12
$\begingroup$

It's now been almost 6 months since the community has become widely aware of practices by the greater StackExchange company which a lot of people have disagreed with.

There has been a lot of dissatisfaction specifically surrounding the firing of Monica, but also about practices in general.

As a result, some of the community have banded together in order to achieve a solution they find satisfactory

This has resulted in:

Since it has been some time now, I was curious: Have the actions and practices had any noticeable effect on the activity or efficiency of the site, specifically related to the CV site?

There was a query done by @Glorfindel right at the start of the protests which found some drop in usage (in terms of questions answered and posted). However, it was relatively small and honestly probably not significant. And it was done relatively early, so would not capture any effects which might have a lag time.

I do not have access to site analytics. Perhaps to those that have a means of seeing: has there been any quantifiable change due to the actions taken and listed above, to the activity or efficiency of the site which show pressure has actually been applied to the greater StackExchange company?

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You can always use data.stackexchange.com that is open-access. Moderators additionally have access to some internal site analytics, but this is not meant to be shared with anyone, so sorry, but we cannot post them. $\endgroup$ – Tim Mar 13 at 9:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Tim Why do you say that? It says "we prefer you don't share the raw data". Are your mod stats significantly different from hi-rep stats? I thought questions from users can be answered by mods having access to these tools & data (though they of course don't have to react to such inquiries)? $\endgroup$ – LаngLаngС Mar 13 at 11:57
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @LangLang Through the SE data site users can collect more statistics than moderators have ready access to. However, to become mods we executed agreements that enjoin us from sharing certain forms of information that are made available to us through simple interfaces. The fact that such information can be found, albeit more painstakingly, through other means does not absolve us of that commitment. $\endgroup$ – whuber Mar 13 at 13:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I do not need stats to note the difference. There are longer review queues on cross-validated now. Also, There is an annoying 'sponsored by' advertisement with a sometimes link. Taken with the unresolved other problems like tactical downvoting, my enthusiasm for the site has waned considerably. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mar 16 at 10:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl I agree, although I am not a frequent user of the site, I have been using it for years prior to the issues till now months after and have anecdotally noticed a decrease in activity and quality, whether it be unedited/unfixed poorly worded questions left unchanged or questions left unanswered for a long period of time. However with this being the stats stackexchange, I was hoping there might an answer with more robust evidence actually indicating this so. $\endgroup$ – Dale C Apr 1 at 5:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That would require writing a program to query the database which would be, as whuber says "painstaking". I've done that kind of thing before. See data.stackexchange.com/stats/query/new $\endgroup$ – Carl Apr 1 at 7:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .