On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Lane rlane32@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