On 5/23/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you get authors to actually look at the CPANTS information > and > make corrections? Well, we like competition. Make it a game! > > So it was you -- or somebody impersonating you on this list -- who > managed to persuade me that actually Cpants being a game was a good > thing!
See, now that's why I write stuff down. On mailing lists. So someone else can remember it for me. ;) The key is that we're playing for different goals. Schwern was
saying that the improvement of the modules is a game. PerlGirl is making a game out of improving the numeric score for her modules, but without any improvement of the module itself.
Therein lies the problem. CPANTS is a fairly direct measure of distribution quality (as opposed to code quality), so it has become useful as a distribution improvement tool. Trouble is, CPANTS as distribution quality tool and CPANTS as kwalitee measurement have mutually exclusive methods to reach their goals. One works better as a game, one does not. So I guess its down to this: pick a goal. Either drop the gaming aspects or drop any remaining pretense that its a measurement of module quality. Since the whole kwalitee thing is pretty flimsy to begin with, I'd go with just making it a distribution improvement game. That's what it seems to do best, what people like to use it for and games are fun!
