I agree with Tobias. If we can work out clearly why we don’t want to see acme-everything, then we can maybe come up with a way to exclude it.
The obvious proxy for “serious” to me is “popularity”, and we do have download counts. So would a potential solution be as simple as to list the reverse deps along with their download counts, in that order?
Despite having seen acme-everything before in reverse dependencies of other packages, I thought it was a historical artifact because recent packages do not have a reverse dependency on acme-everything. Is it still something updated once in a while?
Personal filtering options are nice and all but it’s going to be always an expert opinion. While it’s true that I don’t like it showing up myself, what I’m really concerned about is that it’s reducing the usability for Hackage for regular users. The mental load is already high enough when engaged with Haskell while reading through Haddock of multiple packages and having something totally unrelated to everything you try to do show up all the time is not going to help anyone at all.
Fine, have it if you find value in it. But think of how to improve our UX then. Don’t discount reverse deps, they are important to see how to use a library.
I just closed this topic. The discussion got a bit heated, because it started to turn around the question of removing packages from Hackage. There is a long standing policy in the Hackage ecosystem that Hackage is not a curated set of packages, and that only packages which are illegal are ever removed. But the original post highlighted a problem with the reverse dependency feature. My suggestion is that if you want to discuss this problem, then we open a new thread which is focused on ways to improve the reverse dependencies feature instead of on whether to remove specific packages.