View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
June 19, 2007
Publicity (was: Re: Why is 2.0 in the works already?)
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
June 20, 2007
Re: Publicity (was: Re: Why is 2.0 in the works already?)
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
June 20, 2007
Re: Publicity (was: Re: Why is 2.0 in the works already?)
Anders Bergh wrote:

> 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.
> 

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 Tango
June 29, 2007
Re: Publicity (was: Re: Why is 2.0 in the works already?)
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Anders Bergh wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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.

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".

Dave
July 02, 2007
Re: Publicity (was: Re: Why is 2.0 in the works already?)
David B. Held wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Anders Bergh wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> 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".
> 
> Dave

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.
July 02, 2007
Re: Publicity (was: Re: Why is 2.0 in the works already?)
Don Clugston wrote:
> David B. Held wrote:
>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>>> Anders Bergh wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> Dave
> 
> 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.

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#D
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home