But we do know the, number of actual editors will always be overreporrted,
because there will always be more accounts created than editors actually
using them. So noting a pattern of decline is valid, even if the extent of
it is unclear due to the masking effects of false churn.
Sent from my mobile device.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Sarah" <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 28, 2011 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Message to community about community decline
To: "Stephanie Daugherty" <sdaugherty(a)gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 21:49, Stephanie Daugherty <sdaugherty(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Actually because duplicate accounts can only skew
results in one direction
over the long term I think the warning signs raised are just as valid even
if the exact numbers are questionable, because the actual situation can
only
be worse than the numbers presented.
I don't see how that would follow, Stephanie.
Imagine 500 people create an account in 2005. They create a second
account in 2007 (because banned, or in trouble with the first account
in some way, or because they want a break from editing with that
account, or because they want a second account to run in parallel).
Six months later, they abandon the second, and create a third, or
return to the first.
That will show up as (a) 500 accounts created in 2005 edited for more
than a year; and (b) 500 accounts created in 2007 left after six
months.
So the results of the survey are meaningless unless we know how many
people are behind the user names.
Sarah