From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Torsten Wagner Subject: Re: Results of the SourceForge Community Award Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:56:13 +0900 Message-ID: <200908051056.13588.torsten.wagner@googlemail.com> References: <87prbqmjro.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <2843F2F9-A8E6-48A6-8329-9EB3F58B9779@gmail.com> <4A78D15C.3030906@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MYVjp-0007KE-Q1 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:56:21 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MYVjl-0007Iw-Ph for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:56:21 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49640 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MYVjl-0007Is-Jk for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:56:17 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.249]:16716) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MYVjl-0002DI-8M for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:56:17 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so1976822rvb.6 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:56:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A78D15C.3030906@gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org >Carsten Dominik wrote: >> Well, at least it was not a close call :-) >> >> http://sourceforge.net/community/cca09/winners/ >> >> shows that we came in 9th of the 10 contenders. > >It looks to me that org-mode received around 873 votes which is pretty >good in my book. PortableApps.com, a heavily advertised commercial >product for Windows, could only muster 3880 votes. I am guessing that >the percentage of PortableApps.com users who voted for it is much >smaller than the percentage of org-mode users who voted for org-mode. > >The PortableApps.com website claims that 100 million portable apps have >been downloaded which must mean that the number of users of >PortableApps.com is huge compared to the number of users of org-mode. >With no advertising, no money, and a much smaller user base, org-mode >outperformed PortableApps.com in the voting. Sounds like a victory to me. I just have to agree with that... redefine the vote rule to be scientifically correct it should be impact = votes/user-base this gives a similar value like the impact factor of scientific journals (published papers / overall citation of papers) which more clearly depict the importance of the journal to its particular field. I guess with that org-mode might be the winner :) Even if we just use the number of downloads I would say the number of downloads for org-mode is at least two to three magnitudes smaller then PortableApps which makes org-mode (8.7e-4) has a 22.5 times higher impact then PortableApps (3.88e-5). By the way is the number of org-mode users known somehow (and how to estimate it in future bundled with emacs23) ? Would be interesting to see how much people use org-mode Nevertheless, even without this it was amazing to see that org-mode made it so far. Bye Totti CC. Maybe someone should suggest this new rule set to sourceforge... and then lets see how 2010 is going on :)