Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes:

> This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
> thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has
> equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the
> consequences and we will find flaws.
> Now for the specifics:
> Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and adjust to
> changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are
> multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size,
> parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable equation.
> Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they also
> use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see is
> counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but they
> work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from the
> overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased 3rd
> party to do some of this analysis.

I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you
share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the
methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated
data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage.

Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're
saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong.

- Ryan

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to