Hacker News Reader

Comment by pinkyand | Hacker News Reader

Maybe the way to judge curation is by comparing curation+search to search alone. With good curation effort, i think that curation+search is a winner , at a relatively minor cost(needing more time).

Also curation has the benefit of being a useful discovery tool.

View on HN

In theory, https://www.openhub.net/p?r&q=lua could construct/curate such lists from project activity analytics.

Personally i think human curation is much better than curation by activity analytics, and it can offer better context.

No question. But it usually doesn't last, as people move onto other projects. Even within this thread, the new list is replacing a similarly named, now unmaintained list.

DMOZ/Wikipedia at least try to provide long-term continuity and a standardized ontology for discovery. This github list is depending on the searcher already knowing that they should preface their dev discovery queries with "awesome".

If this list format were standardized, it could be dynamically merged with data from OpenHub. Or GitHub could add analytics features (similar to OpenHub) to assist the human curator editing this GitHub repo.

This list replaces a centralized list. Maybe with the magic of git this will work better. Or maybe we need better community building and connection around such list.

But since such a knowledge source is highly useful for people, and very valuable and people could get lots of credit for helping(in theory), i could see something like this built up.

On the other hand comparing just the current list(5 days of operation) , with the best openhub or github search could offer for the queries "python cryptography" and "python xml", i don't think analytics alone should do. But sure analytics can(and are through Google/Github) being used to guide curators.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com