On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 11:00, Lothar Haeger wrote: > > May I suggest that you add a (link to a) description to > https://ports.macports.org/statistics/ports that explains what "...users who > submitted stats…" exactly means and how to enable submitting stats as a user > (and how to check if stats are enabled), and maybe stress that we use an > opt-in model, and that this makes the stats look as unimpressive as they are. > > Uncommented, theses stats look like macports is simply irrelevant in the > greater scheme of things (the most requested port has been installed 32x per > day during the last month, #10 on the list just 6x, #100 less than twice per > day).
Would you be willing to create a mock-up (some hard-drawn / photoshopped example of where to put what / how it should look + what text to put there) with a more detailed suggestion? > Actually I think moving to an opt-out scheme for new installations would be > overall better to raise useful stats. It would certainly be better to raise useful stats, but this has been discussed before and we don't want to go that route, at least not yet. > If that's not an option, I'd like to see the port command regularly > suggesting to enable stats to end users that did not do so already, e.g. with > a simple "Do you want to enable anonymous stats now? (y/n)" prompt every once > in a while. > > Also: is there no way to raise stats on the server side, like > archives/distfiles requested or something similar that allows to put the user > stats into perspective and calculate an approximation to the real numbers? There's no way to get exact/real numbers, but there are ways to get partial download statistics of the mirrored binaries and distfiles which are a lot more impressive. Zero (@l2dy) implemented that at the last MacPorts meeting, but the results were never publicly deployed. Someone would have to take the project over. > If stats remain meaningless because of a too small sample size, they should > rather removed from the web site, imho. I disagree. Even with a relatively small sample size (and potentially skewed numbers due to many enthusiasts opting in on all of their legacy hardware ;) I still find it incredibly useful. Mojca
