> Why do I get so excited when I receive stars on my projects hosted on github? I am constantly trying to come up with new projects to build, but do I actually want to build them? Or do I just want social currency? I’m not sure I can tell the difference anymore.

I find stars so interesting, and I think the author’s point is spot on about the subtlety of the social network dopamine aspects in play. The emphasis on stars and getting more for one’s projects (not that the author is doing this) makes me feel so out of touch, and it feels like influencer-culture permeating software development. Where does marketing stop and influencing begin? Are stars the goal?

For instance, look at the how-to articles for getting more stars: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+get+more+stars+on+git...

Despite not being on other social networks, simply by being on github so long I've been subversively included in a social network. I think it was always poised as a social network, but with the featureset at the time I did not perceive it that way, so it felt okay, but now increasingly it doesnt. The gloss is turned up so high we've lost focus of the code

I wonder how many use stars as bookmarks instead of "thumbs up".

This is how I have been using them, and the recent "star lists" feature makes it very convenient too

Lots. Probably most people use them as bookmarks I know that’s how I see them.

It is a really interesting question if GitHub is a social network. As the author points out there are many social aspects such as social currency (stars), or is it merely gamification? Colleagues can ask you to review code or ping questions - definitely social, but could you then say Jira is a social network?

Overall I do think GitHub is a social network, but that is because the definition has broadened to include a lot of 2-way group communication tools.