Meaningless project descriptions and default README's

It’s such a shame that so many projects only have the default descriptions and boiler plate README files. Trying to find a useful or interesting project is quite difficult.

I see this a lot : image

Is there a way to encourage everyone in the community to update the default description and content of the README, and maybe some options in search to exclude results from projects where the defaults are used ? (As an aside, it would be good to automatically keep the descriptive contents of package.json in alignment with the project name, description and base repository URL)

Maybe search could show a list of packages that are used, date of last update, activity level or other defining features from the project.

it gets annoying to see default descriptions

have an invisible vote! im all out

The default descriptions should definitely not be included in search results. The fact that they are random just adds even more noise.
The random descriptions are cute, but they should not be created as content on par with user-created content. If this is problematic, they should be replaced by terse consistent default text.

okay just added a vote

Me too! You have my vote as well, although I’m really out of votes. Maybe when a project is created, we can ask the user to add a detailed description. Or we can make the description of the project replace the default README!

Agreed! I’m also all out of votes so you have my support.

I’m also out of votes, but i support this

We could always say, if you support this and you are out of votes, then like this post and we’ll pretend it’s a vote.

I think that kind of linkage would be detrimental in a lot of cases. A user might want to develop an application with one name but have it kept in a project of another name, etc. A Node.js package does not necessarily correspond to a Glitch project.

I do, however, think it might be helpful if there were a few additional interface views that allow users to interact with files like the package.json file in a more natural manner. The UI element for adding modules does a pretty decent job of (sort of) abstracting information the way I’m thinking of. Imagine a second tab for package.json files where users are guided through things like the name, version, scripts, etc., in a similar manner.

Basically, I vote yes for the idea but no to the implementation. That kind of linkage is something that should reside on its own rather than be handled as a side effect of some domain-related mechanism (e.g., changing the name of a Glitch project).