On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Lane <rlane32(a)gmail.com> wrote:
phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes:
You're asking me to prove a negative. My inability to do so has
nothing to do with NDAs or the lack of them. There's no secret data
that shows that "well, the banners make people hate Wikipedia but they
have a good donation rate." And if there was, why in the world would
anyone who cares about the projects make that choice? We are all on
the same side here regarding wanting to preserve the love that people
have for our projects.
So no, I don't have data for you about the no doubt diverse set of
reactions that exist in the world to the banners. (Beyond anecdotal
info that we all have access to: twitter, this mailing list, etc.)
What I do have is information about whether the banners are compelling
enough to donate -- that's where the a/b testing etc. comes in -- and
that is info that Megan et al shares with everyone.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Lila wrote in a previous post that
they have data that shows the banners are not causing brand damage. I'm
asking if you've seen that data.
Hello! Sorry, I didn't realize that's what you were referring to. I
haven't looked at all the raw fundraising data, no, and I haven't
looked at that set that Lila refers to. (The reports we get are
summaries, which is much preferable when you've got a lot of
information to get through about all sorts of topics).
I *do* however trust our fundraising team's analysis, and I don't
think they need my mediocre user testing skills and even more mediocre
statistical skills to help them sort it out. I agree with you however
that it would be great if the anonymized data/test methods can be made
public; I think we would all learn a lot, and the group might be able
help refine the tests.
The data from social media isn't anecdotal.
It's public and is
overwhelmingly negative towards the banners. It shows there's a negative
reaction to both the message and size of the banners. Something I don't
understand is why this isn't at least being acknowledged as being a problem.
It's anecdotal in the sense that without some statistical analysis
it's sort of a case of whatever catches your eye standing out. Your
statement surprised me, so I just read through around 1,500 #wikipedia
tweets from the last six hours; the vast majority are the canned
fundraiser tweet, with a handful of others (stuff about articles) and
three, that I saw, that are negative about the fundraising banners. Is
that a significant number? Is it a pattern? Is it more meaningful than
all those other people donating? Is the absence of positive feedback
significant? (though I doubt we've ever gotten "I <3 the Wikipedia
banners" as a tweet). I have some instincts around these questions,
but I honestly don't know the answers, and I would love to see some
proper analysis. I am, as always, a big fan of research :)
best,
Phoebe
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at>
gmail.com *