The problem is digital things don't decay in the same way as physical objects. AI can shit out a webpage for an institute that doesn't really exist and make it sound awesome until you realize there's nothing there. A webpage with a vibrant community behind it that is actively maintained looks, at first glance, the same as a page that's been put out to the pasture. A physical store that's out of business will accumulate cruft, broken windows, vines everywhere. There's not really an equivalent for bitrot. Sure, my website from 1996 looks dated because I used frames and we don't do that no more, but eBay and Yahoo and Myspace are still around. Link rot does set in though. Links to pages that no longer exist because the person running it has passed. Archive.org has such a good purpose.
Thing is though, for software, sometimes things can just be done. If a perfectly good piece of software hasn't been updated in years because it hasn't needed to be updated, then let it sit, ensconced in stone. The problem is it's hard to tell the difference between that, and something that needs maintaining but hasn't been.
They were always junk, full of formulaic, self-promoting, astroturfing trash. In most cases, it would be more appropriate to view them as content marketing (c.f. digital pollution), not actual developer resources.
Very variable quality, I agree. But even an astroturfer has to throw in some actually useful tools in there to give cover for the payload they're promoting.
I'm pretty sure the astroturfer would just google for the most visible tools and put them in and then add their own.
i added a PR once to add a package of mine which I thought was useful and he told me it didnt qualify as "awesome" lol. the reaction led me to dig around and I realized "oh, this is just content marketing"
Completely disagree. When AI was new I found so many great tools through awesome-* repositories. There was some of that going on for sure, but most lists were a curation of good tools.
Depending on what "generation of developers" you belong to, this could differ by decades :) Are you talking about LLMs probably? At that point, "awesome" lists were already mostly used for spam and marketing, none of the original "curated list" concept remained at this point.
I think I noticed awesome-lists changing from "Here is a curated list of AWESOME software" to "Here is a list of every software ever built, related in any way" somewhere around 2015 (thanks IM logs!), which must have been pretty shortly after the concept was introduced even, but can't remember when that was.
I maintain 4 awesome lists and I agree: it takes a lot of time and some are more catalogs than curated lists. Curation takes time and is like gardening especially given the half-life of content on the web. My solution was to encode my editorial process in the form of contribution guidelines: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-iam/blob/main/.github/c...
I used to be the editor of a newspaper. Eventually, actually reviewing all the articles in the newspaper took too long time, so instead of shutting down the newspaper, I just started accepting every single article, eventually everyone stopped reading it.
Every 'awesome' repo I can remember has seemingly been made by someone who hasn't used the things included and only read a project's readme. This dates back years before the LLM craze.
I would rather hear from users of software and their opinions, otherwise I can't take seriously something ostensibly curated for quality. In my experience such lists serve better as a way to discover new projects using eg. some framework you're interested in, if they're maintained (which is still valuable).
I found a few lists that I found genuinely useful, like self-hosted. But I also think the problem with them is they were gamed for some reason, maybe because of Github stars and the fact that Github attention is useful for other things. I think it would have been much more useful to have them almost on a different platform. IMBD lists for example seem to work better because there's not much reward in making them except a love of movies.
Also I think another problem is that they were given high recognition on Github, and thus became a formulaic pattern rather that some individual who is really passionate about trying the stuff on the list, which also made most of the later ones generic and much less interesting...
Curation is also really hard to go as a group activity, there are so many different views on value and rules just don't work for taste in any way that works.
I'd like to better understand the reason behind these pull requests. Its not like Claude is goofing off on the Internet and trolling humans. People are prompting AI to create pull requests against a bunch of repositories.
But why? Are people trying to advertise their tools in the "awesome" lists?
What about the many PRs against popular tools? Are they trying to build a resume through OSS contributions?
AI agents are extremely pro-active. If they run for long enough or with generic enough prompts they will just do shit for the sake of continue running and doing things following a unachievable goal.
Are you going to click them one by one and figure out what they do? When you need a library/existing tool, do you use Google or come to such a project and do a search?
I am old enough to know Yahoo Directory, and "awesome" projects are exactly that.
You can't really do much other than bookmarking/"starring" and then completely forgetting about it.
There is a lot of value in good curation but its also extremely time consuming to curate well. Its very difficult to do it as a group activity especially a highly disconnected one via git/opensource and where a lot of these lists started out good the collective effort has ruined their value.
I think we need curation more than ever on the internet on a range of topics where social media of various forms don't work very well. I also think there is a real place for index's as well because search often does adjacency quite poorly since its not really optimised for that. Short curated lists are great for beginning, long ones not so much to anyone.
They’re a kind of modern version of web directories, and they failed for the same reason the original web directories did (spam/self-promotion, and outdated stuff).
The "actual awesome" lists were awesome, as every single software linked in those were good software.
But yeah, once "influencer developers" got a hold of the concept, misunderstood it to be an index rather than a curated list, it stopped loosing any value the concept had.
Now it's just random individuals who want to "own" a collection, but have zero care about the quality, and just merge whatever additions.
I used to reach for an awesome list the first thing as i ventured in something new. Nowadays, i almost kinda forgot about them. Still I hold a fond memory of it, they usually contained some real gems (especially when they were relatively new).
It's kind of inevitable that they stale because of the growth. Let's say it is about programming language - if it's good language then there're more good materials about it, that means more content to maintain in an "awesome repo", and then again and again, with or without AI it would go fully stale or unmaintainable.
I guess there's no solution, these things should go to history and we need to find a better way to find "best of the best" individually while avoiding SEO-hacked resources with some bs.
I actually think there's future in individual learning, so everybody will have their own learning plan, their own learning materials and all that adapted to the way they think and consume information.
In the long run we need to find viable alternatives to github.
I don't mean gitlab either. I think we kind of need repositories
for everyone, as a human right - sounds strange but IMO we kind
of need to build a new web with a lasting impact on the world.
We should not need web-archive; things should be documentable.
(Github is not responsible for disappearing web-pages as such,
mind you; I just mean that we need to look at the whole problem
here, not just on github only as gatekeeper.)
I don't like Google, but google-docs is great. LibreOffice should
have something like that too. Every state as well. I really think
this all needs to become a human right. Why is a US company offering
this and just about everyone else is not, including governments? I
don't understand it. And that is also just one example of many more
things. We need to change the web to a better variant. In many ways
the 1990s was better than what we have today. Everyone built websites.
Today this is a bit ... well. Gone. People may at best put their
"website" on facebook. That's a walled garden. It's not the same as
having separate websites. I don't want the world wide web to become
a walled garden gatekept by a few companies. But I don't see alternatives
emerging - and nobody has time anymore, which is another problem.
The real tragedy here is the asymmetric warfare AI enables.It costs zero effort for a spammer to script 100 PRs linking to their AI-generated wrappers,but it takes genuine human energy for maintaners to vet and reject It's a fast-track to maintainer burnout.
The problem is digital things don't decay in the same way as physical objects. AI can shit out a webpage for an institute that doesn't really exist and make it sound awesome until you realize there's nothing there. A webpage with a vibrant community behind it that is actively maintained looks, at first glance, the same as a page that's been put out to the pasture. A physical store that's out of business will accumulate cruft, broken windows, vines everywhere. There's not really an equivalent for bitrot. Sure, my website from 1996 looks dated because I used frames and we don't do that no more, but eBay and Yahoo and Myspace are still around. Link rot does set in though. Links to pages that no longer exist because the person running it has passed. Archive.org has such a good purpose.
Thing is though, for software, sometimes things can just be done. If a perfectly good piece of software hasn't been updated in years because it hasn't needed to be updated, then let it sit, ensconced in stone. The problem is it's hard to tell the difference between that, and something that needs maintaining but hasn't been.
PHP community would like a word
They were always junk, full of formulaic, self-promoting, astroturfing trash. In most cases, it would be more appropriate to view them as content marketing (c.f. digital pollution), not actual developer resources.
Very variable quality, I agree. But even an astroturfer has to throw in some actually useful tools in there to give cover for the payload they're promoting.
I'm pretty sure the astroturfer would just google for the most visible tools and put them in and then add their own.
i added a PR once to add a package of mine which I thought was useful and he told me it didnt qualify as "awesome" lol. the reaction led me to dig around and I realized "oh, this is just content marketing"
Completely disagree. When AI was new I found so many great tools through awesome-* repositories. There was some of that going on for sure, but most lists were a curation of good tools.
> When AI was new
Depending on what "generation of developers" you belong to, this could differ by decades :) Are you talking about LLMs probably? At that point, "awesome" lists were already mostly used for spam and marketing, none of the original "curated list" concept remained at this point.
I think I noticed awesome-lists changing from "Here is a curated list of AWESOME software" to "Here is a list of every software ever built, related in any way" somewhere around 2015 (thanks IM logs!), which must have been pretty shortly after the concept was introduced even, but can't remember when that was.
Same with newspaper, ALWAYS been full of JUNK, they never started out well, got exploited and now wildly different than they initially were.
Could have said “awesome repositories considered harmful”
I maintain 4 awesome lists and I agree: it takes a lot of time and some are more catalogs than curated lists. Curation takes time and is like gardening especially given the half-life of content on the web. My solution was to encode my editorial process in the form of contribution guidelines: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-iam/blob/main/.github/c...
I used to be the editor of a newspaper. Eventually, actually reviewing all the articles in the newspaper took too long time, so instead of shutting down the newspaper, I just started accepting every single article, eventually everyone stopped reading it.
Every 'awesome' repo I can remember has seemingly been made by someone who hasn't used the things included and only read a project's readme. This dates back years before the LLM craze.
I would rather hear from users of software and their opinions, otherwise I can't take seriously something ostensibly curated for quality. In my experience such lists serve better as a way to discover new projects using eg. some framework you're interested in, if they're maintained (which is still valuable).
I found a few lists that I found genuinely useful, like self-hosted. But I also think the problem with them is they were gamed for some reason, maybe because of Github stars and the fact that Github attention is useful for other things. I think it would have been much more useful to have them almost on a different platform. IMBD lists for example seem to work better because there's not much reward in making them except a love of movies.
Also I think another problem is that they were given high recognition on Github, and thus became a formulaic pattern rather that some individual who is really passionate about trying the stuff on the list, which also made most of the later ones generic and much less interesting...
Curation is also really hard to go as a group activity, there are so many different views on value and rules just don't work for taste in any way that works.
I'd like to better understand the reason behind these pull requests. Its not like Claude is goofing off on the Internet and trolling humans. People are prompting AI to create pull requests against a bunch of repositories.
But why? Are people trying to advertise their tools in the "awesome" lists?
What about the many PRs against popular tools? Are they trying to build a resume through OSS contributions?
AI agents are extremely pro-active. If they run for long enough or with generic enough prompts they will just do shit for the sake of continue running and doing things following a unachievable goal.
Even before AI they hardly provided any value.
Are you going to click them one by one and figure out what they do? When you need a library/existing tool, do you use Google or come to such a project and do a search?
I am old enough to know Yahoo Directory, and "awesome" projects are exactly that.
You can't really do much other than bookmarking/"starring" and then completely forgetting about it.
There is a lot of value in good curation but its also extremely time consuming to curate well. Its very difficult to do it as a group activity especially a highly disconnected one via git/opensource and where a lot of these lists started out good the collective effort has ruined their value.
I think we need curation more than ever on the internet on a range of topics where social media of various forms don't work very well. I also think there is a real place for index's as well because search often does adjacency quite poorly since its not really optimised for that. Short curated lists are great for beginning, long ones not so much to anyone.
Never understood those repositories. Always viewed them as a collection of junk.
They’re a kind of modern version of web directories, and they failed for the same reason the original web directories did (spam/self-promotion, and outdated stuff).
The "actual awesome" lists were awesome, as every single software linked in those were good software.
But yeah, once "influencer developers" got a hold of the concept, misunderstood it to be an index rather than a curated list, it stopped loosing any value the concept had.
Now it's just random individuals who want to "own" a collection, but have zero care about the quality, and just merge whatever additions.
They were originally by an influencer developer (Sindre Sorhus), so they were junk from the start.
I get the impression that we need social mechanisms to segment ourselves away from AI.
I'm broadly pro AI, I like datacentres etc, but its clear we cannot let our entire culture be penetrated by it.
At work we'll use AI aggressively, at home we'll socially punish anyone who blurs this line.
I used to reach for an awesome list the first thing as i ventured in something new. Nowadays, i almost kinda forgot about them. Still I hold a fond memory of it, they usually contained some real gems (especially when they were relatively new).
For R there are CRAN Views, which are well maintained: https://cran.r-project.org/web/views/
I still find a lot of interesting resources and ideas on Awesome List trackers like this: https://www.trackawesomelist.com.
> They usually contain curated knowledge and resources related to a certain domain
No, almost never curated.
Like YT vids, anything titled with AWESOME, leaves me suspicious.
I'd like to add a third reason: SEO hacking
Downfall of modern society if things don't change course.
content curation > content generation
Simple: create an awesome list of awesome lists.
It's kind of inevitable that they stale because of the growth. Let's say it is about programming language - if it's good language then there're more good materials about it, that means more content to maintain in an "awesome repo", and then again and again, with or without AI it would go fully stale or unmaintainable.
I guess there's no solution, these things should go to history and we need to find a better way to find "best of the best" individually while avoiding SEO-hacked resources with some bs. I actually think there's future in individual learning, so everybody will have their own learning plan, their own learning materials and all that adapted to the way they think and consume information.
In the long run we need to find viable alternatives to github.
I don't mean gitlab either. I think we kind of need repositories for everyone, as a human right - sounds strange but IMO we kind of need to build a new web with a lasting impact on the world. We should not need web-archive; things should be documentable. (Github is not responsible for disappearing web-pages as such, mind you; I just mean that we need to look at the whole problem here, not just on github only as gatekeeper.)
I don't like Google, but google-docs is great. LibreOffice should have something like that too. Every state as well. I really think this all needs to become a human right. Why is a US company offering this and just about everyone else is not, including governments? I don't understand it. And that is also just one example of many more things. We need to change the web to a better variant. In many ways the 1990s was better than what we have today. Everyone built websites. Today this is a bit ... well. Gone. People may at best put their "website" on facebook. That's a walled garden. It's not the same as having separate websites. I don't want the world wide web to become a walled garden gatekept by a few companies. But I don't see alternatives emerging - and nobody has time anymore, which is another problem.
awesome-selfhosted was a favourite, but has become outdated. Other awesome repos have become a target for self promotion and junk.
Disagree. Some material is just timeless or even just having a name is good to go on compared to knowing nothing before.
AI is nice but never gives the same answer, will tunnel you if you have zero idea on the topic, and can be outright wrong or refuse to answer.
> Some material is just timeless
Software tends to not fall into that category, though.
They never where.
The real tragedy here is the asymmetric warfare AI enables.It costs zero effort for a spammer to script 100 PRs linking to their AI-generated wrappers,but it takes genuine human energy for maintaners to vet and reject It's a fast-track to maintainer burnout.