This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: [Xconq-general] Xconq Ranking at Sourceforge
Erik wrote:
When I saw that formula it was obvious to me that it does not weight the
data. Since I found that strange I searched for the documentation. And it
says: "We are aware that the current formula does not actually weight the
data aggregated for rankings (the formula was misdesigned and has not yet
been replaced)."
[http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=14040&group_id=1]
Well yes, I saw that too; it is the document from which I quoted in my
previous message. I wasn't offering a critique on the relative merits or
flaws of the existing formula. I was just explaining how it is that we
ended up with the ranking we did. I think it would be understandable if
another project was a bit annoyed because it had 100 times the downloads
but was active in fewer of the areas that logs are taken of. And, as
Matthew points out in the next message in this thread, the
multiplicative factors inside the logs are the same as adding small
constants outside the logs; definitely not a good "weighting" scheme.
Eric
P.S. The Sourceforge expression is actually a bit simplified, since
log(0) must be avoided. Thus it is not a pure formula, but some logical
selection must be occurring as well. The other thing to note is that
projects that have between 1 and 3, inclusive, new downloads per week
would seem to be actually penalized in the scoring, unless there is
logic that says to apply the downloads calculation for only those
projects with 4 or more downloads per week.