Sent from my iPhone
On 19/ott/2012, at 18:37, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: >> +1 all around. This sounds like it would be more interesting on the >> ooo-marketing@ list, since it's more about telling the story of "who helps >> make AOO". With a project with as many different kinds of end users as AOO >> has, accurate stats like these would be good, if you want to go generate >> them. Plus, I like numbers. 8-) >> >> The most useful thing about generating them would be showing exactly how >> they're generated, with code (if any), and being very clear - as you suggest >> - at what the specific numbers mean. Openness in the way you generate the >> details is key to ensuring people know exactly what you're measuring. > > I think Mwiki has REST API that gives XML out. But I'd need to check. > >> - Shane >> >> P.S. Is there already a chart of auto-upgrade "downloads" anywhere? Just >> curious. > > Not yet. But it is something I've been trying to figure out. > SourceForge numbers don't report it, but if you correlate the SF > numbers with the website numbers from Google Analytics (we send users > to a special update URL) I think we can estimate it. But getting > charts means I need to figure how to automate it on both the GA and SF > sides. I'll be happy to help with that, early next week I ll have a look at that. Roberto > > But note that AOO 3.4.0 shipped with auto-update checking *disabled* > by default (Doh!). So the AOO 3.4.0 --> 3.4.1 auto update numbers > there are going to be modest compared to the numbers from OOo 3.3.0 > users upgrading to AOO 3.4.x. Of course, many users will hear about > the new releases via other means. We see that in the strong AOO 3.4.1 > download numbers. > > -Rob > >> >> On 10/19/2012 11:38 AM, jan iversen wrote: >>> >>> I think your idea of filtering out account that actually contributed is a >>> wise thing, especially because our product has many end-users that want to >>> be informed but do not contribute. >>> >>> As a developer I do not care, but thinking of some of the ongoing >>> discussions in other forums (like: nearly nobody contributes to AOO >>> anymore >>> because Apache rules makes it far to difficult and restrictive), makes it >>> worth while to publish a figure on our web, especially a figure saying >>> e.g. >>> "during the last year we had xxx active contributors and xx active >>> committers". >>> >>> jan. >>> >>> >>> On 19 October 2012 17:28, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I recently saw another open source project claim that they had over >>>> 3000 contributors. They derived this estimate by looking at the >>>> number of user accounts they had in their wiki. >>>> >>>> That is quite clever, I thought. Since we use the same wiki software, >>>> I thought I'd check this metric for us. Our wiki says we have over >>>> 58,000 user accounts. >>>> >>>> I know we're doing well, but would it really make sense to claim that >>>> we have over 58,000 contributors? I don't think so. >>>> >>>> I suppose we could look only at accounts where the person has actually >>>> contributed edits, or even recent edits. (MediaWiki is a well-known >>>> target of registration spam). Although the other project did not seem >>>> to filter out inactive or unused accounts, I think the metrics are >>>> meaningless unless we do that. >>>> >>>> What do you think? Or do we even care? >>>> >>>> -Rob >> -- ==== This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
