I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources, many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :)
Below is a soundbite I got from many notes I get from our donors, this is not unusual about this banner: *"...banner on wikipedia today motivated me to donate for the first time. I think the increased size properly conveyed the importance of the donations to running the site. Previous banners were a bit too polite or subtle to get me thinking."* On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Ryan Lane <rlan...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
