Closed AurelioDeRosa closed 8 years ago
Replacing watchers with stars seems like a good idea.
Ref #42
BitBucket (not yet supported) doesn't have stars, so we may want to choose a different term to use.
Hi @scottgonzalez. Perhaps the implementation of BitBucket may rely on Watchers as a fallback. As a second metric it seems reasonable.
P.S:: I know the request of implementation for BitBucket has been around for a while now (ref #139). Any news?
No updates on BitBucket support. We're mostly expecting that if there's enough desire for it, someone will send a PR. Falling back to watchers was my thought, we'll just need to pick a different label to show to capture stars/watchers.
What do you think of "Favorite"? It's a fair label (do not overcome a term over the other) and it should explain well the concept.
That sounds fine to me.
Closing as this is not relevant anymore.
Hi.
I've searched for this topic but haven't find any discussion, so I'm opening a new issue. I know that GitHub Watchers and Forks are shown as a social proof metric, and I like the idea. However, I think that the number of Stars are more useful than Watchers. In my opinion, a lot of people prefer to star a repository to save it and use it later, instead of being interested in following its progress (which is the main purpose of Watch). So, even if a plugin is "famous" may have very low Watchers but a high number of Stars.
Any idea on this matter?