It's a chicken || egg problem. If I find cpanratings.perl.org to be useful, then I'm willing to contribute. But if I can't use what's already there... Why would I contribute to a project that doesn't strike me as useful? If I'm in the habit of checking out cpanratings before I use a module, then I'll probably put in a review of the last module I used.
The overall usefulness of the tool would be improved by being able to filter and sort - e.g. showing only results that have ratings. throop | [reply] |
You might contribute also out of idealism, e.g. because you have
the strong belief that it will be useful one day. I guess that's
the fuel on which every site runs after bootstrapping, then for a
while. If after the initial idealism there's no broader acceptance,
then either there's something fundamentally wrong about some
impotant bits of it, or it's just not needed.
(I wish I would have been here when perlmonks did bootstrap - I
still wonder about how they (you) managed to give this site a going.
Is it the Everything Engine? the idea of combining a newsgroup-like
thing with posting (node) reputation and personal XP? Is it that
you were just so smart people, and high quality coders? all together,
I think.)
--shmem
_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ /
/\_¯/(q /
---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
| [reply] |
When I install a new module, I may think there are several implementation issues wrong with it, but I still won't write it down in a review on CPAN-ratings, well, because they stick. The review and rating (stars) would still be there after the author fixed it, and I don't like that thought. Why would a later release get fewer stars, because of issues in an older version?
| [reply] |