[osol-mktg] OpenSolaris Download Statistics ?
Stephen Harpster
Stephen.Harpster at Sun.COM
Wed Jul 13 08:54:53 PDT 2005
I have my concerns, but I see this as a marketing decision, so Patrick
and Claire should have the final say.....
Simon Phipps wrote:
>#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.
>>_______________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
More information about the opensolaris-mktg
mailing list