On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >>>> >>>> Von: Rob Weir<[email protected]> >>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2011/8/3 Rob Weir<[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter<[email protected]> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir<[email protected]> >>> >>> .... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been >>>> >>>> active >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in the past 7 days. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> did you poked around 1 year ago as well? >>>>>>> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? >>>>>>> >>> ... >>>>> >>>>> 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your >>>>> your response answers my questions. >>>>> >>>> If you have an unanswered question, please restate it, >>> >>> It's still in the quoted mail. >>> >>>> perhaps >>>> rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood. >>> >>> Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s). >>> >> Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now >> than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on >> what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation >> with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the >> editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of >> survey questions. >> > Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post > today :-) //Terry >
Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the same as introducing facts. -Rob >
