[osol-mktg] OpenSolaris Download Statistics ?

Wed Jul 13 05:06:58 PDT 2005

#1 is what I had in mind, sounds great.

S.

On Jul 13, 2005, at 12:45, patrick finch wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Derek and I discussed last night and Derek explained to me (several
> times - sorry Derek!) how we cannot even extrapolate an estimation of
> Bit Torrent downloads with any degree of accuracy.  The "missing"  
> number
> is believed to be low, but that is only based on intuition of the
> situation.  I am sceptical that we will ever be able to produce a  
> better
> figure than we have now, and I do not envisage this becoming part of a
> regularlay published metrics package.
>
> Given the concerns:
>
> -need for transparency with community
> -possible community exposure if the number appears "doctored"
> -possible PR exposure if the number appears low in relation to other
> open source initiatives or if the number is easily taken out of context
>
>
> And given Derek's points about OpenSolaris in relation to other
> projects, where I landed was to position it in one of two ways:
>
> 1.
> Reply to the *Marketing Community* (ie. not flagged on the site, but
> available for those interested);
> Indicate that we *cannot* determine the total number of downloads;
> Indicate *why* we cannot do so;
> Provide the data that we *do* have;
> Add the coda that we did some soul-searching on whether or not to
> provide this number as it is potentially misleading.
>
> 2.
> Reply to the *Marketing Community*;
> Indicate that we *cannot* determine the total number of downloads;
> Indicate *why* we cannot do so.
>
>
> I vote for #1, but I am not sure this is a democratic process.  If
> Stephen is ok to defer to Claire and Simon, and assuming they agree to
> #1, I would suggest we proceed.
>
>
> Is this acceptable?
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Claire Giordano wrote:
>> I concede that you have a good point.  So there.
>>
>> Let's see what Patrick and Derek propose tomorrow.  Patrick has just  
>> gone to bed
>> but I'm sure we'll see email from him tomorrow.
>>
>> I'm ok just presenting the dilemma to the community with requests for  
>> input and
>> then making a decision based on more information.
>>
>> BTW - this is a drop in the bucket in so many ways.  Patrick is  
>> putting together
>> a much more comprehensive proposal to figure out what we want to  
>> measure, what
>> we can measure, and what matters.  The goal is to use the metrics not  
>> only to
>> assess success of the program, but also to change perception, and to  
>> incent
>> certain kinds of behavior.
>>
>> I'm pushing for transparent use of metrics as a way to incent  
>> behavior.  Look at
>> how the blogs.sun.com Top Blogs list incents behavior.  As do the  
>> Flickr numbers
>> about number of views of photos, etc.  I'd like to see more and more  
>> use of
>> metrics on the website itself (but of course Patrick is looking at  
>> metrics that
>> go well beyond the website.)
>>
>> Stay tuned,
>> Claire
>>
>> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As I said in my previous email, I think it's actually *more*  
>>> transparent
>>> to say we don't know rather than guess.  And nobody ever asks how  
>>> many
>>> people downloaded the Linux kernel from kernel.org, so there.  :-P
>>>
>>> I will defer to you and Simon, but I find the numbers statistically
>>> meaningless and fear they will only come back to bite us.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Claire Giordano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Stephen:
>>>>
>>>> I initially had the perspective that to release bogus numbers would  
>>>> cause more
>>>> headaches than it would benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Then, after further discussion, I realized that transparency is  
>>>> actually more
>>>> important.  So I propose that we share what we have - but both  
>>>> Simon and I do
>>>> not want the info shared as originally proposed (where the many  
>>>> people who scan
>>>> email will find it easy to grab the misleading numbers and run) but  
>>>> rather to
>>>> share it embedded in the request for ideas.  It's quite possible  
>>>> that we'll get
>>>> some good input from people about how to handle this - at which  
>>>> point we can
>>>> decide what yardsticks we will use to measure downloads...
>>>>
>>>> Claire
>>>>
>>>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 12, 2005, at 22:01, Derek Cicero wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do it then? This just seems ripe for a PR disaster. I know  
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> are asking for numbers, but explain to them that there's no way  
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> track
>>>>>>> them and let it go at that. We don't have to do everything  
>>>>>>> people ask
>>>>>>> for, you know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it that we are worried about? Is it that the numbers  
>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>> going to be 100% accurate? I think we can logically explain that  
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> provide a ballpark figure. Are we worried that the numbers we  
>>>>>> release
>>>>>> will be far lower than other open source offerings? The answer is
>>>>>> that  they will be, at least compared to Linux, OO.org, Firefox,  
>>>>>> etc,
>>>>>> regardless of whether the number is 100% accurate or just a  
>>>>>> ballpark
>>>>>> figure. I think not releasing any numbers causes more PR trouble  
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should just be open with people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with this, which is why I agree with Claire's proposal. We  
>>>>> have
>>>>> to be open about the uncertainty too, and we have to ensure our own
>>>>> executives and others maintain that transparency.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> btw - Patrick and I are getting together in an hour so we can  
>>>>>> come up
>>>>>> with a proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Claire Giordano wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simon and I did talk about the number of downloads just before  
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> break, and...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We agree it makes sense to turn to the community to ask for
>>>>>>>> ideas/suggestions
>>>>>>>> about how to track the number of OpenSolaris downloads (of  
>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>> or  binaries or
>>>>>>>> both?) given the use of BitTorrent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We're both ok sharing the numbers we do have, but we don't want  
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> share them in
>>>>>>>> a way in which people will just take the numbers and run if they
>>>>>>>> scan the email
>>>>>>>> quickly. Providing the current numbers (which could be way low)  
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> a  easily
>>>>>>>> scannable table or list seems like a recipe for  
>>>>>>>> misinterpretation.
>>>>>>>> So, we want
>>>>>>>> the numbers we have to be embedded in a question. This needs  
>>>>>>>> work,
>>>>>>>> but here's a
>>>>>>>> feel for what we're thinking of:
>>>>>>>> ................................................................ 
>>>>>>>> .....
>>>>>>>> ..........
>>>>>>>> People have been asking about the OpenSolaris download numbers  
>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>> about other
>>>>>>>> metrics as well.) Patrick Finch will be following up about  
>>>>>>>> metrics  for
>>>>>>>> OpenSolaris in general, and we plan to provide useful metrics as
>>>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>>>> website moving forward. In the meantime, we wanted some input  
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>> track downloads given that we're using BitTorrent, a P2P system
>>>>>>>> that  makes it
>>>>>>>> more difficult to track how many people have actually downloaded
>>>>>>>> the  source and
>>>>>>>> binaries. We know that there have been xxx downloads from SDLC  
>>>>>>>> and  yyy
>>>>>>>> downloads from Genunix.org, but for BitTorrent the numbers are  
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> spotty --
>>>>>>>> currently we have detected zzz. This means that the current  
>>>>>>>> total
>>>>>>>> is  AAA, but
>>>>>>>> of course, that could be way low, and perhaps the real number is
>>>>>>>> significantly
>>>>>>>> higher.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suggestions????
>>>>>>>> ................................................................ 
>>>>>>>> .....
>>>>>>>> ..........
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patrick - can you pls regroup with Derek and figure out how to
>>>>>>>> proceed? We do
>>>>>>>> need to follow up with the community on this, somehow, this  
>>>>>>>> week...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Claire
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> patrick finch wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> -- 
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> NOTICE:  This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
> _______________________________________________________________
>
>