Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Dubious claims

[webmaster-Kracked_P_P]

The first one of his articles I read, linked here, appeared to have 
"FUD" in very light letters in the author area.  So if it was so, then 
he is stating his stuff is "FUD" and unless you really look for it you 
will not see that it is so you will believe him. Just the way it is 
written seems FUD-ish somehow as well.

I would post a comment there, but I might get some nasty emails back 
from him and his supporters.  I do not think he/them would like my 
comment much.

On 11/08/2012 10:02 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
+1
Apparently i now get counted as a supporter of Rob Weir because of the comment 
i posted to his stupid article :(   Errr, i mean the one we keep talking about 
despite it clearly being carefully engineered FUD.

Regards from
Tom :)





________________________________
From: Jay Lozier <jsloz...@gmail.com>
To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 14:50
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Dubious claims

On 11/08/2012 06:24 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
I have always thought LO seriously underestimates it's number of users.  I 
grumbled about it years ago.  On the other hand (as people pointed out to me at 
the time) at least TDF only counts numbers that we can be reasonably confident 
of.


Tim downloads the latest release and builds up a Dvd with a couple of other 
OpenSource programs that people might want in an office, some dictionaries, some 
fonts and bits&bobs and then gives away the Dvds at local events and to people 
and organisations locally.  He then supplies User Support occasionally asking the 
lists here if they ask something weird.  As they get more knowledgeable about LO 
they can help each other.  The entire infrastructure he has been building up counts 
as 1 user.  Rob Weir would spin that into being a dubious figure and say it's just 
1 user being wrongly re-counted for each release.

My boss uses LO nowadays when i send him a document but when he starts to write 
 document he uses MSO, similarly for the manager and my colleagues.  When they 
have a bunch of images such as logos that don't line-up or space out well 
enough or any of the many and varied problems that MSO creates they get me to 
fix it (if there is time) with LO.  Obviously they don't get counted as users 
either despite the fact that they do rely on LO.


Regards from
Tom :)
Tom,

Marketing and usage data for many products is often imprecise not just
for LO or FOSS. You raise implicitly the question: how do you define a
user of any software package (or product)? The definition of
user/consumer of a product would determine who gets counted such as
primary users, part-time users, and occasional users - and the
definition of each group is nebulous.

In marketing, according to the experts I know, trends are often more
important than absolute numbers or arguing over precise definitions.
Most business analysts are more worried about market/company sales
trends than which group a purchaser/user belongs. Increases are
generally good while decreases raise concerns. Rob Weir appears to be
trying to argue over precise definitions of something that is inherently
imprecise and probably not that critical.


________________________________
From: Italo Vignoli <italo.vign...@gmail.com>
To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 8:43
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Dubious claims

Il 08/11/2012 07:08, Alex Thurgood ha scritto:

In other words, at least for download/user stats, the answer is "no",
and for the other points Rob mentions, obtaining raw data of any
significance is for the git expert.
Downloads are extracted from the mirrors, and there is a script for that. GIT 
is for development related figures.

Thanks, I'll check it out, but basically what you are saying, if I
understand correctly, is that the data in question is provided in a
format which is not necessarily comparable to that which Rob has used
for AOO, and thus a certain amount of internal interpretations,
assumptions, etc are made by the LO project to arrive at its view of the
data. Are these methods/assumptions, as used by the LO project,
publicly documented on the LO wiki ?
Our data are in a simple format (sum of units), while Mr Rob Weir is using 
complicated interpretations to hide the truth, which is that the developers and 
the community are with LO and not with Apache OO.

There is no interpretation and assumptions in our data: the number of 
developers is a sum of individual developers, the number of commits is a sum of 
single commits, and so on.

The number of community members has never been calculated using wiki 
subscribers (in this case we estimate around 1,000 contributors), and Mr Rob 
Weir has just got that number because it could be argued.

The number of community members is estimated using global + local mailing lists 
(many people are subscribed only to mailing lists in their native language) + 
wiki contributors + developer numbers, etcetera.

So, being the method that we use a simple sum of data (and this should be easy 
to understand by looking at the charts published on a monthly basis), I do not 
think that we have to document such a methodology.

The number of users is estimated (and the term "estimated" has always been 
associated to it). Of course, any estimate might be right or might be wrong, according to 
the point of view.

Apache OO has a higher number of downloads, of course, but I wonder - for 
instance - if users who were previously used to get the software in their 
native language are as happy as in the past when have discovered - after having 
downloaded the software - that the software is not available in their language).

By using this metrics, for instance, it would be possible to reduce Apache OO 
download numbers at least by one third (but maybe even more), because you could 
easily cut downloads in countries where the software is not available in the 
native language (version 3.4 was not even available in British English).

Bus, as we are not Mr Rob Weir - and having him as an opponent is a blessing 
(please ask Microsoft) - we are not going to embark in such a useless 
calculation.

Apache OO is available in 20 languages, and they are currently adding Danish 
and Norwegian (but many major languages are missing).

LibreOffice is available in over 100 languages (over 95% of the world 
population), and the community is now working at Filipino/Tagalog or other 
minor languages.

Number of languages available is a simple measure of community numbers 
(although estimated, because many people involved in localization do not show 
up in maling lists) but of course Mr Rob Weir is not looking for simple 
measures because they can be understood by everyone, and by using obscure 
measurements he does try to obfuscate the reality.

Best regards, Italo

-- Italo Vignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com
mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316...@messagenet.it
skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vign...@gmail.com

-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted





--
Jay Lozier
jsloz...@gmail.com


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted






--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted