The catalogue on this site is 45,667 projects, ranked and described. It is a mirror, and a mirror is a useful thing to have. It is also worth being explicit about what a mirror cannot show, because the confidence of a number is easily mistaken for the confidence of the thing behind it.
A star count is not a measure of use
Stars are attention. They are a bookmark, a "look at this later", a way of saying "this is a real thing" without any further comment. A project can have 200,000 stars and a dozen users, and a project with 400 stars can be the backbone of a company's stack.
We do not publish a usage number, because we do not have one. Downloads from a package registry, container pulls and issue traffic each measure a different thing, and combining them produces a number that looks authoritative and means nothing.
A licence is not a permission you have been granted
The field says which licence. It does not say what you can do with it, which depends on what you are doing, how many people you are serving, and whether you modified it. Two projects with the same licence can give you completely different answers, and the licence page here says so in as many words.
Maintenance is not a promise
The state is arithmetic on the last push date. It is a fact about the repository, and it says nothing about whether the project will be there in three years, whether the maintainer is looking for help, or whether the governance is healthy. It is one signal among several, and the page shows the date so you can weigh it.
The catalogue is not a ranking of quality
We are not saying these projects are good. We are saying they exist, they are open source, they are above a size threshold, and here is what their repository says about them.
That is a narrow claim, and it is worth making narrow. A site that ranked open-source projects by quality would need an opinion about every one of 45,000 of them, and every one of those opinions would be wrong about something.