Collecting user data
Locked
 
|
Hi guys,
from time to time we have to collect a usage data in order to improve our tools. For example I’d like to collect data in future about how do you treat code critics: do they occur, do you outfox them, do you mark them as false positives? If we had answers to these questions, we could really make good and helpful critics. For now I know that there are 3 projects which collect data: - GTSpotter - Shoreline - DFlow (not in image by default). Should I make 4th data collection for QualityAssistant? Or maybe we can do some unification? Cheers! Uko |
|
|
> On 28 Apr 2015, at 11:42, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > from time to time we have to collect a usage data in order to improve our tools. For example I’d like to collect data in future about how do you treat code critics: do they occur, do you outfox them, do you mark them as false positives? If we had answers to these questions, we could really make good and helpful critics. > > For now I know that there are 3 projects which collect data: > - GTSpotter > - Shoreline > - DFlow (not in image by default). > > Should I make 4th data collection for QualityAssistant? Or maybe we can do some unification? > I would love unification! It’s not only good for the researchers, but even for the user: I do not want to decide 5 times to give data to research, but I want to decide it once… Marcus |
|
|
Yes, some level of unification would be nice, especially for the part about users agreeing to send usage data and persisting that setting. Also at least two general levels of details about what data is being send that tools should follow would help (full anonymous vs. include class names/method names ?). Last but not least, a single entry point for sending that data over the network would help. How data is collected/stored will differ from tool to tool, but agreeing on the previous aspects would make it much easier to collect data. Cheers, Andrei On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
+1 for me.
Having a centralized way of managing data submission would simplify things a lot for people collecting data, but also for users who could check in one place all the kind of data they send. Tommaso On 28/04/15 14:31, Andrei Chis wrote: > Yes, some level of unification would be nice, especially for the part > about users agreeing to send usage data and persisting that setting. > Also at least two general levels of details about what data is being > send that tools should follow would help (full anonymous vs. include > class names/method names ?). > Last but not least, a single entry point for sending that data over the > network would help. > > How data is collected/stored will differ from tool to tool, but agreeing > on the previous aspects would make it much easier to collect data. > > Cheers, > Andrei > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > > On 28 Apr 2015, at 11:42, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > from time to time we have to collect a usage data in order to > improve our tools. For example I’d like to collect data in future > about how do you treat code critics: do they occur, do you outfox > them, do you mark them as false positives? If we had answers to > these questions, we could really make good and helpful critics. > > > > For now I know that there are 3 projects which collect data: > > - GTSpotter > > - Shoreline > > - DFlow (not in image by default). > > > > Should I make 4th data collection for QualityAssistant? Or maybe > we can do some unification? > > > > I would love unification! > > It’s not only good for the researchers, but even for the user: I do > not want to decide 5 times to give data to research, > but I want to decide it once… > > Marcus > > > |
Re: Collecting user data
|
|
+1 I couldn’t agree more with Andrei.
I believe that we should have a common infrastructure, at least, to define which level of details tools are allowed to collect/send for research purposes. I envision a setting’s panel in which the user has a list of tools collecting data with their own settings and the user can freely select which tools are allowed to collect her data. I had another idea, a “research image”. Let me explain, people are struggling to install tools that are not part of the standard image. On the other hand, having your research tool part of the standard image, is not easy for a number of reasons. So what about having a “research image” that allows researcher to install and distribute their own tools? Brave developers, for their free time project, could use this image instead of the standard distribution, benefit from the innovative (but in early stage) tools and contribute to the data collection mechanisms? Cheers, Roberto > On 28 Apr 2015, at 14:35, Tommaso Dal Sasso <[hidden email]> wrote: > > +1 for me. > > Having a centralized way of managing data submission would simplify > things a lot for people collecting data, but also for users who could > check in one place all the kind of data they send. > > Tommaso > > On 28/04/15 14:31, Andrei Chis wrote: >> Yes, some level of unification would be nice, especially for the part >> about users agreeing to send usage data and persisting that setting. >> Also at least two general levels of details about what data is being >> send that tools should follow would help (full anonymous vs. include >> class names/method names ?). >> Last but not least, a single entry point for sending that data over the >> network would help. >> >> How data is collected/stored will differ from tool to tool, but agreeing >> on the previous aspects would make it much easier to collect data. >> >> Cheers, >> Andrei >> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> >>> On 28 Apr 2015, at 11:42, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> from time to time we have to collect a usage data in order to >> improve our tools. For example I’d like to collect data in future >> about how do you treat code critics: do they occur, do you outfox >> them, do you mark them as false positives? If we had answers to >> these questions, we could really make good and helpful critics. >>> >>> For now I know that there are 3 projects which collect data: >>> - GTSpotter >>> - Shoreline >>> - DFlow (not in image by default). >>> >>> Should I make 4th data collection for QualityAssistant? Or maybe >> we can do some unification? >>> >> >> I would love unification! >> >> It’s not only good for the researchers, but even for the user: I do >> not want to decide 5 times to give data to research, >> but I want to decide it once… >> >> Marcus |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrei Chis
One is also easier to improve/maintain. Stef Le 28/4/15 14:31, Andrei Chis a écrit :
|
|
|
Ok, then an important question: is any author of a reporting tool ready to help other 2 authors to migrate to his tool?
Uko
|
|
|
Of course :) Just right now we are too busy with releasing moose 5.1 and moving development to Pharo 5. After it's done we can sync more on this. Cheers, Andrei On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
Cool.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrei Chis
Hi, Cheers, Uko
|
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |