I think the impact of HHVM rollout hasn't tested on new user survival rate [1] they might become very active later.
[1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor
Best On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:14 PM Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 22/02/16 18:45, Erik Moeller wrote:
The numbers for "very active editors" appear to have stabilized at a slightly higher level than previously. I can't find any firm conclusion on what has caused this in Wikimedia's public communications, but the HHVM rollout, long-planned and implemented in December 2014 under Ori Livneh's leadership seems like a plausible hypothesis:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/29/how-we-made-editing-wikipedia-twice-as...
I don't think it is plausible, given the data collected at:
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:HHVM_newcomer_engagement_experiment
25,000 new users were put into an HHVM bucket, so the whole site was twice as fast for them. Then they were tracked for a week. There was no improvement in engagement or productivity.
Erik is supposing the impact was felt by highly-active editors, a hypothesis which was not tested by this experiment. Few users become active editors; few active editors become very active; and few very active editors become very active in their first week as registered users, which is all that the experiment considered -- the activity of new users during their first week. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe