SourceRank 2.0

[andrew]

SourceRank 2.0

Below are my thoughts on the next big set of changes to "SourceRank", which is the metric that Libraries.io calculates for each project to produce a number that can be used for sorting in lists and weighting in search results as well as encouraging good practises in open source projects to improve quality and discoverability.

Goals:

• Comparable number for packages within a given ecosystem
• Easily understandable for a human to scan without explanation
• Clear breakdown available of factors that went into the final number
• Any negative factors that contribute to the score should be fixable by maintainer
• Changes should be trackable over time
• Less popular projects that are good quality and well maintained should still score well
• Doing work to improve sourcerank for a project should encourage following best practises

History:

SourceRank was inspired by google pagerank as a better alternative score to GitHub Stars.

The main element of the score is the number of open source software projects that depend upon a package.

If a lot of projects depend upon a package that implies a some other things about that package:

• it's working software, people tend to remove dependencies that are broken
• It's documented enough to be used by the people that have committed it

Problems with 1.0:

Sourcerank 1.0 doesn't have a ceiling to the score, the project with the highest score is mocha with a sourcerank of 32, when a user is shown an arbitrary number it's very difficult to know if that number is good or bad. Ideally the number should either be out of a total, i.e. 7/10, a percentage 82% or a score of some kinda like B+

Some of the elements of sourcerank cannot be fixed as they judge actions from years ago with the same level as recent actions, for example "Follows SemVer?" will punish a project for having an invalid semver number from many years ago, even if the project has followed semver perfectly for the past couple years. Recent behaviour should have more impact that past behaviour.

If a project solves a very specific niche problem or if a project tends to be used within closed source applications a lot more than open source projects (LDAP connectors, payment gateway clients etc) then usage data within open source will be small and sourcerank 1.0 would rank it lower.

Related to small usage factors, a project within a smaller ecosystem will currently get a low score even if it is the most used project within that whole ecosystem when compared to a much larger ecosystem, elm vs javascript for example.

Popularity should be based on the ecosystem which the package exists within rather than within the whole Libraries.io universe.

Quality or issues with dependencies of a project are not taken into account, if adding a package brings with it some bad quality dependencies then that should affect the score, in a similar way, the total number of direct and transitive dependencies should be taken into account.

Projects that host their development repository on GitHub currently get a much better score than ones hosted on GitLab, Bitbucket or elsewhere. Whilst being able to see and contribute to the projects development is important, where that happens should not influence the score based on the ease of access to that data.

Sourcerank is currently only calculated at the project level, but in practise the sourcerank varies by version of a project as well for a number of quality factors.

Things we want to avoid:

Past performance is not indicative of future results - when dealing with voluteeners and open source projects where the license says "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" we shouldn't reward extra unpaid work

Metrics that can easily be gamed by doing things bad for the community, i.e. hammering the download endpoint of a package manager to boost the numbers

Relying to heavily on any metrics that can't be collected for some package managers, download counts and dependent repository counts are

Proposed changes:

• Group SourceRank breakdown into 3 or 4 sections (usage, quality, community, distribution)
• Usage/popularity metrics should be based on projects ecosystem scale
• Overall score should be between 0 and 100
• Time based score elements should focus on more recent behaviours
• SourceRank of Dependencies (both direct and transitive) should be taken into account

Potential 2.0 Factors/Groupings:

Usage/Popularity

• Dependent projects and repositories
• Stars

Quality

• Basic details info present
• Following semver recently
• Source repository present
• Documentation (readme present)
• SourceRank of runtime dependencies on latest version
• Outdated status of runtime dependencies on latest version
• Status (prerelease, new, deprecated, unmaintained, yanked etc)
• License present?
• License compatibility of dependencies
• Prerelease?
• Major version prerelease

Community/maintenance

• Bus factor (Number of committers or percentage share of commits per commiter)
• How responsive the issue tracker is
• Overall repository activity levels
• Frequency of releases

Reference Links:

SourceRank 1.0 docs: https://docs.libraries.io/overview#sourcerank

SourceRank 1.0 implementation:

• https://github.com/librariesio/libraries.io/blob/6382a8043036c433ddf0548046f2feeb20bcee77/app/models/concerns/source_rank.rb
• https://github.com/librariesio/libraries.io/blob/6382a8043036c433ddf0548046f2feeb20bcee77/app/helpers/sourcerank_helper.rb

Metrics repo: https://github.com/librariesio/metrics

Npms score breakdown: https://api.npms.io/v2/package/redis

[andrew]

The initial pass at implementing SourceRank 2.0 will be focused on realigning how scores are calculated and shown using existing metrics and data that we have, rather than collecting/adding new metrics.

The big pieces are:

• scale the sourcerank between 0 and 100
• usage and popularity metrics should only be considered within the packages ecosystem
• the scores of top-level dependencies of the latest version of a project should be taken into account
• Breakdown should be separated into three sections, with their own scores (Usage, Quality, Community)
• Only consider recent releases when looking at historical data (like semver validity)
• A good project with source hosted on GitLab or Bitbucket should have a similar score to one hosted on GitHub

[andrew]

There are a few places where the sourcerank 1.0 details/score are exposed in the API that need to be kept around for backwards compatibility:

• ProjectSerializer - the rank field is present wherever project records are serialized for the API
• sourcerank api endpoint which gives a breakdown of the values that go into sourcerank 1.0 score
• project search sort by rank option
• rank columns in the open data release files: projects and projects_with_repository_fields

For the first pass, sourcerank 2.0 is going to focus on just packages published to package managers, we'll save the repository sourcerank update for later as it doesn't quite match so well with the focus on projects.

So the following repo sourcerank details in the api will remain the same:

• RepositorySerializer - the rank field is present wherever repository records are serialized for the API
• repo search sort by rank option

[andrew]

Starting to implement bits over here: https://github.com/librariesio/libraries.io/pull/2056

[andrew]

One other thing that springs to mind, the first pass of the implementation will focus at a project level and only really considers the latest release.

Then we'll move on to tackle https://github.com/librariesio/libraries.io/issues/475 which will store more details at a per-version level, which will then allow us to calculate the SourceRank for each version.

[andrew]

Making good progress on filling in the details of the calculator, current approach for scoring is to take the average of the different categories scores and for each category take the average of the different scores that go into it too, with the max being 100 for score.

[andrew]

Example of the current breakdown of implemented scores:

• overall score: 88.7
  • popularity_score: 80
    • dependent_projects_score: 70
    • dependent_repositories_score: 90
  • community_score: 99
    • contribution_docs_score: 99
  • quality_score: 87
    • basic_info_score: 87

[andrew]

Things to think about soon:

• How to calculate, store and show the change in score for a given category over time
• How to visualize what goes into a score and how to improve it

Also because scores now take into account other projects within an ecosystem, we'll likely want to recalculate lots of scores at the same time in an efficient way, for example:

• Recalculate every elm module when the most popular elm module jumps in popularity
• Recalculate the scores for every gem that depends on rails when the score of rails changes significantly

[andrew]

Added an actual method to output the breakdown of the score:

{
  "popularity": {
    "dependent_projects": 0,
    "dependent_repositories": 0
  },
  "community": {
    "contribution_docs": {
      "code_of_conduct": false,
      "contributing": false,
      "changelog": false
    }
  },
  "quality": {
    "basic_info": {
      "description": true,
      "homepage": false,
      "repository_url": false,
      "keywords": true,
      "readme": false,
      "license": true
    },
    "status": 100
  }
}

[andrew]

Thinking about dependency related scores, here's my current thinking:

• one score for the average source rank score for every top level runtime dependency
• if a package has zero dependencies then 100/100
• packages with excessive numbers of top level runtime dependencies should be marked down independently of the score of each dependency

Eventually we should also look at the size and complexity of the package, as those rules could encourage vendoring of dependencies to avoid them reducing the score.

[andrew]

First pass at an implementation for the calculator is complete in https://github.com/librariesio/libraries.io/pull/2056, going to kick the tires with some data next

[andrew]

Current output for a locally synced copy of Split:

{
  "popularity": {
    "dependent_projects": 0,
    "dependent_repositories": 0,
    "stars": 0,
    "forks": 0,
    "watchers": 0
  },
  "community": {
    "contribution_docs": {
      "code_of_conduct": true,
      "contributing": true,
      "changelog": true
    },
    "recent_releases": 0,
    "brand_new": 100,
    "contributors": 100,
    "maintainers": 50
  },
  "quality": {
    "basic_info": {
      "description": true,
      "homepage": true,
      "repository_url": true,
      "keywords": true,
      "readme": true,
      "license": true
    },
    "status": 100,
    "multiple_versions": 100,
    "semver": 100,
    "stable_release": 100
  },
  "dependencies": {
    "outdated_dependencies": 100,
    "dependencies_count": 0,
    "direct_dependencies": {
      "sinatra": 42.99146412037037,
      "simple-random": 45.08333333333333,
      "redis": 42.58333333333333
    }
  }
}

[jab]

I just found an issue with SourceRank's "Follows SemVer" scoring that is not mentioned here. I'm hoping it can be resolved in the next version of SourceRank, and that this is the right place to bring this up:

The relevant standard that Python packages must adhere to for versioning is defined in PEP 440: https://packaging.python.org/tutorials/distributing-packages/#standards-compliance-for-interoperability

As that page says, “the recommended versioning scheme is based on Semantic Versioning, but adopts a different approach to handling pre-releases and build metadata”.

Here is an example Python package where all the release versions are both PEP 440- and SemVer-compliant.

But the pre-release versions are PEP 440-compliant only. Otherwise interoperability with Python package managers and other tooling would break.

The current SourceRank calculation gives this package (and many other Python packages like it) 0 points for "Follows SemVer" due to having published pre-releases. (And only counting what was published recently wouldn't fix this.)

Can you please update the SourceRank calculation to take this into account? Perhaps just ignoring the SemVer requirement for pre-release versions of Python packages, which it’s impossible for them to satisfy without breaking interop within the Python ecosystem, would be a relatively simple fix?

Thanks for your consideration and for the great work on libraries.io!

[andrew]

@jab ah I didn't know that, yeah I think it that makes sense, rubygems has a similar invalid semver prerelease format.

I was thinking about adding in some ecosystem specific rules/changes, this is a good one to experiment with.

[andrew]

Sourcerank 2.0 things I've been thinking about over the long weekend:

• [x] We'll need to cache the overall score onto a separate field to rank on the projects table, most likely called sourcerank_2 with a default of 0
• [x] Would be good to know when the sourcerank was last calculated to easily find the projects with the most outdated score to be updated next, most likely a datetime field called sourcerank_2_last_calculated that defaults to null for projects that have never had a score calculated
• [x] Now that dependency scores can be recursive, it would be good to be able to see how many top-level runtime dependencies a project has, which ends up being "how many top-level runtime dependencies does a version have", which we can then cache onto projects for the latest version. This then allows us to easily find zero dependency projects, perfect for calculating the sourcerank for first. #2079
• [ ] To get the timeseries element for sourcerank 2.0 to show improvement over time, we should store the whole breakdown for each project on a regular basis, as we won't easily be able to recreate some older breakdowns as the values of dependent repos and dependent projects change without keeping a history. Need to ponder on this some more but I'm currently thinking we store it in a separate table and keep a score per project each week.
• [x] We don't have 100% support across all package managers, so the score needs to be able to skip certain checks rather than giving 0, on a similar note, if the project's source is on bitbucket, there's no concept of stars, in that case it shouldn't be given zero stars as it will have a big impact on the overall popularity score.

[chris48s]

Packagist/composer also defines similar: https://getcomposer.org/doc/04-schema.md#version

It seems like "follows [ecosystem specific version schema]" would be a better criteria than "follows SemVer", but I can see that this could add a lot of additional complexity when you deal with a lot of languages.

[andrew]

I've added runtime_dependencies_count fields to both projects and versions, running some background to backfill those counts on all package managers where we have both the concept of Versions and Dependencies.

Also highlights the need for https://github.com/librariesio/libraries.io/issues/543 sooner rather than later for all the package managers that use Tags rather than Versions.

[andrew]

Mos of the runtime_dependencies_count tasks finished over night, just python and node.js still running.

Versions updated: 11,658,167 Projects updated: 716,828

And just for fun, the average number of runtime dependencies across:

all versions: 3.03 all projects: 1.69

Project data broken down by ecosystem:

"NuGet"=>1.71, "Haxelib"=>0.65, "Packagist"=>1.98, "Homebrew"=>1.16, "CPAN"=>4.23, "Atom"=>1.14, "Dub"=>0.72, "Elm"=>2.44, "Puppet"=>1.37, "Pub"=>2.08, "Rubygems"=>1.45, "Cargo"=>0.51, "Maven"=>0.95, "Hex"=>1.31, "NPM"=>2.52, "CRAN=>0.0

*CRAN doesn't use runtime as a kind, so might need to tweak that slightly, imports seems like the most appropriate

python are still running:

"Pypi"=>0.08

[andrew]

Some other thinks to note down:

• [ ] we should store the raw numbers used not just the individual scores in the breakdown so we can update the scoring mechanism and be able to recompute old scores easily.
• [x] we should use log rather than just linear for popularity metrics
• [ ] might want to store the sourcerank version with the breakdown to easily find old scores that need updating after an algo change
• [x] should be able to pass in values for max_dependent_projects, max_dependent_repositories etc when initializing the SourceRankCalculator object to enable faster score generation for multiple projects from the same ecosystem

Next up I'm going to add the sourcerank_2 and sourcerank_2_last_calculated to projects then experiment with generating some actual rank figures for one ecosystem.

[andrew]

Another thing that springs to mind:

• [ ] we should probably not give 0 to dependencies where the project is unknown to us, this may already happen but it's not tested

[andrew]

Here's what the breakdown looks like now for rails (on my laptop, missing some data)

{
  "overall_score": 81,
  "popularity": {
    "score": 60.0,
    "dependent_projects": 0.0,
    "dependent_repositories": 0.0,
    "stars": 100.0,
    "forks": 100.0,
    "watchers": 100.0
  },
  "community": {
    "score": 93.33333333333333,
    "contribution_docs": {
      "code_of_conduct": true,
      "contributing": true,
      "changelog": false
    },
    "recent_releases": 100,
    "brand_new": 100,
    "contributors": 100,
    "maintainers": 100
  },
  "quality": {
    "score": 80.0,
    "basic_info": {
      "description": true,
      "homepage": true,
      "repository_url": true,
      "keywords": true,
      "readme": true,
      "license": true
    },
    "status": 100,
    "multiple_versions": 100,
    "semver": 0,
    "stable_release": 100
  },
  "dependencies": {
    "score": 89.66666666666667,
    "outdated_dependencies": 100,
    "dependencies_count": 89,
    "direct_dependencies": {
      "sprockets-rails": 72,
      "railties": 83,
      "bundler": 77,
      "activesupport": 84,
      "activerecord": 75,
      "activemodel": 85,
      "activejob": 83,
      "actionview": 82,
      "actionpack": 82,
      "actionmailer": 81,
      "actioncable": 81
    }
  }
}

[andrew]

More fiddling with local data, tables to compare sourcerank 1 and 2 scores this time.

Top 25 local ruby projects ordered by sourcerank 1:

Name	SourceRank 1	SourceRank 2
activesupport	18	86/100
rspec	18	77/100
sinatra	17	80/100
bundler	17	76/100
rubocop	17	81/100
actionpack	17	82/100
rdoc	17	81/100
activemodel	17	85/100
kramdown	16	78/100
activerecord	16	75/100
split	16	74/100
railties	15	83/100
rails	15	81/100
actioncable	15	81/100
test-unit	15	79/100
activejob	15	83/100
actionmailer	15	81/100
concurrent-ruby	15	75/100
pry	15	70/100
simplecov	15	78/100
cucumber	15	76/100
actionview	15	82/100
guard-rspec	14	72/100
json_pure	14	70/100
ffi	14	75/100

Top 25 local ruby projects by both sourcerank 1 and 2

SourceRank 1	SourceRank 2
activesupport (18)	activesupport (86)
rspec (18)	activemodel (85)
sinatra (17)	railties (83)
bundler (17)	activejob (83)
rubocop (17)	actionpack (82)
actionpack (17)	actionview (82)
rdoc (17)	rubocop (81)
activemodel (17)	rdoc (81)
kramdown (16)	actionmailer (81)
activerecord (16)	rails (81)
split (16)	actioncable (81)
railties (15)	sinatra (80)
rails (15)	test-unit (79)
actioncable (15)	kramdown (78)
test-unit (15)	simplecov (78)
activejob (15)	rspec (77)
actionmailer (15)	redcarpet (77)
concurrent-ruby (15)	sprockets (77)
pry (15)	arel (77)
simplecov (15)	bundler (76)
cucumber (15)	cucumber (76)
actionview (15)	webmock (76)
guard-rspec (14)	thor (76)
json_pure (14)	i18n (76)
ffi (14)	mini_mime (76)

Same as the first table but with top 50 and github star column included:

Name	SourceRank 1	SourceRank 2	Stars
activesupport	18	86/100	39180
rspec	18	77/100	2237
activemodel	17	85/100	39180
actionpack	17	82/100	39180
rdoc	17	81/100	459
rubocop	17	81/100	8875
sinatra	17	80/100	9907
bundler	17	76/100	4152
kramdown	16	78/100	1199
activerecord	16	75/100	39180
split	16	74/100	2105
railties	15	83/100	39180
activejob	15	83/100	39180
actionview	15	82/100	39180
actioncable	15	81/100	39180
rails	15	81/100	39180
actionmailer	15	81/100	39180
test-unit	15	79/100	170
simplecov	15	78/100	3325
cucumber	15	76/100	4974
concurrent-ruby	15	75/100	4020
pry	15	70/100	5100
redcarpet	14	77/100	4180
thor	14	76/100	4012
webmock	14	76/100	2795
ffi	14	75/100	1462
guard-rspec	14	72/100	1122
racc	14	71/100	347
mocha	14	71/100	921
json_pure	14	70/100	495
i18n	13	76/100	696
capybara	13	75/100	8293
rake-compiler	13	73/100	444
rdiscount	13	70/100	764
aruba	13	69/100	803
hoe-bundler	13	66/100	6
RedCloth	13	66/100	430
coderay	13	65/100	704
sprockets	12	77/100	555
liquid	12	75/100	6251
gherkin	12	75/100	249
uglifier	12	74/100	512
slop	12	74/100	886
globalid	12	74/100	591
erubi	12	74/100	198
backports	12	73/100	283
rails-html-sanitizer	12	73/100	143
mime-types	12	72/100	248
mustermann	12	69/100	564
hoe-git	12	68/100	24

All of these are missing a lot of the "popularity" indicators as I just synced a few hundred rubygems locally without all the correct dependent counts.

[andrew]

And at the bottom end of the chart:

Name	SourceRank 1	SourceRank 2
gem_plugin	2	43/100
shellany	3	45/100
text-hyphen	3	48/100
method_source	3	48/100
fastthread	3	51/100
text-format	4	36/100
coveralls	4	42/100
shotgun	4	43/100
cucumber-wire	4	43/100
spoon	4	43/100
rack-mount	4	44/100
therubyracer	4	44/100
actionwebservice	4	44/100
rbench	4	44/100
codeclimate-test-reporter	4	44/100
mini_portile	4	46/100
abstract	4	47/100
mongrel	4	48/100
win32console	4	50/100
markaby	4	51/100
cgi_multipart_eof_fix	4	52/100
activestorage	5	47/100
colorize	5	48/100
pry-doc	5	48/100
rest-client	5	48/100
http-cookie	5	48/100
tool	5	48/100
polyglot	5	49/100
jsminc	5	49/100
multi_test	5	50/100
activeresource	5	50/100
guard-compat	5	52/100
mini_portile2	5	52/100
redis	5	52/100
temple	5	52/100
less	5	53/100
eventmachine	5	54/100
coffee-script-source	5	54/100
tilt	5	54/100
erubis	5	54/100
diff-lcs	5	54/100
rubyforge	5	57/100
yard	5	60/100
fakeredis	6	49/100
launchy	6	50/100
slim	6	52/100
simple-random	6	53/100
term-ansicolor	6	53/100
oedipus_lex	6	53/100
haml	6	53/100

[andrew]

Taking text-format as a low scoring project as an example of things in possibly change:

{
  "overall_score": 36,
  "popularity": {
    "score": 0.0,
    "dependent_projects": 0.0,
    "dependent_repositories": 0,
    "stars": 0,
    "forks": 0,
    "watchers": 0
  },
  "community": {
    "score": 30.0,
    "contribution_docs": {
      "code_of_conduct": false,
      "contributing": false,
      "changelog": false
    },
    "recent_releases": 0,
    "brand_new": 100,
    "contributors": 0,
    "maintainers": 50
  },
  "quality": {
    "score": 66.66666666666666,
    "basic_info": {
      "description": true,
      "homepage": true,
      "repository_url": false,
      "keywords": false,
      "readme": false,
      "license": false
    },
    "status": 100,
    "multiple_versions": 0,
    "semver": 100,
    "stable_release": 100
  },
  "dependencies": {
    "score": 49.0,
    "outdated_dependencies": 0,
    "dependencies_count": 99,
    "direct_dependencies": {
      "text-hyphen": 48
    }
  }
}

• [x] no accessible source repo (homepage is pointed at rubyforge which is dead)
• [x] readme and contribution_docs probably shouldn't be false if no repo is present, should just be nil and skipped
• [x] contributors should be nil and skipped if repo isn't present
• [x] stars, forks and watchers should be nil and skipped if repo isn't present

Looking inside the source of the gem, there is:

• changelog
• readme
• Mentions that license as Ruby or Artistic in readme

We can definitely add support for detecting changelog and readme to the version-level metadata and feed that back in here once complete.

[andrew]

Updated the calculator to not punish projects that aren't on GitHub, here's the new breakdown for text-format, with an increased score from 36 to 42:

{
  "overall_score": 42,
  "popularity": {
    "score": 0.0,
    "dependent_projects": 0.0,
    "dependent_repositories": 0,
    "stars": null,
    "forks": null,
    "watchers": null
  },
  "community": {
    "score": 50.0,
    "contribution_docs": {
      "code_of_conduct": null,
      "contributing": null,
      "changelog": null
    },
    "recent_releases": 0,
    "brand_new": 100,
    "contributors": null,
    "maintainers": 50
  },
  "quality": {
    "score": 68.0,
    "basic_info": {
      "description": true,
      "homepage": true,
      "repository_url": false,
      "keywords": false,
      "readme": null,
      "license": false
    },
    "status": 100,
    "multiple_versions": 0,
    "semver": 100,
    "stable_release": 100
  },
  "dependencies": {
    "score": 49.0,
    "outdated_dependencies": 0,
    "dependencies_count": 99,
    "direct_dependencies": {
      "text-hyphen": 48
    }
  }
}

[andrew]

Other related areas to think about when it comes to different levels of support for package manager features we have:

• [x] if we don't support parsing dependencies for that package manager, the dependency score should be skipped
• [x] if we don't support parsing maintainers for that package manager, the maintainers score should be skipped

[andrew]

• [x] I wonder if the outdated_dependencies_score should be a percentage based on the number of dependencies it has that are outdated

[andrew]

Probably also want to skip the dependent_* popularity scores if we don't have the support for it in that ecosystem, just wondering how many ecosystems that will affect:

Name	Dependent Projects	Dependent Repos
Alcatraz	false	false
Atom	true	true
Bower	false	true
CPAN	true	true
CRAN	true	true
Cargo	true	true
Carthage	false	true
Clojars	false	true
CocoaPods	false	true
Dub	true	true
Elm	true	true
Emacs	false	false
Go	false	true
Hackage	false	true
Haxelib	true	true
Hex	true	true
Homebrew	true	false
Inqlude	false	false
Julia	false	true
Maven	true	true
Meteor	false	true
npm	true	true
Nimble	false	false
NuGet	true	true
Packagist	true	true
PlatformIO	false	false
Pub	true	true
Puppet	true	false
PureScript	false	false
PyPI	true	true
Racket	false	false
Rubygems	true	true
Shards	false	true
Sublime	false	false
SwiftPM	false	true
WordPress	false	false

[andrew]

Three of the double false package managers in the table are editor plugins and don't really do dependencies: Alcatraz, Emacs, Sublime

The others are either smaller, we don't have any support for versions or don't have a concept of dependencies: Inqlude, Nimble, PlatformIO, PureScript, Racket, WordPress

[andrew]

Atom is also a little weird here because it depends on npm modules and uses package.json, so doesn't really have either, but is flagged as having both, basically all the editor plugins don't really work for dependent_* scores

[amyeastment]

Three (very early) concepts for the popover that explains what the SourceRank 2.0 rating is

A few known issues we need to tackle:

• How to present this such that someone understands higher score = better
• What we want to relay - issues only, or the full status?
• The branding of SourceRank 2.0 - what it's officially called, the color scheme/branding (not to mention making sure we choose something accessible!)
• How we elegantly handle having some bits of data for some ecosystems, but not having bits of data for other ecosystems - do we just not show things, or call out we don't have that data in the UI?
• The "Meta-sourcerank 2.0" when looking at the dependencies for a particular project and how we present that
• @andrew raised the point that comparing the data across ecosystems is kinda like apples and oranges since different communities have different levels of expected activity/quality/tolerance for things like total dependencies...and I think it highlighted for me that we may want to try as much as possible to get a user to select their ecosystem first before showing them lists of packages where they might be comparing their SourceRank (like in search results or Explore, for example)...just food for thought.