Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] [Wmfall] New Developers Quarterly Report's first edition

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] [Wmfall] New Developers Quarterly Report's first edition

Fæ
On 18 October 2017 at 12:12, Brian Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Srishti Sethi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>>
>> I would like to share the first edition of the New Developers Quarterly
>> Report that the Developer Relations team has produced. This report covers
>> metrics, survey analysis and lessons learned from new developers focused
>> activities in the previous quarter (July-September 2017).
>>
>>
>> If you have questions and feedback that you would like to share with us,
>> please add them on the discussion page.
>>
>>
>> To receive a notification when a new report is published, subscribe here.
>>
>>
>> We plan to release a report every quarter and take action items identified
>> from the key findings for improving our existing methods and processes. The
>> next release will be in January 2018.
>>
>>
>> If you have any questions, comments, and concerns, we will be more than
>> happy to hear them!
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Srishti
>>
>>
>
> From the report:
>
>>Percentage of volunteers active one year (± 3 months) after their first contribution, out of all new volunteers attracted one year ago (between April–June >2016). (Source: Calculation on data)
>>
>>QoQ: -26.5%. YoY: -60.0%
>
> That's kind of scary....
>
> --
> bawolff

Does the minus symbol in "-60.0%" mean anything? Being a retention
percentage, I do not understand how it can be negative unless
potential volunteers are getting rejected at the door before they can
sign-up. Could that be corrected?

Weak figures are unsurprising, at least when compared to other
percentages in the Wikiverse, like truly miniscule levels of new
editor retention that have been measured from investing in
edit-a-thons. However the first statement in the report of "we are
attracting around 54 developers per quarter and retaining 8% of them",
i.e. 4/54, feels low enough to have a review of whether the events to
attract developers are worth doing in their current formats. The
return on investment in terms of volunteer time and basic expenses,
must make them "non-successes".

P.S. while on the perennial issue of jargon, could we avoid
"noticings"? It's a neologism nobody ever needed, though I appreciated
the use of "taken with a grain of salt".

Thanks,
Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>