Hi Nemo,

Month-over-month growth isn't what I was talking about, not least because the seasonal stuff and different month lengths override that. 

What I noticed was that Jan 2015 the >100 edits count was ahead of Jan 2014, as was every month until June 2015 which was ahead of June 2014 <https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm>

Could you be more specific re "In general I'm not sure the 100+ count is among the most reliable." What in particular do you think is unreliable about that metric?

Jonathan



On 23 August 2015 at 14:40, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
WereSpielChequers, 15/08/2015 15:12:
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.

I'm not sure I see this pattern, there aren't even 2 consecutive months of month-over-month growth. In general I'm not sure the 100+ count is among the most reliable.

The one (global) pattern I do see is 9 consecutive months of YoY growth at https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikimediaAllProjects_AllMonths.htm but I still suspect issues with deduplication or bots after the SUL finalisation. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T87738#1366152

Would anyone on this list be aware of something that would have
otherwise thrown that statistic?

 Suspects could perhaps be narrowed down by looking at factors shared by en.wiki and it.wiki, as they seem to be the only ones with a small 2015 recovery in the trend graphs at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Active_editor_spike_2015

Nemo


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l