Sure, I suppose that is one solution, but given that buying stars has been around for at least 5 years, and I have been aware of people faking stars for longer than that, I am not sure why you would rely on stars as a primary metric.
replyThere are many other far more useful metrics to look at first, and to focus on first, and to think about. Every time you think about stars, you'll forget the other stuff, or discount it in favor of stars.
Forget stars. They now no longer mean anything. Even if they did before, they don't anymore.
Interesting that 5 years ago is exactly when this page showed up according to the Wayback Machine: https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/exploring-projects-on...
replyIn it they explicitly call it out as a ranking metric
> Many of GitHub's repository rankings depend on the number of stars a repository has. In addition, Explore GitHub shows popular repositories based on the number of stars they have.
Yet another case of metric -> target -> useless metric
What does "TFA" mean here please?
replyThe article. Pick whatever adjective you like beginning with F!
replyI think it's "The fucking article".
replyYes and to be clear, one uses "TFA" to imply annoyance that TFA hasn't been read.
replye.g. "TFA covers this already."
That’s not something I wanted to imply. It can also stand for "the fine article". Is there a better shorthand for "the article linked at top of the page" / "the original article"?
replyNope, you just say "the article". But also... nobody's truly offended by "TFA" AFAIK.
replyThe featured article.
replyThe fucking article.
reply