Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Project Summary Factiods: NLG word "only" in conflict with the numbers #1518

Open
cyriax0 opened this issue Oct 6, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Comments

@cyriax0
Copy link

cyriax0 commented Oct 6, 2020

Expected: No conflict between the natural language suggestions and the numbers.

Got: Across all [...] 12% [...] [here] this figure is only 30% [...] among top 10%

Problem: "only" implies the number is low compared to others, but it is high.

Speculation / possibile fix:
I guess the "only" got into it because 30% is a "low" number by itself. So either:

  • Check percentile not the figure itself. "percentile < threshold percentage" (i.e. if better than 40% of projects)
  • Check relation to average not the figure itself. "figure < average"

Full output:
https://www.openhub.net/p/awesome/factoids#FactoidCommentsVeryHigh

Very well-commented source code

awesome is written mostly in Lua.

Across all Lua projects on Open Hub, 12% of all source code lines are comments.
For awesome, this figure is only 30%.

This very impressive number of comments puts awesome among the top 10% of all Lua projects on Open Hub.

A high number of comments might indicate that the code is well-documented and organized, and could be a sign of a helpful > and disciplined development team.

(edit:)
more examples:
https://www.openhub.net/p/bat-rs/factoids#FactoidCommentsVeryLow (no "only" here)
https://www.openhub.net/p/naev/factoids#FactoidCommentsHigh ("only" here)

@cyriax0
Copy link
Author

cyriax0 commented Oct 6, 2020

Also: keep up the good work and stuff. :D 👍

@PDegenPortnoy
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Would you like to submit a PR with a fix?

We'd probably also want to look at the widgets to make sure we aren't using the same misleading language there.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants