I would not worry too much about rankings like that.
What Haskell community should worry about is producing nice empirical software engineering research about usage of Haskell in practice, especially about development vs. maintenance cost for long term projects. It's easy to "learn" and develop something in JavaScript/Python/Java etc. It's much harder to evolve the software when there's sparse documentation and after team members leave (which is the most common situation). I'd say that compared to Haskell, JavaScript and Python codebases are "unmaintainable" in the long term. It's like walking on a mine field, pretty much.
I know that doing such studies is very costly but some quantitative evidence should trickle down from the field.
I have one anecdotal story to tell. I was doing a very extensive change in my project. It was huge. I approached a change a few times, trying to minimize it but as I was performing the change I was learning a lot about the codebase (I am a maintainer, other people wrote it) with the help of the compiler. You try it and you see the impact. Finally, I found a good way and implemented the change. Once I got it to compile again, one test case failed. I quickly identified the bug I introduced during the change and fixed it in 10min or so. After that, all my test suites and regression tests passed. All that without going through lots of manual testing/debugging/etc. Since then, no new bugs related to that huge change were found.
That is the kind of power Haskell provides and we need more stories like that.