Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Dubious claims

Hi :)
I have always thought LO seriously underestimates it's number of users.  I grumbled about it years 
ago.  On the other hand (as people pointed out to me at the time) at least TDF only counts numbers 
that we can be reasonably confident of.  


Tim downloads the latest release and builds up a Dvd with a couple of other OpenSource programs 
that people might want in an office, some dictionaries, some fonts and bits&bobs and then gives 
away the Dvds at local events and to people and organisations locally.  He then supplies User 
Support occasionally asking the lists here if they ask something weird.  As they get more 
knowledgeable about LO they can help each other.  The entire infrastructure he has been building up 
counts as 1 user.  Rob Weir would spin that into being a dubious figure and say it's just 1 user 
being wrongly re-counted for each release.  

My boss uses LO nowadays when i send him a document but when he starts to write  document he uses 
MSO, similarly for the manager and my colleagues.  When they have a bunch of images such as logos 
that don't line-up or space out well enough or any of the many and varied problems that MSO creates 
they get me to fix it (if there is time) with LO.  Obviously they don't get counted as users either 
despite the fact that they do rely on LO.  


Regards from
Tom :)  




> ________________________________
> From: Italo Vignoli <italo.vignoli@gmail.com>
> To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org 
> Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 8:43
> Subject: 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
-- 
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