digitalmars.D - Publicity (was: Re: Why is 2.0 in the works already?)
- Lars Ivar Igesund (29/31) Jun 19 2007 The only reason to worry about TIOBE, is that high rankings may boost
- Anders Bergh (7/11) Jun 20 2007 I just read that post, and scrolling down to the comments makes the
- Lars Ivar Igesund (9/22) Jun 20 2007 Yes, his ranking was definately wrong too, don't necessarily make TIOBE'...
- David B. Held (21/38) Jun 29 2007 TIOBE's rankings are certainly suspect, but all the hoopla about Google
- Don Clugston (5/47) Jul 02 2007 And despite what Tiobe says, it's certainly not an indication of "mainst...
- Bruno Medeiros (8/61) Jul 02 2007 If I understood the rating correctly, that happens because the scoring
Georg Wrede wrote:But frankly, I'm really getting concerned with this issue. D is going down on Tiobe,The only reason to worry about TIOBE, is that high rankings may boost knowledge about D. As is rather obvious by looking at the list, D's numbers are most likely highly inflated, and a reason for this is suggested at http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/ For instance will the web interface(s) to the news groups give very many hits, probably both 2 and 3 times the real number of posts. Just try searching for your own name and see how many hits you have at digitalmars.com :) Ways to truly help D's publicity (as has been suggested before) is to post links to blog posts, projects and others to sites like Digg, Reddit or Dzone, and vote on those you come over that other have posted. For instance, Daniel Keep's post on how const in D works, is still top 10 on programming.reddit.com, and I expect him to have had at least several hundred reads from this, based on similar statistics when one of my posts were high on Dzone's front page. I guess one could cheat, and create a page or thread somewhere, where one could post links that could use some voting, the most important thing however, is that links are posted in the first place. I have posted my own links a couple of times, mostly to see if it has a big effect (and it has), but this don't feel "right" and I think many others who write about D feel similarly. Of course, many of my posts tend to be not entirely positive, so they may not always be the best for D (unless one considers the dogma all PR is good PR) ;) -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi Dancing the Tango
Jun 19 2007
On 6/19/07, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:The only reason to worry about TIOBE, is that high rankings may boost knowledge about D. As is rather obvious by looking at the list, D's numbers are most likely highly inflated, and a reason for this is suggested at http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/I just read that post, and scrolling down to the comments makes the post less notable. Google apparently cuts results at 1000 results, and removes duplicates, shrinking the numbers which caused his search results to be even more flawed than TIOBE's. -- Anders
Jun 20 2007
Anders Bergh wrote:On 6/19/07, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:Yes, his ranking was definately wrong too, don't necessarily make TIOBE's more correct though :) If TIOBE use Google, the argumentation would affect them too in some form. -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi Dancing the TangoThe only reason to worry about TIOBE, is that high rankings may boost knowledge about D. As is rather obvious by looking at the list, D's numbers are most likely highly inflated, and a reason for this is suggested at http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/I just read that post, and scrolling down to the comments makes the post less notable. Google apparently cuts results at 1000 results, and removes duplicates, shrinking the numbers which caused his search results to be even more flawed than TIOBE's.
Jun 20 2007
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:Anders Bergh wrote:TIOBE's rankings are certainly suspect, but all the hoopla about Google is just wrong. Google does not remove "duplicate" hits, because it does not index duplicate hits. That would be a stupid search engine. Instead, it removes pages that look like they came from the same site and possibly the same area of a site, and thus, may not present interesting new information to the user. A simple example is searching for a term that happens to be on the footer of a bunch of pages on a site. The hits are not "dupes", but they aren't interesting, either. Clearly, assuming that all result sets are < 1000 is just silly, and the blogger should have known better. The estimated Google hit counts are probably accurate within an order of magnitude, based on various searches I've done where I compared the initial hit count to what Google says after I've forced it to do an exact count (by visiting all the pages). So the TIOBE page counts are probably fairly reasonable. What is not reasonable is any interpretation of those results that mentions "popularity", "buzz", "community", or "zeitgeist". Even less reasonable is any assumption that languages near the top of the list are "better" than those not near the top for anything but a narrow and specific definition of "better". DaveOn 6/19/07, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:Yes, his ranking was definately wrong too, don't necessarily make TIOBE's more correct though :) If TIOBE use Google, the argumentation would affect them too in some form.The only reason to worry about TIOBE, is that high rankings may boost knowledge about D. As is rather obvious by looking at the list, D's numbers are most likely highly inflated, and a reason for this is suggested at http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/I just read that post, and scrolling down to the comments makes the post less notable. Google apparently cuts results at 1000 results, and removes duplicates, shrinking the numbers which caused his search results to be even more flawed than TIOBE's.
Jun 29 2007
David B. Held wrote:Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:And despite what Tiobe says, it's certainly not an indication of "mainstreamness". Just look at the graph for Fortran shows how meaningless the Tiobe ranking is. It ought to be one of the most stable languages on the list. Yet according to Tiobe, it's dropped by a factor of 3 since 2003. It's nonsense.Anders Bergh wrote:TIOBE's rankings are certainly suspect, but all the hoopla about Google is just wrong. Google does not remove "duplicate" hits, because it does not index duplicate hits. That would be a stupid search engine. Instead, it removes pages that look like they came from the same site and possibly the same area of a site, and thus, may not present interesting new information to the user. A simple example is searching for a term that happens to be on the footer of a bunch of pages on a site. The hits are not "dupes", but they aren't interesting, either. Clearly, assuming that all result sets are < 1000 is just silly, and the blogger should have known better. The estimated Google hit counts are probably accurate within an order of magnitude, based on various searches I've done where I compared the initial hit count to what Google says after I've forced it to do an exact count (by visiting all the pages). So the TIOBE page counts are probably fairly reasonable. What is not reasonable is any interpretation of those results that mentions "popularity", "buzz", "community", or "zeitgeist". Even less reasonable is any assumption that languages near the top of the list are "better" than those not near the top for anything but a narrow and specific definition of "better". DaveOn 6/19/07, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:Yes, his ranking was definately wrong too, don't necessarily make TIOBE's more correct though :) If TIOBE use Google, the argumentation would affect them too in some form.The only reason to worry about TIOBE, is that high rankings may boost knowledge about D. As is rather obvious by looking at the list, D's numbers are most likely highly inflated, and a reason for this is suggested at http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/I just read that post, and scrolling down to the comments makes the post less notable. Google apparently cuts results at 1000 results, and removes duplicates, shrinking the numbers which caused his search results to be even more flawed than TIOBE's.
Jul 02 2007
Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> Don Clugston wrote:David B. Held wrote:If I understood the rating correctly, that happens because the scoring is relative and not absolute. So even if the "popularity" (hit count) of a language stays constant (which should be the case for Fortran), it's rating can change simply if other languages become more "popular". -- Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#DLars Ivar Igesund wrote:And despite what Tiobe says, it's certainly not an indication of "mainstreamness". Just look at the graph for Fortran shows how meaningless the Tiobe ranking is. It ought to be one of the most stable languages on the list. Yet according to Tiobe, it's dropped by a factor of 3 since 2003. It's nonsense.Anders Bergh wrote:TIOBE's rankings are certainly suspect, but all the hoopla about Google is just wrong. Google does not remove "duplicate" hits, because it does not index duplicate hits. That would be a stupid search engine. Instead, it removes pages that look like they came from the same site and possibly the same area of a site, and thus, may not present interesting new information to the user. A simple example is searching for a term that happens to be on the footer of a bunch of pages on a site. The hits are not "dupes", but they aren't interesting, either. Clearly, assuming that all result sets are < 1000 is just silly, and the blogger should have known better. The estimated Google hit counts are probably accurate within an order of magnitude, based on various searches I've done where I compared the initial hit count to what Google says after I've forced it to do an exact count (by visiting all the pages). So the TIOBE page counts are probably fairly reasonable. What is not reasonable is any interpretation of those results that mentions "popularity", "buzz", "community", or "zeitgeist". Even less reasonable is any assumption that languages near the top of the list are "better" than those not near the top for anything but a narrow and specific definition of "better". DaveOn 6/19/07, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:Yes, his ranking was definately wrong too, don't necessarily make TIOBE's more correct though :) If TIOBE use Google, the argumentation would affect them too in some form.The only reason to worry about TIOBE, is that high rankings may boost knowledge about D. As is rather obvious by looking at the list, D's numbers are most likely highly inflated, and a reason for this is suggested at http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/I just read that post, and scrolling down to the comments makes the post less notable. Google apparently cuts results at 1000 results, and removes duplicates, shrinking the numbers which caused his search results to be even more flawed than TIOBE's.
Jul 02 2007