phoebe ayers <> writes:

> I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
> themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
> of too.

This is great. Thank you!

> Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
> ==communication re: fundraising season==
> * develop banner approaches in the off-season [the fundraising team
> already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
> * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
> communicate it to the stakeholders
> * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [though acknowledged
> that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]

Also that when concerns arise, the response is defensive, rather than
acknowledging that there may be some problem. This would go a long way
towards making the threads friendlier.

> ==data==
> * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
> * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
> * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
> past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?

I think it's worthwhile information that we should be tracking year to year.
If the amount of negative messaging is increasing, it's bad, if it's
decreasing, it's good, for the most part.

> * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [note, we've
> been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
> the shorter fundraiser]

There was research put in by the fundraising team that showed people donated
within a certain number of banners and that the numbers quickly decreased. I
think this decreased the number of banners people saw by a very large
amount, and was really awesome work :).

Thanks again for listening, acknowledging and summarizing!

- Ryan

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to