{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/golang/gddo/issues/320","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/golang/gddo/issues/320/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/golang/gddo/issues/320/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/golang/gddo/issues/320/events","html_url":"https://github.com/golang/gddo/issues/320","id":108196784,"number":320,"title":"Proposal for Package Ranking","user":{"login":"carlisia","id":16508,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/16508?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia","html_url":"https://github.com/carlisia","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/carlisia/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/golang/gddo/labels/proposal","name":"proposal","color":"009800"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":27,"created_at":"2015-09-24T19:24:26Z","updated_at":"2015-10-09T15:17:42Z","closed_at":null,"body":"## Overview\r\n\r\n## Rank by Objective Quality Standards\r\nA mechanism to transparently and objectively rank projects by quality level.\r\n\r\nWe're proposing to avoid the use of a user-based rating or feedback system. It would require the creation and maintenance of accounts and would be subject to abuse. Instead, we propose using a published set of project quality standards that are not subject to simple manipulation:\r\n\r\n- Percent of code coverage achieved by unit tests\r\n- Presence of package and type documentation for public types\r\n- Number of forks and downloads on repository. \r\n- Measure of recent activity on the project (commits in the last X days)\r\n- Number of includes in other public projects. \r\n- Number of pageviews for that project on GoDoc.org\r\n- [other criteria to be established by the community]\r\n\r\nThis could use (via API or similar) the system implemented by [GoReportCard](http://goreportcard.com/report/go-sql-driver/mysql), for example:\r\n![image](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/16508/10084126/a30635c6-62b6-11e5-9ac9-9033383ce600.png)\r\n\r\n\r\nThe results of the ranking score would be used as the primary sort mechanism when browsing packages by search or by category. The information would also be linked/displayed at the top of each documentation page on Godoc.org.\r\n\r\n**References:**\r\nExamples of quality assessement tools: https://medium.com/@jgautheron/quality-pipeline-for-go-projects-497e34d6567\r\n\r\n\r\n## Include Ranking in Display\r\nOnce the ranking system is in place, include a summary of the score (and link to view details/explanation) on both the documentation pages and in a second column on search results.\r\n\r\n---\r\n### Contributors to this proposal\r\n\r\n@carlisia\r\n@gdey\r\n@rafaeljusto"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/golang/gddo/issues/comments/146900648","html_url":"https://github.com/golang/gddo/issues/320#issuecomment-146900648","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/golang/gddo/issues/320","id":146900648,"user":{"login":"jbuberel","id":1711364,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1711364?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel","html_url":"https://github.com/jbuberel","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbuberel/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-10-09T15:17:42Z","updated_at":"2015-10-09T15:17:42Z","body":"Sounds like we're in general agreement that the new fast-fork filter is working well as an identifier of packages that should be considered \"archived\" and therefore not displayed in search results.\r\n\r\nUsing that filtered set as the base, it make sense to begin experimenting with the rankings (the primary goal of this proposal).  Given that gddo already takes import counts into account, how about an experiment to apply the stored page view counts for a small set of common search terms (\"sql\" and \"middleway\"), with outputs that allow us to diff/compare the ordering of:\r\n\r\n* filtered + ranked by imports\r\n* filtered + ranked by imports + ranked by pageviews\r\n\r\n\r\n"}}