On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Tim Starling <tstarl...@wikimedia.org>

> 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-as-fast/
> 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: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to