Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonjmcghee | Hacker News Reader

Assuming success / adoption, I would be careful with how you approach this.

IMDB is centered on reviews and ratings of a static media asset.

Open source projects are often growing/changing. They might have a really intriguing seed of an idea with an interesting roadmap, but the prototype is poorly executed / buggy. Does that deserve a low ranking / poor review?

View on HN

Ideally, the rankings should be associated with a time period. Something ranked high... but all those high rankings are from 2 years ago, and there's been none since... that's a different signal that current high rankings and current code changes.

I think how Steam handles game rankings is a good example of this. They separate out "All Reviews" from "Recent Reviews". Helps identify current reception of a game which may have had a buggy release.

There's a case to be made for done-but-not-dead projects that are feature complete and still the go to solution.

Ideally those projects would still get reviews so timeframed reviews still makes sense.

You probably need to adjust the time scale of what "recent" means based on the number of reviews.

If a project has a total of 10 reviews, it's probably best to not just take the average of the 2 newest reviews. On the other hand, if a project gets dozens of reviews a month, taking of the last two months or so would totally make sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com