On a very non-scientific measure of how few editors currently use V/E, I took some snapshots of the most recent 500 mainspace edits <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500&days=30>yesterday and was getting circa 1% tagged as visual editor, I've just run two sample this afternoon and the first had not a single edit tagged Visual editor and the other only four, so unless some of those experienced users using V/e have opted out of having their edits tagged V/E, I'm assuming "gobs and gobs" are either on other language wikis, heavily skewed to a time of day I haven't sampled or big in number but still too small a proportion to account for the increase in the number of editors doing >100 edits per month.
On 17 August 2015 at 15:54, Jonathan Morgan <jmor...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > There are gobs and gobs* of people using VE. Many of them are experienced > editors. > > I'm also interested in looking at VE adoption over time (especially by > veteran editors). I'll sniff around and let y'all know if I find anything. > > No idea what might be causing the boost in active editor numbers. But it's > exciting to see :) > > Anyone else have data that bears on these questions? > > - J > > *non-scientific estimate drawn from anecdata > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:53 AM, WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's an interesting theory, but are there many people actually using >> V/E now? >> >> I've just gone back through recent changes looking for people using it, >> and apart from half a dozen newbies I've welcomed I'm really not seeing >> many V/E edits. >> >> Looking at the history of Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback&offset=&limit=500&action=history> >> the last 500 edits go back three months. So apart from the Interior, you >> and I Kerry I'm not sure there is a huge number of people testing it, and I >> wasn't testing it in the first 6 months of this year. I did see some >> research where they were claiming that retention rates for V/E editors were >> now as good as for people using the classic editor, but I would be >> surprised if there were enough people using V/E to make a difference to >> these figures, especially as this is about the editors doing over 100 edits >> a month. >> >> I agree it would be interesting to track the take-up of the VE (fully or >> partially) by editor by year of original signup. But I think the long >> awaited boost from V?E editing is yet to come, if the regulars have started >> to increase that is likely to be due to something else. >> >> Jonathan >> >> On 15 August 2015 at 15:11, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Is there any way of telling what proportion of these 8% appear to be >>> using the Visual Editor either exclusively or partially? It might be >>> interesting to track the take-up of the VE (fully or partially) by editor >>> by year of original signup. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kerry >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: >>> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of * >>> WereSpielChequers >>> *Sent:* Saturday, 15 August 2015 11:12 PM >>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities < >>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>; The Wikimedia Foundation Research >>> Committee mailing list <rco...@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English >>> wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip? >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than in >>> June 2014 <https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm>, we >>> have now had six consecutive months where this particular metric of the >>> core community is looking positive. One or two months could easily be a >>> statistical blip, especially when you compare calender months that may have >>> 5 weekends in one year and four the next. But 6 months in a row does begin >>> to look like a change in pattern. >>> >>> As far as caveats go I'm aware of several of the reasons why raw edit >>> count is a suspect measure, but I'm not aware of anything that has come in >>> in this year that would have artificially inflated edit counts and brought >>> more of the under 100 editors into the >100 group. >>> >>> I know there was a recent speedup, which should increase subsequent edit >>> rates, and one of the edit filters got disabled in June, but neither of >>> those should be relevant to the Jan-May period. >>> >>> Would anyone on this list be aware of something that would have >>> otherwise thrown that statistic? >>> >>> Otherwise I'm considering submitting something to the Signpost. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > > -- > Jonathan T. Morgan > Senior Design Researcher > Wikimedia Foundation > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
