- Some members may upvote below-average but well-known entries for visibility not because "these apps rock!" For example, the ancient UnxUtils.
- Other members may refrain from upvoting a competent tool, because it may be taken as an endorsement of a tool they don't use enough to endorse. For example,
- I am not sure I want to upvote Sarch, because I don't currently use it. But I definitely don't want it to be hidden when I need such a tool a year from now.
- ffplay is good for what it does, but if I give it a +5, it may give the impression that I think it's a great CLI player like mpv or mplayer!
- Likewise, fselect is such an amazing tool that I am surprised it doesn't have 15 votes already! No problem, I can understand that SQL syntax (even a simplified one) is not going to be for everyone. But, I still want it to be visible, even at then end of search results so that it can make the day of someone a couple of months from now.
The current system (disregarding that private entries are shown at the moment) goes like this:
|Well-known, competent||youtube-dl||Many votes, no problem.|
|Well-known/"popular" but with problems||UnxUtils||Some like it, others upvote it for visibility giving it an impression of endorsement.|
|Less-known, competent tools||Take your pick. For example, fselect or Sarch||Risk being hidden due to lack of testers/upvotes.|
|Less-known, incompetent tools||Take your pick.||Treated the same as the good tools above.|
The idea behind all the following options is to separate type 3 from type 4, and removing the incentive to upvote type 2.
Option 1 (thanks for the table idea, Andrew ):|
Does the basic job, simple to implement (Andrew?).
Better coverage. More fair.
- It is actually a quite simple ranking algorithm (and behind the scene anyway).
- Its effect is a fair ranking of tools by popularity, without hiding of good tools!