geni geniice@gmail.com writes:
t> On 2/27/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
I would argue that hyper-active admins are more likely to have
a short admin
career (whether that be because of desysopping or just
leaving), and further
that the likelihood is greater than proportional to their
edits.
Not exactly whuile the burn out rate is high (2-3 of the top ten
on
that list I posted are gone) most are not that new.
Perhaps. Without a longer-term comparison, we might be seeing a [[survivorship bias]] there. And I think a 30% burn out rate is fairly high - I don't think the burnout rate of the full cohort of 1,132 admins is so high.
My ideal situation would be that admins would be very active
initially so
they can learn the ropes,
You can't inforce this
No, not really. It's just what would be a better way of doing things.
and that they would then settle down to an activity level more characteristic of the long tail, where they
are not so
much admins but editors with admin powers who regularly (but
not
excessively) help out the current batch of very active new
admins and once
in a while clear out backlogs.
There are not enough new admins. Throw in the rate of rule shift
and
you have a problem with the older admins.
The long tail isn't doing enough with the result that the head
has to.
-- geni