Using stars instead of watchers

[AurelioDeRosa]

Hi.

I've searched for this topic but haven't find any discussion, so I'm opening a new issue. I know that GitHub Watchers and Forks are shown as a social proof metric, and I like the idea. However, I think that the number of Stars are more useful than Watchers. In my opinion, a lot of people prefer to star a repository to save it and use it later, instead of being interested in following its progress (which is the main purpose of Watch). So, even if a plugin is "famous" may have very low Watchers but a high number of Stars.

Any idea on this matter?

[scottgonzalez]

Replacing watchers with stars seems like a good idea.

Ref #42

[scottgonzalez]

BitBucket (not yet supported) doesn't have stars, so we may want to choose a different term to use.

[AurelioDeRosa]

Hi @scottgonzalez. Perhaps the implementation of BitBucket may rely on Watchers as a fallback. As a second metric it seems reasonable.

P.S:: I know the request of implementation for BitBucket has been around for a while now (ref #139). Any news?

[scottgonzalez]

No updates on BitBucket support. We're mostly expecting that if there's enough desire for it, someone will send a PR. Falling back to watchers was my thought, we'll just need to pick a different label to show to capture stars/watchers.

[AurelioDeRosa]

What do you think of "Favorite"? It's a fair label (do not overcome a term over the other) and it should explain well the concept.

[scottgonzalez]

That sounds fine to me.

[AurelioDeRosa]

Closing as this is not relevant anymore.