From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gitweb: Show trailing slash when listing tree entry in tree listing Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:05:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20061010070531.GB2413@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20061009205551.GO20017@pasky.or.cz> <20061010062126.46664.qmail@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Petr Baudis , Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 10 09:05:41 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXBgI-0002SO-0a for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:05:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965056AbWJJHFe (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:05:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965061AbWJJHFe (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:05:34 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:49598 "HELO peff.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965058AbWJJHFd (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:05:33 -0400 Received: (qmail 23547 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2006 03:05:31 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 10 Oct 2006 03:05:31 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:05:31 -0400 To: Luben Tuikov Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061010062126.46664.qmail@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 11:21:26PM -0700, Luben Tuikov wrote: > Anyone can come up with any "statistic" to convince anyone of > anything. It's the American way! (to financial success) Petr introduced quantitative evidence and an analysis. You can argue that his numbers or his analysis are incorrect, but berating statistics as a whole is not a compelling argument. > Anyway, the "confused" link clearly says "blame". I'm not sure why > your people were trying to think and figure it out, as opposed to > simply clicking on the file name itself. It is the most intuitive > thing to do as I mentioned in my previous email. Is it? I think the point of Petr's data is to show that, for whatever reason, people are NOT intuitively doing as you expect. > Did you do any demographics on your clickers? What is their background? Aren't they, by definition, gitweb users? And isn't that the target demographic? You can argue that there are potential gitweb users who will behave completely differently, but I haven't seen any evidence to support that claim. > I can hardly accept this "statistic" as a proof to "reintroduce > the redundant links". It's not a proof. It's evidence in support of a claim. Sorry, but this isn't math. -Peff