Re: RFC: Commentation- and Rating-System für PEAR-Websites

> > The idea is pretty simple. Because of many PEAR packages having > > no online-documentation and to complete the existing examples > > their should be IMHO a possibility to leave some comments on > > each package. I think the best way is to link the comments > > together with the packages themself (respectively the > > corresponding webpage with closer information) and on the other > > hand with the corresponding manual-pages. (Whereupon we have to > > think how manuals with multiple pages should be linked). > > Having such a system will make most developers write absolutely no > documentation for their package, because they expect their users to > leave some comments instead. I'm -1 on this. This hasn't happened with php.net documentation, why would it happen here? Having said that though, I don't think a simple comment system like the one @ php.net would be as good as a full review system, which incorporates comments, and ratings across various areas, eg. ease of use, quality of code, quality of documentation, etc etc. > > Anothe idea was to implement some kind of voting- or > > rating-system where users can leave a quick rating about > > packages they used (something like "Did you find the package > > usefull?" or "Does the package satisfy your needs?" or > > something else). Maybe theese votes should be mixed of 2 or 3 > > questions to fit for different kinds of usability and > > usefulness. > > There will be a system like this which will be used during a package > proposal. Once it's there, we will see if it makes sense to use this > also after the proposal. The review/rating system I described above would imo be very useful for the unknowing user to identify good vs bad packages, in particular if there are two similar. -- Richard Heyes