Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Dubious claims

Il 08/11/2012 07:08, Alex Thurgood ha scritto:

> In other words, at least for download/user stats, the answer is "no",
> and for the other points Rob mentions, obtaining raw data of any
> significance is for the git expert.

Downloads are extracted from the mirrors, and there is a script for 
that. GIT is for development related figures.

> Thanks, I'll check it out, but basically what you are saying, if I
> understand correctly, is that the data in question is provided in a
> format which is not necessarily comparable to that which Rob has used
> for AOO, and thus a certain amount of internal interpretations,
> assumptions, etc are made by the LO project to arrive at its view of the
> data. Are these methods/assumptions, as used by the LO project,
> publicly documented on the LO wiki ?

Our data are in a simple format (sum of units), while Mr Rob Weir is 
using complicated interpretations to hide the truth, which is that the 
developers and the community are with LO and not with Apache OO.

There is no interpretation and assumptions in our data: the number of 
developers is a sum of individual developers, the number of commits is a 
sum of single commits, and so on.

The number of community members has never been calculated using wiki 
subscribers (in this case we estimate around 1,000 contributors), and Mr 
Rob Weir has just got that number because it could be argued.

The number of community members is estimated using global + local 
mailing lists (many people are subscribed only to mailing lists in their 
native language) + wiki contributors + developer numbers, etcetera.

So, being the method that we use a simple sum of data (and this should 
be easy to understand by looking at the charts published on a monthly 
basis), I do not think that we have to document such a methodology.

The number of users is estimated (and the term "estimated" has always 
been associated to it). Of course, any estimate might be right or might 
be wrong, according to the point of view.

Apache OO has a higher number of downloads, of course, but I wonder - 
for instance - if users who were previously used to get the software in 
their native language are as happy as in the past when have discovered - 
after having downloaded the software - that the software is not 
available in their language).

By using this metrics, for instance, it would be possible to reduce 
Apache OO download numbers at least by one third (but maybe even more), 
because you could easily cut downloads in countries where the software 
is not available in the native language (version 3.4 was not even 
available in British English).

Bus, as we are not Mr Rob Weir - and having him as an opponent is a 
blessing (please ask Microsoft) - we are not going to embark in such a 
useless calculation.

Apache OO is available in 20 languages, and they are currently adding 
Danish and Norwegian (but many major languages are missing).

LibreOffice is available in over 100 languages (over 95% of the world 
population), and the community is now working at Filipino/Tagalog or 
other minor languages.

Number of languages available is a simple measure of community numbers 
(although estimated, because many people involved in localization do not 
show up in maling lists) but of course Mr Rob Weir is not looking for 
simple measures because they can be understood by everyone, and by using 
obscure measurements he does try to obfuscate the reality.

Best regards, Italo

--
Italo Vignoli - italo.vignoli@gmail.com
mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316436@messagenet.it
skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vignoli@gmail.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted