so even if a neural net (or whatever) did come up with the above substring heuristic, once it's know then authors can game the system by artificially crowbarring into their modules' sources, at which point the heuristic loses value.
I thought the idea was that we /wanted/ people to increase their Kwalitee, and thus their Quality. The things we designate as Kwalitee indicators should be things that module authors are encouraged to do. "Gaming" the system in this environment is to be welcomed.
Great point. It leads me to suggest that people are thinking about Kwalitee in two ways:
1) A metric to estimate the quality of a distribution for "objective" comparison against other distributions. In this model, faking Kwalitee is bad because it obscures the comparison.
2) A metric to estimate the quality of a distribution for authors to compare their work against a subjective standard in the hopes that authors strive to improve their Kwalitee scores. In this model, faking Kwalitee is irrelevant, because even if some authors fake it, others will improve improve quality (as measured by Kwalitee) for real, thus making Kwalitee "useful" as a quality improvement tool.
Actually, in #2, fakers can provide extra competitive pressure, as module authors who take Kwalitee seriously perceive a higher standard that they should be striving for.
I think most of the Kwalitee debate has been around confusion between whether #1 or #2 is the goal, plus what the "subjective standard" should be.
Regards, David
