Za-Chary wrote:

Perhaps it was intended for context to be considered (like what @SavetheAtlantic has proposed)? Or perhaps it was just an oversight/mistake?

This suggestion has been on the forums for around 2 years now. They had plenty of time to open their preferred image editing software and changing some numbers.
But you're right, they probably didn't do with bad intentions.

this seems similar to fixing the grammer on that account settings, its a small change but if we alwasys did small change, we wouldn't get anything done

undeterministic wrote:

this seems similar to fixing the grammer on that account settings, its a small change but if we alwasys did small change, we wouldn't get anything done

Well, someone did a PR for that on the scratch-www repo and it got closed. That's just an example. Perhaps a bunch of teenager coders get much more done in a week than a team of 60 adults in 2 months.

Small changes mark the difference, every grain of sand counts.

josueart wrote:

undeterministic wrote:

this seems similar to fixing the grammer on that account settings, its a small change but if we alwasys did small change, we wouldn't get anything done

Well, someone did a PR for that on the scratch-www repo and it got closed. That's just an example. Perhaps a bunch of teenager coders get much more done in a week than a team of 60 adults in 2 months.

Small changes mark the difference, every grain of sand counts.

where is the repo for the scratchfoundation website

undeterminstic wrote:

josueart wrote:

undeterministic wrote:

this seems similar to fixing the grammer on that account settings, its a small change but if we alwasys did small change, we wouldn't get anything done

Well, someone did a PR for that on the scratch-www repo and it got closed. That's just an example. Perhaps a bunch of teenager coders get much more done in a week than a team of 60 adults in 2 months.

Small changes mark the difference, every grain of sand counts.

where is the repo for the scratchfoundation website

You mean scratch-www? https://github.com/scratchfoundation/scratch-www

Za-Chary wrote:

Googling “open source” shows that the definition is “denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.” This does not seem to require that contributions must be accepted.

Okay fair, but the statistic of “100% free and open source” is shown alongside 4 other statistics that are from the “Scratch online community” (countries, target age range, registrations per day) — so the argument for contributions is irrelevant, as the “Scratch online community” does not fulfil the definition you used here, which is “… the original source code is made freely available … ” - the API is a major part of the website, and it's not open source, it is entirely closed source.

So
1) Implement your suggested change, “100% free, and open source”
2) “100% free and open source programming language” - so that it refers to only Scratch desktop or the Scratch editor

josueart wrote:

Perhaps a bunch of teenager coders get much more done in a week than a team of 60 adults in 2 months.

[removed by Chiroyce - unnecessary to the discussion]

Small contributions like this? Obviously yes, anyone can do that, you need the most basic programming knowledge for that. But the most important point here is the discussion that goes behind this, which I personally think is too much, but its their site, they get to decide how long to spend contemplating minor unimportant changes. Their motive is to better educate children in the world of programming and not really focus on small text on a page that says “100% open source” implicitly. Again, I am not taking their side and defending them, just expressing how I view the 2 sides of this, as a user of the site and as a Scratch Team member/developer.

(this post was edited to hide the evidence)

undeterminstic wrote:

it is one change to html one not that big

I have updated my above post to better explain what I meant, yes it is one comma away from being perfect, a child could do that.

Chiroyce wrote:

Small contributions like this? Obviously yes, anyone can do that, you need the most basic programming knowledge for that. But the most important point here is the discussion that goes behind this, which I personally think is too much, but its their site, they get to decide how long to spend contemplating minor unimportant changes. Their motive is to better educate children in the world of programming and not really focus on small text on a page that says “100% open source” implicitly. Again, I am not taking their side and defending them, just expressing how I view the 2 sides of this, as a user of the site and as a Scratch Team member/developer.

Besides, we're deviating a lot here, the “Our Story” page is actually not a part of the main site, but a part of the Scratch Foundation website! So a change to that one image has theoretically no chance of any consequences.

It's also an image stored here
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/59371b611e5b6cbaaa211ff9/1507660749320-TRQX9NL9FTYLPTYFBYDJ/Screen+Shot+2017-10-10+at+2.38.42+PM.png

Clearly we can see it was a screenshot taken in 2017, we're discussing about something that's almost 7 years old, crazy! Now I think this is the apt time for someone to modify the contents of that image, so it can be seen on the page AND so we can add another topic to the list of accepted suggestions, what do you say, Scratch Team?

Also, the registrations per day stat has changed a lot, right now for Jan 2024 it was 1.74M users, so around 56K new users per day

Honestly, Scratch should just do away with the statistic entirely. It'd be weird to have a percentage about Scratch's open-source-ness that isn't a plain 100%

Chiroyce wrote:

No teenage coder who uses Scratch (yes including me and very much most others) will understand the scale at which Scratch operates, can you even fathom 15 million comments in a month? 1.7 NEW users every month? Along with thousands of requests a second to the API from all across the globe.

In an ideal world where teenagers can buy cloud servers, I'm pretty sure someone *could* do this. Take a look at, for example, that Antartica bird-related mod. It's an effort between multiple users to build something like Scratch, and look, it worked.

Chiroyce wrote:

Small contributions like this? Obviously yes, anyone can do that, you need the most basic programming knowledge for that. But the most important point here is the discussion that goes behind this, which I personally think is too much, but its their site, they get to decide how long to spend contemplating minor unimportant changes. Their motive is to better educate children in the world of programming and not really focus on small text on a page that says “100% open source” implicitly. Again, I am not taking their side and defending them, just expressing how I view the 2 sides of this, as a user of the site and as a Scratch Team member/developer.

I understand both your points, but the Scratch Team/Scratch Foundation repeatedly plead that “they discuss even the most minimal things at detail” (or something like that, I don't remember the exact thing). Why not this? :thinking:

ajskateboarder wrote:

Honestly, Scratch should just do away with the statistic entirely. It'd be weird to have a percentage about Scratch's open-source-ness that isn't a plain 100%

75% open source

Za-Chary wrote:

From an English perspective, it might not be saying that Scratch is 100% “free and open source.” Perhaps it is only saying that it is “100% free” and “open source.” Indeed, Scratch is 100% free, and it is also (at least partially) open source. If you like commas, the current graphic could be saying “100% free, and open source.” In that case, that's not a claim that Scratch is 100% open source.

Sorry but no. When “free and open source” are both directly under a huge “100%” sign, for me it's pretty clear they're implying that the site is 100% free and 100% open-source.

Za-Chary wrote:

I can agree that it's probably not the best piece of information to present here

Correct, which is why I don't really see any merit in arguments that say that we should “use context” and understand it's referring to the editor. Where is the “context” that it is referring to the editor, depending that all the other statistics are about the website?

Even if it was referring to the editor (which is 100% open source) than it obviously isn't clear at all meaning there is still a prevalent issue with this stastistic.

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

You see, the Scratch Foundation's website is meant to be viewed by people called “adults”

Well obviously from this thread is that people who aren't adults still view it, and it still isn't clear. The scratch foundation site supposedly being “made for adults” isn't really a point with any merit - Scratch welcomes all ages on all of their services, so content should be clear to any age.

Za-Chary wrote:

I doubt the statistic was placed there for malicious intent.

Unfortunately with the Scratch Teams past history with being deceptive to the community to make their work seem better than it is (eg lying that the “browse project” feature was new when it wasn't), I sadly doubt that this was an innocent mistake. I think it was more likely a marketing tactic for the Scratch Team to get more donations, as the same site, the Scratch Foundation, is where donations are held.

dertermenter wrote:

Unfortunately with the Scratch Teams past history with being deceptive to the community to make their work seem better than it is (eg lying that the “browse project” feature was new when it wasn't, I sadly doubt that this was an innocent mistake. I think it was more likely a marketing tactic for the Scratch Team to get more donations, as the same site, the Scratch Foundation, is where donations are held.

Scratch would never do such a thing; isn't false-advertising illegal in the U.S.?

EDawg2011 wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

Unfortunately with the Scratch Teams past history with being deceptive to the community to make their work seem better than it is (eg lying that the “browse project” feature was new when it wasn't, I sadly doubt that this was an innocent mistake. I think it was more likely a marketing tactic for the Scratch Team to get more donations, as the same site, the Scratch Foundation, is where donations are held.

Scratch would never do such a thing; isn't false-advertising illegal in the U.S.?

they did do that thing though

undeterminstic wrote:

EDawg2011 wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

Unfortunately with the Scratch Teams past history with being deceptive to the community to make their work seem better than it is (eg lying that the “browse project” feature was new when it wasn't, I sadly doubt that this was an innocent mistake. I think it was more likely a marketing tactic for the Scratch Team to get more donations, as the same site, the Scratch Foundation, is where donations are held.

Scratch would never do such a thing; isn't false-advertising illegal in the U.S.?

they did do that thing though

1. Is there a source that they intentionally false-advertised?
2. If so, does that mean I should stop using Scratch (to not support this)?

dertermenter wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

I doubt the statistic was placed there for malicious intent.

Unfortunately with the Scratch Teams past history with being deceptive to the community to make their work seem better than it is (eg lying that the “browse project” feature was new when it wasn't, I sadly doubt that this was an innocent mistake. I think it was more likely a marketing tactic for the Scratch Team to get more donations, as the same site, the Scratch Foundation, is where donations are held.

Note that this also assumes malicious intent — we shouldn't be so quick to assume that the Scratch Team is trying to mislead their users as opposed to occasionally making mistakes. But the whole discussion of that seems a bit off-topic from this thread anyway.

EDawg2011 wrote:

undeterminstic wrote:

EDawg2011 wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

Unfortunately with the Scratch Teams past history with being deceptive to the community to make their work seem better than it is (eg lying that the “browse project” feature was new when it wasn't, I sadly doubt that this was an innocent mistake. I think it was more likely a marketing tactic for the Scratch Team to get more donations, as the same site, the Scratch Foundation, is where donations are held.

Scratch would never do such a thing; isn't false-advertising illegal in the U.S.?

they did do that thing though

1. Is there a source that they intentionally false-advertised?
2. If so, does that mean I should stop using Scratch?

they made an annoucnemnt for a thing that already exists. but don't stop using scratch because you need to make platformer skibidi 2

Za-Chary wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

I doubt the statistic was placed there for malicious intent.

Unfortunately with the Scratch Teams past history with being deceptive to the community to make their work seem better than it is (eg lying that the “browse project” feature was new when it wasn't, I sadly doubt that this was an innocent mistake. I think it was more likely a marketing tactic for the Scratch Team to get more donations, as the same site, the Scratch Foundation, is where donations are held.

Note that this also assumes malicious intent — we shouldn't be so quick to assume that the Scratch Team is trying to mislead their users as opposed to occasionally making mistakes. But the whole discussion of that seems a bit off-topic from this thread anyway.

“occasionally making mistakes” what mistakes do you mean?

Za-Chary wrote:

This brings up a new question, which I am going to ask because I don't know the answer. Which parts of scratchr2 are not open-source? Is scratch-www 100% open source? If not, what parts of scratch-www are not open-source?

I'm not an expert at this stuff either, but I think this is right: these are the 46 public, open source reposorities on github - Scratch WWW is on there, as is other reposorities to do with the editor like the paint editor. However, Scratchr2 is not on this list - it's 100% closed source, and Scratch WWW is 100% open sourced.

I am NOT an expert and could be wrong, but I thought with no one else answering your query, I should at least give it a go.