Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

12
  • 1
    Profitability is probably measured in visits not new questions. SO could still be the most profitable part of the network, which then by definition pays for keeping the lights on in the other parts. That may change one day though. Commented Jul 11 at 21:45
  • 2
    @NoDataDumpNoContribution Currently, new post activity is on the 2009 level. It is not a single decrease. It is the end.
    – peterh
    Commented Jul 12 at 1:55
  • 2
    @NoDataDumpNoContribution They invest into the busted business parts, taking effort from the parts with results. Bad management, bad strategy. But it is nothing surprising, it was clearly visible since about 2014 and they did nothing. Only social inertia kept the sites (and the company) above the water since then; an ordinary small company working on this way had his penultimate business result file on that year.
    – peterh
    Commented Jul 12 at 3:48
  • @NoDataDumpNoContribution Btw, post creation or voting/feedback activity does not correlate for sure with the visit, any time as I have talked with mods or 25k+ guys about it, they all said, the visit stat looks the same.
    – peterh
    Commented Jul 14 at 6:43
  • With looks the same you mean is still as high as it used to be? I'm not sure if there is accurate information about that available. I guess that traffic is still high, but slowly declining. The logic would be: no new questions, no new knowledge, less traffic over time. Commented Jul 14 at 7:40
  • "Numbers show" ^[citation needed] What's the latest on viewership across the network? Commented Jul 14 at 22:50
  • @CorneliusRoemer 25k+ users (and 5k+ on betas) can see visit stats, and they are expected to use this information wisely in various argumentations. For others, tricky SEDE queries can still give good estimations. For example, votes + feedbacks correlate very well with the actual views; or the per-question all-time view data can be used to estimate the full-site daily or monthly view stat. Athough SEDE has no timed view stats, only all-time for the questions.
    – peterh
    Commented Jul 15 at 3:00
  • 1
    @NoDataDumpNoContribution I played with it a lot. new post creation stats, voting stats and visit stats roughly correlate, so you can well estimate one from the others. data.stackexchange.com , good work.
    – peterh
    Commented 2 days ago
  • @NoDataDumpNoContribution There are also other correlations. For example, about 90% of the users has a reputation in 10% of his got upvotes * 10. These help a lot to understand here things (because you can not track the former reputation of the users, but yes the upvotes their posts got). Actually, that I think I now master t-sql, actually I can thank to the company.
    – peterh
    Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    @NoDataDumpNoContribution Another terrible problem, that the queries have no persistent storage and a 2 min execution limit. However, SEDE is open source. I think, if someone could build a SEDE clone, and make it publicly available, where such limits do not apply, that could be a huge win. Problem is that SEDE needs non-trivial modifications to run on databases other than ms sql. But it can be done. I once started it, but I had more important tasks.
    – peterh
    Commented 2 days ago
  • @CorneliusRoemer Please do not do this... "^[citation needed]" more without a serious reason. It was not really kind. My impression was that you have some really antagonistic misconceptions. Please do not do that. I am a human like you. Just ask. So: "How do you see that?" or "Where are these numbers from?"
    – peterh
    Commented 2 days ago
  • @peterh Please accept my apology, I didn't intend it to be antagonistic, just to the point. I'm genuinely interested in the data and would like to look at it myself, adding the source would make your answer stronger. Commented yesterday