hacktoberfest-data

In theory they are. In practise the lack of a test dataset - and the lack of access to their dataset - means it's virtually impossible for a third party to make any significant contribution to the data processing code. Such an effort would have to start with them voluneering a test dataset and/or schema. I have asked - https://github.com/MattIPv4/hacktoberfest-data/issues/5

Holy crap https://github.com/MattIPv4/hacktoberfest-data#diving-in-pul... > "Of the 483,127 PRs submitted during Hacktoberfest, only 23,299 (4.82%) were identified as spam" That is insanely high noise for hacktoberfest, especially when tagging spam "correctly" takes a non-insignificant amount of effort from the maintainers. I was ready to rant about this post but … no, wow, this is very much warranted.

For some context it's worth quoting directly from the published statistics available at (1). Although if this is based on manually tagging something as spam it is probably an understatement. Of the 483,127 PRs submitted during Hacktoberfest, only 23,299 (4.82%) were identified as spam, with 19,587 (84.07%) of those being in a repository that the Hacktoberfest team excluded from the competition for not following the shared values and 3,712 (15.93%) being labeled as "invalid" by project maintainers. 1. https://github.com/MattIPv4/hacktoberfest-data

https://github.com/MattIPv4/hacktoberfest-data "Of the 483,127 PRs submitted during Hacktoberfest, only 23,299 (4.82%) were identified as spam, with 19,587 (84.07%) of those being in a repository that the Hacktoberfest team excluded from the competition for not following the shared values and 3,712 (15.93%) being labeled as "invalid" by project maintainers."