to 8,000. So it's now clear that the biggest responsibility for this was on our web pages, not on the fact that people were browsing the tree manually. I'd like to see "es" and "pl" go down again, but this doesn't seem very problematic if you consider that 4.1.0 pl has 22,000 weekly downloads and 4.1.0 es has 45,000. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
2014-05-28 13:46 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti : > Herbert Duerr wrote: > >> the five files >> - localized/pl/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_ >> Win_x86_install_pl.exe >> - localized/es/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_ >> Win_x86_install_es.exe >> - localized/nb/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_ >> Win_x86_install_nb.exe >> - localized/nb/3.3.0/OOo_3.3.0_Win_x86_install-wJRE_nb.exe >> already cover more than half of the downloads in question, so knowing >> e.g. their referrer-headers would an interesting data point. >> > > After the recent fixes in > http://www.openoffice.org/da/ [3.4.1 da -> 4.1.0 da] > http://www.openoffice.org/no/ [3.4.1 nb and 3.3.0 nb -> 4.1.0 nb] > http://www.openoffice.org/pl/ [3.4.1 pl -> 4.1.0 pl] > I'm confident that those are probably fixed without needing further > information, we simply had outdated links on our own website (and yes, > Juergen, we will need to make it easier to maintain!). This can be > rechecked in a few days anyway. > > The only one I cannot find is 3.4.1 es: http://www.openoffice.org/es/looks > correct. > 7.5k referrals in the last 10 months are coming from es.kioskea.net < http://es.kioskea.net/download/descargar-10-openoffice>. Guess this should explain why that. Does anyone know them? Roberto > > It was very useful to have this data. One third of Polish downloads, for > example, were for the 3.4.1 version (so, I assume, these people started > from the outdated "pl" site and downloaded from there, while the other > two-thirds downloaded from the English site and thus got 4.1.0). > > Regards, > Andrea. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
Herbert Duerr wrote: the five files - localized/pl/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_pl.exe - localized/es/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_es.exe - localized/nb/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_nb.exe - localized/nb/3.3.0/OOo_3.3.0_Win_x86_install-wJRE_nb.exe already cover more than half of the downloads in question, so knowing e.g. their referrer-headers would an interesting data point. After the recent fixes in http://www.openoffice.org/da/ [3.4.1 da -> 4.1.0 da] http://www.openoffice.org/no/ [3.4.1 nb and 3.3.0 nb -> 4.1.0 nb] http://www.openoffice.org/pl/ [3.4.1 pl -> 4.1.0 pl] I'm confident that those are probably fixed without needing further information, we simply had outdated links on our own website (and yes, Juergen, we will need to make it easier to maintain!). This can be rechecked in a few days anyway. The only one I cannot find is 3.4.1 es: http://www.openoffice.org/es/ looks correct. It was very useful to have this data. One third of Polish downloads, for example, were for the 3.4.1 version (so, I assume, these people started from the outdated "pl" site and downloaded from there, while the other two-thirds downloaded from the English site and thus got 4.1.0). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
On 27/05/14 21:25, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Herbert Duerr wrote: >> The "localized" and "stable" folders only provide the old 3.2.x, 3.3.0 >> and 3.4.x releases, so getting more than 28000 weekly downloads there is >> an alarming signal. > > This could be our fault too. It seems that "localized" is mainly used to > serve these languages (using numbers from > http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/localized/ ): > pl 9500 > nb 3400 > da 2700 > es 2100 > > For Danish, the problem is surely coming from ourselves: we are not > listing 4.1.0 at http://www.openoffice.org/da/ (discussed at > http://markmail.org/message/ibhey3f7jt6b7db2 , I'll fix it now so we can > see if the number decreases). For other languages, we should check our > own site first! Again a further example why unified pages with the same content are a good idea. Download links (wherever) should be generated out of one resource. And do we really need direct download links on localized pages? I believe not, we see the problem here. I know some people prefer direct links on their localized page but I think it doesn't scale and better is to redirect users to the official download page where normally the most recent version and language is downloaded automatically. And even the download page can be translated but the download logic should be always the same. Everything else is error prone and often unmaintained over time. Juergen > >> I'd like to clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" >> and "packages" top-level directories by either >> - removing them altogether >> - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others >> - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others > > Breaking existing links is very bad. If people are getting these files, > we can't just remove them. I'd rather work on the causes (let's see what > Danish looks like in one week) and we can add a README.txt or something > if you believe people are browsing the SourceForge file tree and getting > lost; but files are there, they are being heavily downloaded and > removing there immediately would simply cause confusion. > > Regards, > Andrea. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
On 27.05.2014 20:58, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > Am 05/27/2014 05:46 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: >> We still allow for downloads of "legacy" OOo, so it >> would probably be better to move the older versions to something like our >> current structure -- your second option above? > > +1 > >> And, should the older >> "packages", if it applies only to 3.3, also have its own area? Maybe >> someone still wants/needs these. > > Then they should look for them in the ASF archive. This should be the > only location for very old release builds. The ASF archive does not contain older OOo builds such as 3.2.1 or 3.3. These artifacts were not released under the ASF umbrella so they are neither archived in http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/ nor in http://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/ Ancient OOo releases are still available in the archive mirror network though. Please see http://www.openoffice.org/download/archive.html for links. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
On 28.05.2014 08:48, Roberto Galoppini wrote: > 2014-05-27 21:25 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti : >> Herbert Duerr wrote: >> [...] >> I'd like to clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" >>> and "packages" top-level directories by either >>> - removing them altogether >>> - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others >>> - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others >>> >> >> Breaking existing links is very bad. If people are getting these files, we >> can't just remove them. I'd rather work on the causes (let's see what >> Danish looks like in one week) and we can add a README.txt or something if >> you believe people are browsing the SourceForge file tree and getting lost; >> but files are there, they are being heavily downloaded and removing there >> immediately would simply cause confusion. People expecting these files there is a very good reason not to change it. I just have my doubts that they really want them. > Excellent analysis, and I totally agree on conclusions. I have a couple of > things to add: > > 1. we are open to investigate end-users' patterns if that helps, let me > know if any file in particular worth that All downloads in "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" or "packages" worth investigating, but the five files - localized/pl/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_pl.exe - localized/es/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_es.exe - localized/nb/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_nb.exe - localized/nb/3.3.0/OOo_3.3.0_Win_x86_install-wJRE_nb.exe already cover more than half of the downloads in question, so knowing e.g. their referrer-headers would an interesting data point. > 2. we might use symlinks if we end up by figuring out that some behaviours > are 'wrong' (e.g. referrals) or just the result of people looking for > 'stable' versions Agreed. I'm quite sure these 4000 dubious downloads per day come from users that actually want something else if there weren't obsolete links and the misguidance caused by top-level directory names such as "stable" or "localized". Keeping these files there most likely causes more harm than good. We could of course link our localized builds into the localized folder. Why en-US isn't considered a localized build is beyond me though. And we could link our release builds in the "stable" directory. And in the "packages" directory. But IMHO work to provide three different ways instead of one to get the same binaries is wasted. It is confusing; especially in the "localized" directory there would be of a mixture of new release builds, of older unmaintained builds and of ancient release builds in the same directory. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
2014-05-27 21:25 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti : > Herbert Duerr wrote: > >> The "localized" and "stable" folders only provide the old 3.2.x, 3.3.0 >> and 3.4.x releases, so getting more than 28000 weekly downloads there is >> an alarming signal. >> > > This could be our fault too. It seems that "localized" is mainly used to > serve these languages (using numbers from http://sourceforge.net/ > projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/localized/ ): > pl 9500 > nb 3400 > da 2700 > es 2100 > > For Danish, the problem is surely coming from ourselves: we are not > listing 4.1.0 at http://www.openoffice.org/da/ (discussed at > http://markmail.org/message/ibhey3f7jt6b7db2 , I'll fix it now so we can > see if the number decreases). For other languages, we should check our own > site first! > > > I'd like to clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" >> and "packages" top-level directories by either >> - removing them altogether >> - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others >> - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others >> > > Breaking existing links is very bad. If people are getting these files, we > can't just remove them. I'd rather work on the causes (let's see what > Danish looks like in one week) and we can add a README.txt or something if > you believe people are browsing the SourceForge file tree and getting lost; > but files are there, they are being heavily downloaded and removing there > immediately would simply cause confusion. > Excellent analysis, and I totally agree on conclusions. I have a couple of things to add: 1. we are open to investigate end-users' patterns if that helps, let me know if any file in particular worth that 2. we might use symlinks if we end up by figuring out that some behaviours are 'wrong' (e.g. referrals) or just the result of people looking for 'stable' versions PS if we go with symlinks note that it will affect downloads stats for those specifics files Roberto > > Regards, > Andrea. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > Am 05/27/2014 05:46 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote: >> >> I just noticed that many people seem to download AOO directly from >>> sourceforge and that the directory structure obviously misleads them to >>> download obsolete binaries. Here is the top-level layout and its weekly >>> download count: >>> >>> 4.1.0:843,483 weekly downloads >>> localized: 25,891 weekly downloads >>> 4.0.1: 24,410 weekly downloads >>> 4.0.0: 3,731 weekly downloads >>> stable 1,800 weekly downloads >>> extended 558 weekly downloads >>> contrib41 weekly downloads >>> milestones:31 weekly downloads >>> packages6 weekly downloads >>> >>> The "localized" and "stable" folders only provide the old 3.2.x, 3.3.0 >>> and >>> 3.4.x releases, so getting more than 28000 weekly downloads there is an >>> alarming signal. >>> >>> The "packages" folder contains old OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 releases for >>> SolarisX86, SolarisSparc, MacPPC and for languages that are not yet >>> supported by AOO such as Maithili or Konkani. >>> >>> The "extended" folder contains ISO-images with several builds of OOo321 >>> and OOo330. >>> >>> The "contrib" folder contains old dictionaries. They are not directly >>> usable and the newest one is from 2009. >>> >>> So the current layout is apparently confusing and misleads a lot of >>> people >>> to download stuff they wouldn't use if they knew that better alternatives >>> are available. I don't want to spend much time one this but I'd like to >>> clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" and "packages" >>> top-level directories by either >>> - removing them altogether >>> - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others >>> - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others >>> >>> Herbert >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >>> >>> I wonder if some of this is due to "auto" processes that are still using >> the old structure. >> > > even if this would be the case. Do we want to support this for longer? I > don't think so. > > > > We still allow for downloads of "legacy" OOo, so it > >> would probably be better to move the older versions to something like our >> current structure -- your second option above? >> > > +1 > > > And, should the older >> "packages", if it applies only to 3.3, also have its own area? Maybe >> someone still wants/needs these. >> > > Then they should look for them in the ASF archive. This should be the only > location for very old release builds. > > Marcus sure...that's fine. I never think about the archives I guess. :/ > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- - MzK "Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness. It is far better (to) take things as they come along with patience and equanimity." -- Carl Jung
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
Herbert Duerr wrote: The "localized" and "stable" folders only provide the old 3.2.x, 3.3.0 and 3.4.x releases, so getting more than 28000 weekly downloads there is an alarming signal. This could be our fault too. It seems that "localized" is mainly used to serve these languages (using numbers from http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/localized/ ): pl 9500 nb 3400 da 2700 es 2100 For Danish, the problem is surely coming from ourselves: we are not listing 4.1.0 at http://www.openoffice.org/da/ (discussed at http://markmail.org/message/ibhey3f7jt6b7db2 , I'll fix it now so we can see if the number decreases). For other languages, we should check our own site first! I'd like to clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" and "packages" top-level directories by either - removing them altogether - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others Breaking existing links is very bad. If people are getting these files, we can't just remove them. I'd rather work on the causes (let's see what Danish looks like in one week) and we can add a README.txt or something if you believe people are browsing the SourceForge file tree and getting lost; but files are there, they are being heavily downloaded and removing there immediately would simply cause confusion. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
Am 05/27/2014 05:46 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote: I just noticed that many people seem to download AOO directly from sourceforge and that the directory structure obviously misleads them to download obsolete binaries. Here is the top-level layout and its weekly download count: 4.1.0:843,483 weekly downloads localized: 25,891 weekly downloads 4.0.1: 24,410 weekly downloads 4.0.0: 3,731 weekly downloads stable 1,800 weekly downloads extended 558 weekly downloads contrib41 weekly downloads milestones:31 weekly downloads packages6 weekly downloads The "localized" and "stable" folders only provide the old 3.2.x, 3.3.0 and 3.4.x releases, so getting more than 28000 weekly downloads there is an alarming signal. The "packages" folder contains old OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 releases for SolarisX86, SolarisSparc, MacPPC and for languages that are not yet supported by AOO such as Maithili or Konkani. The "extended" folder contains ISO-images with several builds of OOo321 and OOo330. The "contrib" folder contains old dictionaries. They are not directly usable and the newest one is from 2009. So the current layout is apparently confusing and misleads a lot of people to download stuff they wouldn't use if they knew that better alternatives are available. I don't want to spend much time one this but I'd like to clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" and "packages" top-level directories by either - removing them altogether - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org I wonder if some of this is due to "auto" processes that are still using the old structure. even if this would be the case. Do we want to support this for longer? I don't think so. > We still allow for downloads of "legacy" OOo, so it would probably be better to move the older versions to something like our current structure -- your second option above? +1 And, should the older "packages", if it applies only to 3.3, also have its own area? Maybe someone still wants/needs these. Then they should look for them in the ASF archive. This should be the only location for very old release builds. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
Am 05/27/2014 05:00 PM, schrieb Herbert Duerr: I just noticed that many people seem to download AOO directly from sourceforge and that the directory structure obviously misleads them to download obsolete binaries. Here is the top-level layout and its weekly download count: 4.1.0: 843,483 weekly downloads localized: 25,891 weekly downloads 4.0.1: 24,410 weekly downloads 4.0.0: 3,731 weekly downloads stable 1,800 weekly downloads extended 558 weekly downloads contrib 41 weekly downloads milestones: 31 weekly downloads packages 6 weekly downloads The "localized" and "stable" folders only provide the old 3.2.x, 3.3.0 and 3.4.x releases, so getting more than 28000 weekly downloads there is an alarming signal. wow, yes. :-O Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The "packages" folder contains old OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 releases for SolarisX86, SolarisSparc, MacPPC and for languages that are not yet supported by AOO such as Maithili or Konkani. The "extended" folder contains ISO-images with several builds of OOo321 and OOo330. The "contrib" folder contains old dictionaries. They are not directly usable and the newest one is from 2009. So the current layout is apparently confusing and misleads a lot of people to download stuff they wouldn't use if they knew that better alternatives are available. I don't want to spend much time one this but I'd like to clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" and "packages" top-level directories by either - removing them altogether - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others IMPORTANT: Before deciding to remove any release builds, please consider the new download webpage I'm building currently. This will offer also older AOO versions. So, when we want to offer older version, then of course they need to be available. ;-) Therefore my suggestion: - 4.1.0, 4.0.1, 4.0.0 Keep - contrib, extended Delete as it's outdated content - packages Move to archive - localized, stable Keep the 3.4.1 builds as last stable 3.x release, re-order them like the 4.x directory structure and move the 3.4.0 and older ones to archive - milestones Keep (as it's currently empty) Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote: > I just noticed that many people seem to download AOO directly from > sourceforge and that the directory structure obviously misleads them to > download obsolete binaries. Here is the top-level layout and its weekly > download count: > > 4.1.0:843,483 weekly downloads > localized: 25,891 weekly downloads > 4.0.1: 24,410 weekly downloads > 4.0.0: 3,731 weekly downloads > stable 1,800 weekly downloads > extended 558 weekly downloads > contrib41 weekly downloads > milestones:31 weekly downloads > packages6 weekly downloads > > The "localized" and "stable" folders only provide the old 3.2.x, 3.3.0 and > 3.4.x releases, so getting more than 28000 weekly downloads there is an > alarming signal. > > The "packages" folder contains old OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 releases for > SolarisX86, SolarisSparc, MacPPC and for languages that are not yet > supported by AOO such as Maithili or Konkani. > > The "extended" folder contains ISO-images with several builds of OOo321 > and OOo330. > > The "contrib" folder contains old dictionaries. They are not directly > usable and the newest one is from 2009. > > So the current layout is apparently confusing and misleads a lot of people > to download stuff they wouldn't use if they knew that better alternatives > are available. I don't want to spend much time one this but I'd like to > clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" and "packages" > top-level directories by either > - removing them altogether > - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others > - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others > > Herbert > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > I wonder if some of this is due to "auto" processes that are still using the old structure. We still allow for downloads of "legacy" OOo, so it would probably be better to move the older versions to something like our current structure -- your second option above? And, should the older "packages", if it applies only to 3.3, also have its own area? Maybe someone still wants/needs these. -- - MzK "Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness. It is far better (to) take things as they come along with patience and equanimity." -- Carl Jung
cleaning up our sourceforge top-level directory
I just noticed that many people seem to download AOO directly from sourceforge and that the directory structure obviously misleads them to download obsolete binaries. Here is the top-level layout and its weekly download count: 4.1.0:843,483 weekly downloads localized: 25,891 weekly downloads 4.0.1: 24,410 weekly downloads 4.0.0: 3,731 weekly downloads stable 1,800 weekly downloads extended 558 weekly downloads contrib41 weekly downloads milestones:31 weekly downloads packages6 weekly downloads The "localized" and "stable" folders only provide the old 3.2.x, 3.3.0 and 3.4.x releases, so getting more than 28000 weekly downloads there is an alarming signal. The "packages" folder contains old OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 releases for SolarisX86, SolarisSparc, MacPPC and for languages that are not yet supported by AOO such as Maithili or Konkani. The "extended" folder contains ISO-images with several builds of OOo321 and OOo330. The "contrib" folder contains old dictionaries. They are not directly usable and the newest one is from 2009. So the current layout is apparently confusing and misleads a lot of people to download stuff they wouldn't use if they knew that better alternatives are available. I don't want to spend much time one this but I'd like to clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" and "packages" top-level directories by either - removing them altogether - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
