Dan Book wrote:
These issues are mostly regarding the cpanratings site itself, which
is not part of search.cpan.org <http://search.cpan.org/>. You can find
its issue tracker here: https://github.com/perlorg/perlweb/issues
<https://github.com/perlorg/perlweb/issues>
----
Since search.cpan.org includes the ratings as part of its display of
results, I find it hard to consider them separate.
And you might also find this discussion interesting, regarding similar
links from metacpan.org
<http://metacpan.org/>: https://github.com/metacpan/metacpan-web/issues/1653
<https://github.com/metacpan/metacpan-web/issues/1653>
---
Was interesting for a bit -- but it seems like the discussion
sorta drizzled out w/o any decisions as it appears the stakeholders are
not willing to participate. Since the cpanratings people aren't willing
to even participate in fixing the problems, the ratings should, *at least*
be removed from the search site -- and hopefully the module-info page,
as they don't represent useful information about the modules (IMO, as they
don't say what version the comments were about).
Some of the modules are > 10 years old, so comments about them
might be 10 years out of date. At that point they become confusing and
harmful to the module system, as most people won't know what to believe.
Given comments in the discussion above, it seems that comments and reviews
about modules are unhelpful not only because they are out-of-date, or about
old-version, but are also due to political issues, having nothing to do
with the module.
As an example of the worst harm -- look at how many people think
that the current comments are "useful" when they don't even know what
version they apply to.
Such comments have gone both ways, with some comments
about early versions being positive (for modules that have fallen
into disuse), and others being negative about early versions or due
to personal issues. That so many think the comments are useful when
its clear many of the comments are not about current versions only
hilights the problem.
