The influence of App churn on App success and StackOverflow discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gauging the success of software systems has been difficult in the past as there was no uniform measure. With mobile Application (App) Stores, users rate each App according to a common rating scheme. In this paper, we study the impact of App churn on the App success through the analysis of 154 free Android Apps that have a total of 1.2k releases. We provide a novel technique to extract Android API elements used by Apps that developers change between releases. We find that high App churn leads to lower user ratings. For example, we find that on average, per release, poorly rated Apps change 140 methods compared to the 82 methods changed by positively rated Apps. Our findings suggest that developers should not release new features at the expense of churn and user ratings. We also investigate the link between how frequently API classes and methods are changed by App developers relative to the amount of discussion of these code elements on StackOverflow. Our findings indicate that classes and methods that are changed frequently by App developers are in more posts on StackOverflow. We add to the growing consensus that StackOverflow keeps up with the documentation needs of practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".