Ask writes "I am happy to announce the beta of CPAN Ratings. Graham integrated the ratings into search (see for example the File-Find-Rule dist).
Go and write a review for your favorite CPAN module already! If you don't have an account on auth.perl.org you'll have to create one first."
Re:search.cpan.org rating integration
educated_foo on 2003-08-13T16:53:59
I first read this as "ranting", an understandable mistake given recent context. Great though the rating system may be, it still has some catching up to do.The rating system is great!;)
/s Re:search.cpan.org rating integration
ask on 2003-08-13T20:25:50
But how are the rating integrated into search.cpan.org exactly?
Graham pulls a list of distributions and their rating average every ~3 hours.
- ask
Re:Marvelous! How About a 'Wish List'
darobin on 2003-08-13T18:38:29
You can use the integrated RT (rt.cpan.org) to request new features simply by submitting their absence as bugs
;) Re:Marvelous! How About a 'Wish List'
schwern on 2003-08-15T23:11:53
There's even a Wishlist category, how thoughtful.Re:Marvelous! How About a 'Wish List'
davebaker on 2003-08-16T15:07:43
I don't see it.Re:Marvelous! How About a 'Wish List'
schwern on 2003-08-18T23:28:29
Its a "Severity" value.
Re:perl 5.8.0 rating
ask on 2003-08-13T20:15:01
That was amusing. Or not. I wonder how you managed to do that. The system picked it up like you rated the distribution called "perl-5.8.0-RC4" (instead of "perl").
Please email me and tell what you did so I can fix it.
- askRe:perl 5.8.0 rating
duff on 2003-08-14T15:13:50
I wish I knew. I couldn't fathom how I did it immediately after I had submitted the review, so I tried to do it again, but failed. However, I do have a theory: it's Graham's fault!;-) I was using search.cpan.org's "Rate this distribution" link at the time and maybe he was making changes at the same time I was clicking.
Re:Delete
darobin on 2003-08-13T18:40:47
It appears to be as simple as going back to rerate it and setting all your votes to undef and deleting the comment (untested!).
So, where's that bot that creates auth.perl.org users and votes ravingly for one's modules?
:) Re:Delete
jhi on 2003-08-13T19:24:41
> So, where's that bot that creates auth.perl.org users and votes ravingly for one's modules?:)
You laugh.
Re:Delete
jordan on 2003-08-14T04:09:29
Well, if someone makes such a bot, and upload it to CPAN (of course they would) you'll be able to identify it easily.
It'll be the entry with the really really high rating!
Re:Delete
ask on 2003-08-13T20:11:27
Not possible, I just deleted your review.:-)
I'll add it to the TODO.Re:Delete
pudge on 2003-08-13T20:18:45
Thanks!Delete and Rebutal
ioannis on 2003-08-14T03:23:23
Besides users being able to change their ratings, authors should also have the chance the rebutal their reviewers. Granted, most reviews are subjective and there is little need to respond, but when the reviewers are wrong on facts, or they claim this fuctionality is missing when it is not, then authors should be able to respond and not let fud rule the day. Thus we must allow authors to respond to each and every review.Re:Delete and Rebutal
ask on 2003-08-14T04:35:19
ioannis,
hmn, I think I prefer just having the author respond in their own review if they so desire. So far the reviews seems to be very fair.
- askRe:Delete and Rebutal
mir on 2003-08-14T12:02:34
It would be neat if reviews by the author would be marked as such though (provided the author plays fair and uses his/her PAUSE id as login). I just followed a link from a very short review pitching a module just to find out that the review had been written by the module author. Of course (s)he likes the module!
Re:Delete and Rebutal
runrig on 2003-08-24T23:38:28
I just followed a link from a very short review pitching a module just to find out that the review had been written by the module author. Of course (s)he likes the module!Noone's reviewed any of my modules yet, so I wrote myself a sucky review.
Or is this a request for Elaine & crew?
Re:wiki
ask on 2003-08-13T21:24:31
That is very cool Gav!
Re:Another Feature Request
ask on 2003-08-14T06:24:51
Yes, me too!
I've added it to the todo list on the about page. (Which also includes links for downloading the code - hint hint).
- ask
Oh, how empty and unfulfilled CPAN seemed until the mechanism to breathe life into :
"This module is soooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it in my heart. This module is totally awesome and that's a fact. DBI is fast, cool, smooth, strong, powerful and sweet. I can't wait to start Perl 6 next year. I love DBI with all my body (including my pee pee). Daniel Berger - 2003-08-13 21:47:22
Wow, I would never have been able to decide on a module alone without this fantastic and articulate review!
And Dan Berger, if you're reading this, say PENIS and buy some Depends[tm] next time you twat.
The difference between brave and stupid is minimal.
Re:Uhm, yeah
djberg96 on 2003-08-14T15:39:40
What, you were so upset about my review that you posted a nearly identical comment twice? Then you modded down one of my other comments?Step away from the computer slowly. Go out, have some fun. Drink a beer. Maybe even laugh once or twice. Don't take this so dang seriously.
Re:Uhm, yeah
hfb on 2003-08-14T15:43:38
comments were broken this morning.
Re:Uhm, yeah
pudge on 2003-08-14T15:48:33
Yes, replication was down. All better now.
And I agree with hfb. If we see many jokes in reviews, it will make the system worthless. I got the joke, but it still makes the system worthless. I hope that when ask adds the power to delete ratings, you will do so; or, that you will modify your review to something that isn't a joke.Re:Uhm, yeah
djberg96 on 2003-08-14T16:32:39
Yes, replication was down. All better now.The text is slightly different. It looks like a separate post to me.
If we see many jokes in reviews, it will make the system worthless.
So, joke modules (Acme::) are ok but not joke reviews? Please, pudge. I intentionally picked a well known and well-loved module for this review - I don't plan on making it a habit. You would have to prove to me that my joke review, which was a 5-star rating btw, would actually prevent someone from using this module - as if they have a choice in the case of DBI anyway.
Two other points. First, most folks coming to search.cpan (and lets keep in mind that not everyone uses search.cpan) aren't going to bother looking past the rating. They'll see a 4 or 5 and figure, "must be good". I agree with petdance - this will mostly be useful for comparing modules that are similar in function and purpose.
Second, this review will eventually be buried in the morass of positive reviews for DBI and a year from now it will be a footnote in the annals of childish moments of djberg96. Even if they see it, they'll either laugh or just blow it off. Frankly, if all it takes is one silly review to so egregiously offend the egos of the search.cpan folks as to remove this new toy, the system was doomed from the start.
I'm not going to remove the review - it's a point of pride now. The review, even if extremely childish, is positive. If ask wants to forcibly delete it that's his perogative, but that's a slippery slope I think.
What *I* want to know is why a couple of folks gave it a 4 instead of 5!
Re:Uhm, yeah
pudge on 2003-08-14T16:40:43
The text is slightly different. It looks like a separate post to me.
Yes. She posted it, it did not appear, so she recreated the comment and posted it anew. Replication caught up, and we now see both.
So, joke modules (Acme::) are ok but not joke reviews?
In the normal module ratings space? Yes, they are not OK, IMO. If there were a reserved space for them, like with Acme::, then that would be different.
I don't plan on making it a habit. You would have to prove to me that my joke review, which was a 5-star rating btw, would actually prevent someone from using this module - as if they have a choice in the case of DBI anyway.
No, as that is not relevant to my reason for saying what I've said, which is that I don't want joke reviews to become standard fare. One doesn't hurt anything, but on a regular basis, joke reviews will render the entire system worthless.
I'm not going to remove the review - it's a point of pride now.
I have nothing to say to this that it doesn't say itself.Re:Uhm, yeah
Geewiz on 2003-08-14T18:17:57
David,
real Ninjas don't copy other Ninjas texts from http://www.realultimatepower.net/.:-)
Re:Uhm, yeah
djberg96 on 2003-08-14T18:29:13
Yeah, someone came over to my cube and totally gave me an uppercut for my transgression. My lasers were no defense. I have to go - I think I hear someone wailing on a guitar.
CPAN seemed so lonely and unfulfilled until the mechanism to enable such a trove of valuable information such as:
This module is soooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it in my heart. This module is totally awesome and that's a fact. DBI is fast, cool, smooth, strong, powerful and sweet. I can't wait to start Perl 6 next year. I love DBI with all my body (including my pee pee). Daniel Berger - 2003-08-13 21:47:22
Dan Berger, if you read this, next time say PENIS you twat.
Writing good, thoughtful, articulate reviews is hard and time consuming....most of these will be useless shite. 'This module sucks' or 'this module rocks'.....I suspect this will be nothing more than an exercise in how long it takes for someone[s] to ruin the fun.
The difference between bravery and stupidity is minimal.
Re:I hope it gets better than this...
djberg96 on 2003-08-14T15:32:28
Elaine, you really need to lighten up. Go to http://www.realultimatepower.net in order to get the joke. Most geeks will. BTW, it *is* supposed to be "pee pee".I can't wait to start writing reviews for the Acme:: modules.
Re:I hope it gets better than this...
hfb on 2003-08-14T15:42:17
Only children under the age if 8 and yankees use the word 'pee pee' for parts whose medical names cannot be uttered.
As for the lightening up part, all it takes are a few idiots making this thing seem like a light and funny free for all for it to become a big stinking mess. I'm not very keen on the whole idea to begin with but I don't see any reason to encourage people to write inarticulate and generally idiotic reviews, especially on important modules.
Re:I hope it gets better than this...
jdavidb on 2003-08-14T19:09:08
Not sure how it is where you live, but that word does not refer to a body part here; it refers to a bodily waste fluid.
Wait, why are we having this conversation again...?
Re:I hope it gets better than this...
hfb on 2003-08-14T19:26:26
In the context of the sentence he did mean to refer to his giant, throbbing hunk of sexy man meat by calling it his 'pee pee'
:) Of course, noone seemed to pick up on the 'twat' retort. 'pee pee' is often used as a name for both male and female genitalia in the US, particularly in the Midwest. I live in Finland these days and, obviously, that isn't used at all...'pippeli' is the word for small boys, er, unit. :)
Re:Ratings
hfb on 2003-08-14T15:47:11
We should do CPAN World fashioned after Amazon World!...think of the hours and days of sassy ridicule the idiotic and the inarticulate reviews could provide!
:)
Ratings are good comparing apples to apples, but I see CPAN as a whole lot of entirely dissimilar singleton fruit. Maybe in some cases like TT vs. Mason, the reviews might be helpful, but in most others, I just don't see it.
Re:Minor utility
perrin on 2003-08-14T16:55:12
As I see it, it will help people find the modules that are most widely considered good and useful. Some people don't know that DBI is good, or that TT and Mason are worth checking out. Those people would be helped by a list of the most popular modules that they could poke thorugh, instead of searching for "database" or "template" and getting back a million hits.Re:Minor utility
educated_foo on 2003-08-14T18:59:35
Much more useful IMHO than reviews would be some sort of user-supplied classification system, or "see also" links with brief commentary. That way, the first module I find to do X can have pointers to other X-doing modules with helpful comments like "X::Simple will probably do what you need if..."The problem with CPAN isn't figuring out what sucks (just look at documentation quality and version number), but figuring out what clever name someone has given the module you want.
/s
Re:Reviews are version specific - by intention?
ask on 2003-08-15T23:05:21
The version number is included so it's easy to spot that the review relates to an older version and that the bug or whatever might not apply anymore.
- ask
During the ratings/reviews part of her talk, I was thinking of asking a question, because after YAPC::Europe::2001 in Amsterdam I was very excited about the whole idea of ratings for modules. I think Schwern did a talk about it. Schwern's idea (I think) was to have more of a rating / reputation / score type system, almost a combination of Slashdot's moderation system and Perlmonk's voting/experience system. I find the idea of group moderation systems really fascinating, and I think it could work well for CPAN. There are, of course, a few issues to be resolved, mainly:
Re:A bit of a u-turn, but a very good one!
jhi on 2003-08-15T12:03:48
> she was not at all keen on CPAN reviews and ratings as they'd end up like a lot of the reviews on Amazon and other similar sites. So this seems to be a slight u-turn?
Ask and Elaine are not the same person even though they both like stylish eyeglassware:-)
Re:A bit of a u-turn, but a very good one!
hfb on 2003-08-16T18:00:39
You're right, I'm not that keen on the idea. Also, CPANTS and what Schwern was talking about [ though I wasn't there...] is a far more objective sort of QC/QA than a bunch of random people with an axe to grind or authors faffing their own modules. Writing thoughtful and articulate reviews takes a lot of time to write and will generally be the exception in a sea of not terribly useful reviews...much like Amazon.
This has been done before and it failed shortly thereafter. I just don't see a lot of value in the exercise as there will be a lot of unrated modules and a lot of unfairly rated modules. I'd rather have authors get objective feedback from a CPANTS QA review than 20 little geekboys pulling a 'me too this module sucks' review on modules. It has a real potential to send a lot of people who aren't part of the cult of personality off to somewhere else...like Ruby.
Re:RSS for recent reviews?
ask on 2003-08-15T23:31:43
Not yet. Patches welcome.;-)
