On Wednesday 27 August 2008 15:51, Ian Clarke wrote: > Here are the uninstallation survey results so-far (attached, also at > http://tinyurl.com/freenetuninst). > > The first surprise is the volume of these responses, we are receiving > several per hour! That is a lot of users we could have, but don't > have. > > As expected, the highest number of reasons are people that weren't > able to get Freenet running at all, 31%, 54% of respondents only used > Freenet for a few minutes. The second highest were people that didn't > find enough interesting content, a problem that will hopefully address > itself as more people use the software. > > This survey is a great idea, but we need to refine it to figure out > where we need to be focussing our efforts to improve retention of > users. Clearly, this survey suggests that our installation and set-up > process is still a weak point for us. > > Thoughts?
Current thoughts on "I was not able to get it working properly": 1. Bootstrapping is working extremely slowly at the moment. It takes 5-10 minutes for a new node to get 10 peers according to the regular testing code. 2. Many users get confused when we tell them that the ports may not have been forwarded, and this certainly leads to some uninstallations. We should fix the FNPPacketsSent-based not-port-forwarded detection, and only show that message if we have grounds to think we are not port forwarded. 3. I suspect both this and the lack of content overlap with not knowing what to do with Freenet i.e. just the web interface isn't that interesting on its own, filesharing and chat need to be easy and obvious. > > Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080827/4f951986/attachment.pgp>
