[development] DevScore Module
greg at growingventuresolutions.com
Thu Mar 24 17:22:30 UTC 2011
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Laura Scott <pinglaura at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Greg Knaddison wrote:
>> But taken in aggregate across a bunch of sites it could be a
>> reasonably useful metric. If we want to compare developer's skills or
>> the quality of sites in a scalable automated way then we have to base
>> it on some metrics that may not be perfect but are reasonably proxies
>> for real measures of skill.
> There are so many outside variables that can skew this, that I don't see how this could work:
> * Did the client have an adequate budget? Underbudgeted projects can have more problems, and that's not a measure of a developer's quality of work.
That's a problem on a specific site, but it wouldn't be a problem in
broad aggregate which, I guess, is how this is meant to be used.
> * How are security issues handled? Will a client want a module like this on their site when it's advertising bugs and potential security flaws on their site?
> * Is the site being maintained? As new releases come out, maybe the client isn't interested in paying for those updates being deployed. Maybe the client is ignoring them altogether. Maybe the client has other priorities and doesn't give a crap anymore.
I'm not sure either of those are relevant. There's no code yet so we
can't say how this will work but I don't see that as a feature on the
> * Does the developer have exclusive control? Unless the developer is providing ongoing maintenance on a completed site, and did all the development in the first place, the site build is not necessarily teh developer's -- all the more so if everything now is under someone else's control. Other developers may be brought on board, and their work reflects on the original developer's reputation. A site well-built could end up very troubled, dragging down the original developer's score.
Again, we don't know how this proposed system will work but your
strawman could easily be fixed by taking the score at time of launch
and crediting the initial developer with that score vs. later
developers getting incremental scores.
> * Some modules are maintained better than others. A good module today may end up being unsupported for any of myriad reasons. Does a poorly maintained module end up reflecting on the site developer who never touched the code of that module?
They make no mention of ranking modules used on the site as as proxy
for site quality though that is a decent idea. But again, taking
scores as snapshots in time could remove the problems you've pointed
> * What does number of nodes and members have to do with quality of work? Sheesh!
It is a proxy for the relative size of the site. Visitors are another
example. If the site is an e-commerce or donation focused site you
could compare dollars in revenue.
I think most folks agree that someone who can build a brochure site
for the local ice cream shop has fewer skills than someone who builds
a site meant to hold hundreds of thousands of nodes and users. The
number of nodes/members gives a rough indication of which kind of site
it is especially when taken in aggregate across several sites.
> * How does this reveal bad practices? Will it reveal that the developer has hard-coded blocks into the theme? Or makes direct database queries from a template? Or that the code that doesn't throw errors does not do what it's supposed to do? Or all the custom work is uncommented and unreadable? Or that core was hacked?
> * How is the difficulty of execution handled? Does this measure integration points with third-party systems? Does it measure migration of legacy data? Does not measure the difficulty of custom module development?
Great questions for the module to address.
> * If you're going to measure SEO, you need to know the site goals. Does the site even answer the needs of the client? Or did the developer say "Drupal doesn't do that" and give the client something else that happens to ping the metrics this kind of module might monitor? Getting a lot of traffic from the wrong audience is not good SEO, and you can't measure that in a module that just looks for structural components. And you can't blame or credit good or bad SEO on the developer if the developer is not developing content as well as the site software. (Example: A random post I made about Marilyn Monroe is still one of the highest traffic posts on my personal blog. A blunt measure would say "great!" But that traffic has nothing to do with what I blog about in general, and if it were a business site that off-topic traffic from an audience I'm not trying to reach would be next to useless, unless I were only after selling ad impressions.)
There are currently 2 or three modules that measure progress in SEO
that are relatively popular. So...some of the rough means of whether a
site has achieved good SEO can be measured.
> IMHO, it's next to impossible to automate scoring this way of what is knowledge work, especially when what you're measuring has so many unknowns.
It depends on your goal - if your goal is the perfect measure of
knowledge work then of course it's impossible. If your goal is just
something better than the other options then there's plenty of
progress to be made.
As always, we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of progress.
Greg Knaddison | 720-310-5623 | http://growingventuresolutions.com
http://masteringdrupal.com - Videos and Tutorials
More information about the development