I think the impact of HHVM rollout hasn't tested on new user survival rate
[1] they might become very active later.
[1]:
Best
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:14 PM Ori Livneh <ori(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Tim Starling
<tstarling(a)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-a…
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>