From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: A proposal for a friendlier Emacs Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 21:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <4be18b5f-dc07-2703-a2de-1ed08916ebdf@gmail.com> <1e340d941b6fd0b21a477f39fc935468@condition-alpha.com> <48e632cab427c838b1cc20a190f4959d@condition-alpha.com> <91bb3e347d5caed9487a2cd8e6d0db04@condition-alpha.com> <4deb019b-8034-4f18-9bd6-98424a0f09ee@default> <916af7e9-961b-44e5-ab11-0f128f52a8fe@default> <39133459-6582-4772-b2bf-03eb123cb22b@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="4222"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: alexander.adolf@condition-alpha.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 28 06:53:38 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kMlAQ-00010K-9n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 06:53:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57662 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kMlAP-000607-D5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 00:53:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50124) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kMl9n-0005OW-Ql for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 00:53:00 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:59160) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kMl9l-0004uo-93; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 00:52:59 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08S4o2UV072218; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 04:52:52 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=b6xc1wY8cyE495YIpiq/Ow1E8t8xiZpUTUiOKLC7N0o=; b=Pi62EhkpvW80aKhvbHcLxHrIRkbzBjK1f1B3a72gsyVh7p7bEdnFHw9PIcWj9xVkMmUy V8tDR45JZ7ojrtZKtnbP2ynO5vjCVxr3KCOqmhRkuL8zQUk+7EZ8oemxE6+RIN8J8AhS 6+J3866ph9m+jqRkjrwGiM2JNn501jBX8yR3i6ZiAr0qad41NKxZsrAn/rsH2L8BBYhO Xbnt3biBP5mmzsyUrX6B8uWgPVCT9/pDgxTBbgV994uRdSefNmMgYHPMuQoS5ZjCaI7j 9y+jVn++41eaawZuHtP7YoeFM+aIFwVzT9i/ibnkWfIhfam6XBC7ICfGo9AK1ymAZJQj gQ== Original-Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by aserp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 33su5ak24x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Sep 2020 04:52:51 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08S4ojmX116399; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 04:50:51 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 33tf7jukk2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 28 Sep 2020 04:50:51 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0006.oracle.com (abhmp0006.oracle.com [141.146.116.12]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 08S4onWK024172; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 04:50:49 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5056.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9757 signatures=668680 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=1 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009280039 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9757 signatures=668680 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=1 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009280039 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=141.146.126.79; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=aserp2130.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/28 00:52:54 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -33 X-Spam_score: -3.4 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.576, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:256570 Archived-At: > > Should we really conflate the set of Emacs > > users with "registered repository users"? >=20 > Can you state your intended meaning in different words? You asked Alexander what he meant by "favourites count". He replied that it's "the number of registered repository user who have clicked on 'add to favorites' for the package in question." I questioned how good counting such "likes" by=20 registered users would be as a measure of how much users in general might appreciate a given package. That's all. Is counting registered users who "like" a package a good proxy for its appreciation by users in general? Dunno. > > If we're looking for a poll/sampling, is this a > > helpful way to represent Emacs users in general? > > Frankly, I don't know. But I recognize that > > there's a conflation - the two sets aren't the > > same. >=20 > Each time you use the word conflate, I am unsure what meaning you have > in mind. What operation with these two sets that you mean? Taking > the union of them? Treating then as intersubstitutable? Something else? Using one set as a proxy for the other. One is a subset of the other. Is such a sample a good proxy? Maybe; I don't know. But the two should at least be distinguished, not considered the same (identified/conflated). That's all. Use whatever word you like, as I expect you now understand. If you want, consider the question only as pointing out that not all users will register and then "like" something. As for the difference, I take it from Alexander: "Favourites can only be granted by registered users of a package repository web site." Those are the (only) "votes" that would be counted with this approach, IIUC. ___ (Also, you've often expressed the view that, while polls can be useful, we also want detailed feedback and reasoned arguments before deciding something. I agree with that.)