[osol-mktg] OpenSolaris Download Statistics ?
Claire Giordano
claire.giordano at sun.com
Wed Jul 13 23:14:41 PDT 2005
Stephen's concerns are valid. Hence the final plan below:
Patrick and I spoke today, and the conclusion is that Patrick is going to
compose an email along the lines of #1 but with a few subtle changes...
- Rather than "indicate why we cannot do so", Patrick is going to share our
current thinking/analysis and ask for opinions, input, suggestions. No need to
sound too authoritative or sure of ourselves, particularly if any community
members have even more BitTorrent experience that we do...
- Only share the SDLC and genunix.org #s - embedded in the message and NOT in a
standalone list or chart or table. Let's not bother sharing the BT #s until we
have a better sense of their usefulness.
- Position things such that if we don't find a useful way to measure downloads,
that we don't plan to moving forward... (except to look for things like failed
downloads or other infrastructure issues.)
Finally, hopefully Patrick's email will be enthusiastic about the use of
BitTorrent. Even though it makes the measurement hard, we should echo the kinds
of sentiments in Simon's blog - it's really well worth it and something we're
happy to have been able to do...
Thanks everyone for your input,
Claire
>>>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.
Patrick is
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> 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.
>>>_______________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the opensolaris-mktg
mailing list