On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:25 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> And how many of the "good" comments are astroturfers? > > If I understand that term correctly, it's about disguise: how would > I be able to answer that question?
It's unprovable. But I could see a group of people easily coordinating large amounts of negative, or positive feedback targeting particular packages, that looks legit. I know any "end user" rating and feedback system can be gamed. Just look at the reviews of milk on amazon. >> What's so bad about package maintainers from having an opt-out? > > PyPI is not just (and perhaps not even primarily) there for the package > authors, but for the package users (and not surprisingly, it's > primarily the package authors who ask for banning the user opinions). > > I'm just not willing to submit to one side; hence the poll. That's because as an author/maintainer - we have methods of giving feedback and communication. Why not rate ( or auto-rate) packages on objective criteria? E.g.: tests and test coverage, docs, installs on python version X, Y, Z, works on windows, etc? Quality can be measured. Me being a total failure and not reading the docs, and failing to install something is subjective. I don't disagree with the goal of giving *users* a voice, but is PyPI the right place for that? How many moderators do we have to watch comments? Can other users down vote comments by people which are simply *wrong*? Why can't we just disable it until we can come up with a better system that finds a balance between the rights of maintainers, and those of the user? _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
