No. 🧐 Create a metric that a community puts some worth in, eventually someone will game it.
Goodhart’s Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
Oh excellent. I love new pithy laws I can stash away for future mic-drops.
Imagine putting the slightest bit of trust in a github star.
It’s almost like people keep trying to make “social coding” more social than coding.
This focuses on outright fake stars. But there are also “natural” problems with them too, e.g. hustling for stars works. Projects that happen to hit a front-page of a news aggregator will get thousands of stars for just being mildly interesting on that day. These things are not a problem per se, but mirror the reality that technical merit is not enough, marketing is needed too.
Another problem with stars as a measure of whatever is that the number of stars you can get depends on the audience of the project. Github’s audience is mostly programmers (no idea why ;), so a project whose end users are programmers is going to get way more stars than a project for graphics designers, musicians, or even system administrators.
Also, tell me github gardener is elaborate satire.
Can we trust (success metric that anyone can upvote with incentives to fake it)? The answer is almost always no by default.
This is pretty bizarre, to be honest.
I suspect this is a way for Containous to cast shade at their competitors more than anything else. Why else would an entity care so much about the sanctity of Internet Points?
Forgive me please… I’m not going to read this article; I am going to comment.
During the Microsoft acquisition of GitHub, a ‘protest’ repo was created and it got a bunch of stars in a short amount of time. It contained rants and links to Github alternatives. I loved it, starred it, and so did a bunch of other people. It landed on the top trending repos page, stayed there for over 24 hours, and then was apparently unnaturally removed.
Judging by number of stars, we should all be using is-thirteen.
I can only apologise for this.