Good point. Feedback on future things to look at/how to turn this into something that might have a productive, rather than informative, outcome?On 30 April 2013 23:56, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Nice work, Oliver.Minor feedback: I'd remove the 2013 data from the first 2 graphs. It's easy for people to miss the fact that those data are for < 1 year, even though you explain that in the text (and given it should be obvious to someone reading this in April...).However, what jumps out to someone who's skimming is "whoa, sudden drop in [interesting phenomenon foo] during 2013--wtf?"- J--On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@gmail.com> wrote:Very cool!Is there an easy way we could detect some false-positives? I'm imagining blocks that were quickly reversed.-AaronOn Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________Per Howie's prompting (this was cool! You should send it out to the team) some research I did in my spare time - http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31
Planning to do a pile of followup work, so any feedback, hypotheses or requests for info gratefully received.
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list
EE@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
_______________________________________________
EE mailing list
EE@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Jonathan T. MorganResearch StrategistWikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
EE mailing list
EE@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
EE mailing list
EE@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee