search

vdaubry / github-awards

Discover your ranking on github :
http://git-awards.com
MIT License
1.58k stars 122 forks source link

Contributor stars #117

Open marceloboeira opened 8 years ago

marceloboeira commented 8 years ago

How about counting stars from repositories you have contributed to as your own (based on the number of commits)?

Imagine I have contributed with 10 commits to a repository with 100 commits, and 1000 starts.

10 commits is 10% of 100 commits, so Github Awards could "give me" +100 stars (10% of 1000)

I think that makes the ranking fair for core contributors of large repositories who dedicated much time on creating their own projects.

Benjamin-Dobell commented 8 years ago

This sounds like a truly awful idea.

Who is to say that all commits constitute an equal body of work? Generally speaking, they don't.

Recognising that, are you then going to look at diff sizes? I don't know about elsewhere, but I've always valued small concise contributions and overall net line count deletions more than additions.

This is a rabbit hole. This tool is just meant to be a bit of fun.

@marceloboeira By the way, your calculation is wrong. You'd be looking at 4 stars, not 437!

eonist commented 7 years ago

@marceloboeira I think this is a really good idea. It could encourage people to collaborate more, I would argue that your "collab-star-count" would be a far more valuable metric than your own star count. Many of the guys who contributed to Swift Package Manager last year now work at Apple. If I were to hire a dev to work on a project their "collab-star-count" would be what I would look at. The more stars a project has the more attractive it would be to contribute, but at the same time the harder it would be to contribute in a meaningful way. These two forces would even each other out so that the system wouldn't be gamed. I.E people contributing useless code etc. Humans can achieve exponentially more working together.