[openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the Stackalytics stats
nik.komawar at gmail.com
Sun Apr 10 14:26:33 UTC 2016
I am a big supporter on including +0s.
On 4/9/16 6:31 PM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> Thanks to Dims and Steve for bringing this up.
> It has long been my opinion that +0's are invaluable for the question asking, and for getting to understand software, and unfortunately +0's are lost in the noise. So a while ago, I posted to the ML  asking about making +0's more visible. I signed up to submit a request on gerrit upstream (and promptly forgot to do that). This mail thread has reminded me of that. I have now posted a request for the upstream gerrit folks to fix .
> I believe that people don't use +0's enough because they often get ignored. I know that one can be cynical and say it is because it gives one no credit in stackalytics; I choose not to be that person.
> I post +0's a lot. But, I find that they are often ignored. If you agree with me that +0's are useful, and could be highlighted better in the gerrit review screen, please post a comment on .
>  http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/nj4onttaibjmfxew
>  https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=4050
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Riedemann [mailto:mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 9:43 AM
>> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the Stackalytics
>> On 4/8/2016 5:54 PM, Jay Faulkner wrote:
>>> I know a lot of folks explicitly avoid a +0 vote with a comment
>>> because you don't get "credit" for it in statistics. Whether or not
>>> that should matter is another discussion, but there is a significant
>>> disincentive to no-voting right now.
>>> Jay Faulkner
>>> *From:* Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 8, 2016 1:54 PM
>>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the
>>> Stackalytics stats
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2016, John Dickinson <me at not.mn
>>> <mailto:me at not.mn>>
>>> On 8 Apr 2016, at 13:35, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>> > On 2016-04-08 19:42:18 +0200 (+0200), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>> >> There are many ways to game a simple +1 counter, such as +1'ing
>>> >> that already have at least 1x +2, or which already approved, or
>>> which need
>>> >> rechecking...
>>> > [...]
>>> > The behavior which baffles me, and also seems to be on the rise
>>> > lately, is random +1 votes on changes whose commit messages
>>> > status clearly indicate they should not merged and do not need to
>>> > reviewed. I suppose that's another an easy way to avoid the
>>> > "disagreements" counter?
>>> > --
>>> > Jeremy Stanley
>>> I have been told that some OpenStack on boarding teaches new members
>>> of the community to do reviews. And they say, effectively, "muddle
>>> through as you can. You won't understand it all at first, but do
>>> your best. When you're done, add a +1 and move to the next one"
>>> I advocate for basically this, but instead of a +1, leave a +0 and ask
>>> questions. The new reviewer will inevitably learn something and the
>>> author will benefit by explaining their change (teaching is the best
>>> way to learn).
>>> I've been working to correct this when I've seen it, but +1 reviews
>>> with no comments might not be people trying to game. It might simply
>>> be people trying to get involved that don't know any better yet.
>>> ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> There is also disincentive in +1ing a change that you don't understand and
>> is wrong and then a core comes along and -1s it (you get dinged for the
>> disagreement). And there is disincentive in -1ing a change for the wrong
>> reasons (silly nits or asking questions for understanding). I ask a lot of
>> questions in a lot of changes and I don't vote on those because it would
>> be inappropriate.
>> I also notice when "newcomers" are asking good questions for understanding
>> and not voting on them, it shows me they are trying to learn and are
>> getting invested in the project, not just trying to pad stats. Those are
>> the people we look to mentor into bigger roles in the project team, be
>> that working on subteams or eventually looking at for the core reviewer
>> Matt Riedemann
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev