it has its flaws.

Yep yep. I was aware of some of what you pointed out - I think this might be a “perfect is the enemy of good” scenario, though. GitHub alone accounts for over 84% (based on the awesome-selfhosted-data repo):

$ grep -r 'source_code_url' | cut -d ' ' -f 2 | cut -d '/' -f 3 | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -n 15
   1068 github.com
     36 gitlab.com
      7 git.mills.io
      6 sourceforge.net
      6 framagit.org
      4 www.atlassian.com
      4 codeberg.org
      3 git.drupalcode.org
      3 git.cloudron.io
      2 repos.goffi.org
      2 git.tt-rss.org
      2 git.sr.ht
      2 cvsweb.openbsd.org
      1 yetishare.com
      1 www.wiz.cn

$ python -c "print($(grep -r 'source_code_url' . | grep github.com | wc -l) / $(ls -1 | wc -l))"
0.8422712933753943

Adding in gitlab gets you to 87%:

$ python -c "print($(grep -r 'source_code_url' . | grep -i -e github.com -e gitlab.com | wc -l) / $(ls -1 | wc -l))" 0.8706624605678234

Also popularity != quality.

True, but a thriving community generally means more resources, guides, etc, which can be important, especially for self-hosted solutions.

In any case, the project is great, and much appreciated. Additionally, the enriched html version looks fantastic, and exposes most of the metadata* I’d want to see, regardless of how it’s sorted.

*One other item to track, that I thought about after making my previous comment - number of contributors. It gives an additional data point on the size of the community, as well as an idea of how many people can be hit by busses before the continued development of the project gets called into question.