[R] popular R packages

[Gabor Grothendieck]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Jim Lemon <jim at bitwrit.com.au> wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>> R-Forge already has this but I don't think its used much.  R-Forge
>> does allow authors to opt out which seems sensible lest it deter
>> potential authors from submitting packages.
>>
>> I think objective quality metrics are better than ratings, e.g. does
>> package
>> have a vignette, has package had a release within the last year,
>> does package have free software license, etc.  That would have
>> the advantage that authors might react to increase their package's
>> quality assessment resulting in an overall improvement in quality on CRAN
>> that would result in more of a pro-active cycle whereas ratings are
>> reactive
>> and don't really encourage improvement.
>>
>
> I beg to offer an alternative assessment of quality. Do users download the
> package and find it useful? If so, they are likely to download it again when
> it is updated.

I was referring to motivating authors, not users, so that CRAN improves.

> Much as I appreciate the convenience of vignettes, regular
> updates and the absolute latest GPL license, a perfectly dud package can
> have all of these things. If a package is downloaded upon first release and

These are nothing but the usual  FUD against quality improvement, i.e. the
quality metrics are not measuring what you want but the fact is that
quality metrics can work and have had huge successes.  Also I think
objective measures would be more accepted by authors than ratings.
No one is going to be put off that their package has no vignette when
obviously it doesn't and the authors are free to add one and instantly
improve their package's rating.

> not much thereafter, the maintainer might be motivated to attend to its
> shortcomings of utility rather than incrementing the version number every
> month or so. Downloads, as many have pointed out, are not a direct
> assessment of quality, but if I saw a package that just kept getting
> downloaded, version after version, I would be much more likely to check it
> out myself and perhaps even write a review for Hadley's neat site. Which I
> will try to do tonight.

I was arguing for objective metrics rather than ratings. Downloading is not
a rating but is objective although there are measurement problems as has
been pointed out.  Also, the worst feature is that it does not react to changes
in quality very quickly making it anti-motivating.