Non-technical co-founder of Git analysis tool writes blog post that makes assertions about all sorts of things and then justifies this with mockup charts whose axes are unlabeled. Then offers tools to help micro-manage engineers.
On the other hand, the irony of being told what to do by a tool coded by some 'out-of-touch know-it-all tech people' is not lost on me - some of my work has surely been used to inflict this sort of micromanagement on others.
You’re right: this post is a narrative about product development, and a strong correlation we found between two variables across 20 Million+ commits that we thought was fascinating and supports general 'kitchen logic' around best practices. The axes are not labeled, but if you like we can set you up with a demo account and walk through your data with you.
One other note: the typical common use case for the product has been stakeholder management; something we have doubled down on in product development. Any specific critique about how we can improve most welcome!
1. Data is always necessary to back up claims like these. Almost _any_ kind of quantitative data will do - just a simple average! just give me something I can replicate on other data sets. Similarly, just saying "we made up these variables as a combination of these other variables and called them Flavorfulness and Musicality, look how nicely our circles line up!" is not useful to anyone - a formula or methodology would be.
2. As a software engineer, I came to this post expecting to find a way to improve myself. I invested time in reading it because I expected a payoff in the form of, for example, a metric I could apply to my own work. I suspect that the author of this post intentionally gave the impression that the post contained tools like this. I didn't find anything remotely like that.
3. More generally, this post does not show signs of being written with the reader in mind. You have not given me any new information that I can apply; instead you have given me a marketing pitch (we did this data analysis, we promise! Don't you want us to work with you?) dressed up like information.
Seems like you've given this some thought on how this should be done right; would love to include them in our product development discussions.
Really? Rather than going back and labeling you axes you are converting this into a sales call???
Similarly, the offer here is to take a deeper look at what we're building and a (quite genuine) offer to incorporate any suggestions you might have into our roadmap.
Your post gives prescriptive conclusions not supported by the data presented. Of the data that you did analyze, we're given so few numbers actually published that everyone is forced to question the fundamental methodology, even that is not clearly stated. The specific critique is to make well-founded claims.