On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:25 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:
And how many of the "good" comments are astroturfers?
If I understand that term correctly, it's about disguise: how would I be able to answer that question?
It's unprovable. But I could see a group of people easily coordinating large amounts of negative, or positive feedback targeting particular packages, that looks legit. I know any "end user" rating and feedback system can be gamed. Just look at the reviews of milk on amazon.
What's so bad about package maintainers from having an opt-out?
PyPI is not just (and perhaps not even primarily) there for the package authors, but for the package users (and not surprisingly, it's primarily the package authors who ask for banning the user opinions).
I'm just not willing to submit to one side; hence the poll.
That's because as an author/maintainer - we have methods of giving feedback and communication. Why not rate ( or auto-rate) packages on objective criteria? E.g.: tests and test coverage, docs, installs on python version X, Y, Z, works on windows, etc? Quality can be measured. Me being a total failure and not reading the docs, and failing to install something is subjective. I don't disagree with the goal of giving *users* a voice, but is PyPI the right place for that? How many moderators do we have to watch comments? Can other users down vote comments by people which are simply *wrong*? Why can't we just disable it until we can come up with a better system that finds a balance between the rights of maintainers, and those of the user?