There was a time when total number of hyperlinks to a site was an amazing metric measuring its quality.
replyYeah, the time between Google appeared, until the time SEO became a concept people chased, a very brief moment of time.
replyat that time having a website took work, while having a github account can be cheaply used to sybil attack/signal marketing
replyThere isn't just "good metric" in vacuum - it was a good metric of exactly the popularity that you mentioned. But stars becoming an object of desire is what killed it for that purpose. Perhaps now they are a "good metric" of combined interest and investment in the project, but what they're measuring is just not useful anymore.
replyYeah, I'd agree with this. I always thought of a star indicating only that a person (or account, generally) had an active interest in another project, either through being directly related or just from curiosity. Which can sort of work as a proxy for interesting, important or active, but not accurately.
replydeleted
replyA repository with zero stars has essentially no users. A repository with single-stars has a few users, but possibly most/all are personal acquiantances of the author, or members of the project.
replyIt is the meaning of having dozens or hundreds of stars that is undermined by the practice described at the linked post.