+1 Jonathan. I also agree that the place where HHVM is likely to have an
effect is in high-speed editing activities. This was my conclusion when I
had completed the experimental deployment to newcomers with Ori. I think a
good place to look would be edits that happen though the API. I had a
proposal of sorts that would work with the rollout to API (was separate
from rollout to the rest of the site), but I wasn't able to get it picked
up.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:04 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
7 minutes is an average, yes?
I would agree that an editor whose hundred edits represents about 700
minutes per month would not achieve much more in the same amount of time.
But the editors who do over a hundred edits a month are significantly
skewed towards the gnomes and vandal fighters who's editing rate is more
like one a minute, and at that point saving a couple of seconds per edit
becomes more significant. So not surprising that this appears to be a power
user phenomena and not something that your 5 edits per month editor would
notice.
The other point is that not all time is equal. Time spent typing,
searching is one thing, but time waiting for an edit to save is time the
system is holding you back. So it makes total sense to me that speeding up
the save time would improve the user experience for wiki gnomes and
encourage them to do more. Content writers who might only save every half
hour would barely notice the change unless they are working on larger
articles where the speed up in save time is greater as it is proportionate
to article size. Featured Articles do tend to be relatively large.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 19 Aug 2015, at 23:15, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I feel like I should expand on my skepticism of HHVM as a mechanism for
the observed rise in active editors.
The average edit takes 7 minutes[1,2]. HHVM reduces the time to *save*
the edit by a couple seconds. 7 minutes - a couple seconds = ~7 minutes.
So, HHVM doesn't really help you edit substantially faster.
1. Geiger, R. S., & Halfaker, A. (2013, February). Using edit sessions to
measure participation in Wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2013
conference on Computer supported cooperative work* (pp. 861-870). ACM.
2. Halfaker, A., Keyes, O., Kluver, D., Thebault-Spieker, J., Nguyen, T.,
Shores, K., ... & Warncke-Wang, M. (2015, May). User Session Identification
Based on Strong Regularities in Inter-activity Time. In *Proceedings of
the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web* (pp. 410-418).
International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
So, I've been digging into this a bit.
Regretfully, I don't have my
results written up in a nice, consumable format. So, you'll need to deal
with my worklogs. See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Active_editor_spike_2015/Work…
TL;DR: It looks like there was a sudden burst in new registrations. Work
by Neil Quinn of the Editing Team suggests that these new registrations
were largely the result of changes to the mobile app. I didn't
specifically look at 100+ monthly editors. That seems like a fine
extension of the study. I'd be happy to support someone else to do that
work. I have some datasets that should make it relatively easy.
If the data is correct, then [HHVM] is likely to
be one of the main
reasons for the change.
Correlation is not causation. There's no cause to arrive at this
conclusion. In my limited study of the effects of HHVM on newcomer
engagement, I found no meaningful effect. I think that, before we consider
HHVM as a cause of this, we should at least propose a mechanism and look
for evidence of that mechanism.
See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:HHVM_newcomer_engagement_experiment
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:49 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Most of those editors will have done 33 edits or
less using V/E, and
some, including me in 4th place, will have been having a look at V/E after
the attention it has had recently at Wikimania, on the signpost and on
mailing lists. I'm not sure that something that barely involves 10% of a
group of editors could have had such a big effect.
More likely and just at the right time, late 2014, Erik Zachte has
reminded me that we had a major speed-up with php parser change.
http://hhvm.com/blog/7205/wikipedia-on-hhvm
If the data is correct, then that is likely to be one of the main
reasons for the change.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 17 Aug 2015, at 19:11, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
It looks like about 10% of highly active Enwiki editors have used VE in
the past month (across all namespaces):
http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4795
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On a very non-scientific measure of how few
editors currently use V/E,
I took some snapshots of the most recent 500 mainspace edits
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500&days=30>yesterday
and was getting circa 1% tagged as visual editor, I've just run two sample
this afternoon and the first had not a single edit tagged Visual editor and
the other only four, so unless some of those experienced users using V/e
have opted out of having their edits tagged V/E, I'm assuming "gobs and
gobs" are either on other language wikis, heavily skewed to a time of day I
haven't sampled or big in number but still too small a proportion to
account for the increase in the number of editors doing >100 edits per
month.
On 17 August 2015 at 15:54, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> There are gobs and gobs* of people using VE. Many of them are
> experienced editors.
>
> I'm also interested in looking at VE adoption over time (especially by
> veteran editors). I'll sniff around and let y'all know if I find anything.
>
> No idea what might be causing the boost in active editor numbers. But
> it's exciting to see :)
>
> Anyone else have data that bears on these questions?
>
> - J
>
> *non-scientific estimate drawn from anecdata
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:53 AM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's an interesting theory, but are there many people actually
>> using V/E now?
>>
>> I've just gone back through recent changes looking for people using
>> it, and apart from half a dozen newbies I've welcomed I'm really not
seeing
>> many V/E edits.
>>
>> Looking at the history of Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback
>>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback&offset=&limit=500&action=history>
>> the last 500 edits go back three months. So apart from the Interior, you
>> and I Kerry I'm not sure there is a huge number of people testing it, and I
>> wasn't testing it in the first 6 months of this year. I did see some
>> research where they were claiming that retention rates for V/E editors were
>> now as good as for people using the classic editor, but I would be
>> surprised if there were enough people using V/E to make a difference to
>> these figures, especially as this is about the editors doing over 100 edits
>> a month.
>>
>> I agree it would be interesting to track the take-up of the VE
>> (fully or partially) by editor by year of original signup. But I think the
>> long awaited boost from V?E editing is yet to come, if the regulars have
>> started to increase that is likely to be due to something else.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On 15 August 2015 at 15:11, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any way of telling what proportion of these 8% appear to be
>>> using the Visual Editor either exclusively or partially? It might be
>>> interesting to track the take-up of the VE (fully or partially) by editor
>>> by year of original signup.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>>> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *
>>> WereSpielChequers
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, 15 August 2015 11:12 PM
>>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
>>> wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>gt;; The Wikimedia Foundation
>>> Research Committee mailing list <rcom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English
>>> wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than
>>> in June 2014 <https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm>,
>>> we have now had six consecutive months where this particular metric of the
>>> core community is looking positive. One or two months could easily be a
>>> statistical blip, especially when you compare calender months that may have
>>> 5 weekends in one year and four the next. But 6 months in a row does begin
>>> to look like a change in pattern.
>>>
>>> As far as caveats go I'm aware of several of the reasons why raw
>>> edit count is a suspect measure, but I'm not aware of anything that has
>>> come in in this year that would have artificially inflated edit counts and
>>> brought more of the under 100 editors into the >100 group.
>>>
>>> I know there was a recent speedup, which should increase subsequent
>>> edit rates, and one of the edit filters got disabled in June, but neither
>>> of those should be relevant to the Jan-May period.
>>>
>>> Would anyone on this list be aware of something that would have
>>> otherwise thrown that statistic?
>>>
>>> Otherwise I'm considering submitting something to the Signpost.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF)
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l