On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 02:29:23PM -0500, ted@... wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, bulia byak wrote:
> >But first, some food for thought. Judging by SF statistics, 0.43 is
> >the first Inkscape version where we failed to double the number of
> >downloads. Up to 0.42, the approximate doubling rule held (if we count
> >0.42 and 0.42.2 as one version), but 0.43 got only a bit more
> >downloads than 0.42: 347000 vs . 300000, even though this release was
> >longer. May be a stats glitch, but may be an indication that 0.44
> >needs to be marketed more aggressively.
> Perhaps, but I'm also curious how much we can believe SF statistics. Even
> at SCALE I told people to get Inkscape from their distro...
I gave up keeping track of the stats when they converted to the new
system after running into a variety of discrepancies and irregularities.
Perhaps they've been sorted out, but given that we know inkscape is
being distributed in so many ways outside SF (including magazine CD's,
distros, compilation CD's, and so forth), download numbers are not as
certain of a statistic as they used to be.
Besides, I think a better measure of the project success is
developer-related activity. Are we successfully attracting and keeping
new developers? Are current developers happy with the project and
sticking around? Are we building good relationships with other
These are harder to measure, but given the number of conferences
Inkscape has been invited to this past year compared with previously,
this is a good sign.