I think part of the problem is that GitHub doesn't do a lot to support the "community" around a project. GitHub started off as just a code repository, and while it's grown, there's still - to me - something missing. Then again, I haven't spent much time messing with GitHub pages. So maybe my thinking on this is somewhat outdated.
Still, something like Google Code "feels" like it is more "project centric" than "source code centric" if you get what I mean. There's specific places to do things like linking in Google Groups or mailing lists, project blog, Twitter account, etc. And the way it's organized just makes it feel like more of a "project home".
Anyway, what I'm getting at is, if GitHub did more to foster a cohesive community around projects, I think it would help with the "abandoned project" thing, since there would be more of a sense of "go here and discuss whose repo is going to become the new mainline" etc.
I honestly cannot stand Google Code. Seeing a link like that fills me with nearly as much dread as visiting SourceForge.
If I click on the source tab, I want to see the source. GitHub gets this right. Google just presents you with boilerplate garbage. No, I don't want to use Subversion. Ever again. Don't even bring it up.
The real problem is how user unfriendly Google Code is, where things are compartmentalized arbitrarily and an extraordinary amount of clicking is required to get the information you need.
The "groups" feature of that is virtually useless in my opinion. I can't stand typical web forums with their chronological ordering of posts, and even those that are threaded but don't show the thread on one page are infuriating, where many "mailing list" viewers are terrible offenders in this case. You may sift through half a dozen replies only to find the problem is still unresolved.
Stack Overflow and GitHub are examples of how to organize the user experience better. Both could improve further, but Google Code seems like a huge regression in most areas.
If I click on the source tab, I want to see the source.
Great, so there's one extra click to get to it. And even that is only because we consciously chose to use Google Code to serve as the "project/community home" because GitHub is lousy at serving as that. Of course, all this was setup before GitHub Pages, IIRC. We could look into scrapping the Google Code presence now, probably, but it's a fairly low priority relative to about a bazillion other things.
GitHub gets this right. Google just presents you with boilerplate garbage.
To be fair to Google Code, they do support git, and keeping a reference to Subversion was a conscious decision that we made. You may hate Subversion with a passion, but not everybody does.
Anyway, the point is, with GitHub, by default, ALL you get is "the source tab". But there's a lot more to a project than just source code.
... GitHub are examples of how to organize the user experience better.
GitHub may be better from strictly a "how to get my hands on the source" perspective, but I think it's very weak from the "How do I get an overview of the project and the community as a whole" perspective.
Still, something like Google Code "feels" like it is more "project centric" than "source code centric" if you get what I mean. There's specific places to do things like linking in Google Groups or mailing lists, project blog, Twitter account, etc. And the way it's organized just makes it feel like more of a "project home".
Compare:
https://github.com/fogbeam/Quoddy
with
http://code.google.com/p/quoddy/
Anyway, what I'm getting at is, if GitHub did more to foster a cohesive community around projects, I think it would help with the "abandoned project" thing, since there would be more of a sense of "go here and discuss whose repo is going to become the new mainline" etc.