Andy Lester wrote:
How do you get authors to actually look at the CPANTS information and
make corrections? Well, we like competition. Make it a game!
So it was you -- or somebody impersonating you on this list -- who
managed to persuade me that actually Cpants being a game was a good
thing!
The key is that we're playing for different goals. Schwern was saying
that the improvement of the modules is a game. PerlGirl is making a
game out of improving the numeric score for her modules, but without any
improvement of the module itself.
How does "is_prereq" improve quality?
Or, put differently, how does measuring something that an author can't
control create an incentive to improve?
If CPANTS is a "objective" quality measure, then it makes sense. If
CPANTS is a quality "game" -- i.e. a friendly competition to improve
one's scores -- then it doesn't.
If CPANTS stays with a narrow set of well-defined, objective criteria,
then it can serve both purposes. Remove or refine the subjective or
hard-to-measure ones and the numerical gaming that doesn't change
apparent quality goes away.
Regards,
David Golden
