[openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the Stackalytics stats

Amrith Kumar amrith at tesora.com
Sun Apr 10 20:56:43 UTC 2016


Thanks Nikhil, appreciate the comment on the gerrit bug. 

-amrith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikhil Komawar [mailto:nik.komawar at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 10:27 AM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the Stackalytics
> stats
> 
> Thanks Amrith!
> 
> 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 [1] 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 [2].
> >
> > 	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 [2].
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -amrith
> >
> > [1] http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/nj4onttaibjmfxew
> > [2] 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 stats
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     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
> >>>     changes
> >>>      >> 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
> >> and/or
> >>>      > status clearly indicate they should not merged and do not
> >>> need to
> >> be
> >>>      > reviewed. I suppose that's another an easy way to avoid the
> >> dreaded
> >>>      > "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.
> >>>
> >>>     --John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________________
> >>> __ ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> >>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>>
> >> 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 team.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Matt Riedemann
> >>
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________________________________
> >> _____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >> Unsubscribe:
> >> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> --
> 
> Thanks,
> Nikhil
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list