It’s not “again” for anything you’ve written in this comment thread.
And you specifically suggested that these numbers can’t be extrapolated, i.e. that they are not a trend. If it’s indeed a trend for Lemmy to have 200% yoy growth then yeah, I’d think that’d be pretty successful.
If it’s indeed a trend for Lemmy to have 200% yoy growth then yeah, I’d think that’d be pretty successful.
You got it exactly backwards. There is a decline trend (monthly users go down month after after a spike) while the “200% growth” is not determined by any curve and can not be measured by any specific interval, because it was driven by one stochastic event that brought 100k people out of a sudden (the Reddit migration)
To go back to my original comment: let’s see how the numbers are going to be in the next month. If the first derivative is still positive, then we can talk about “trends”, until then we are just senseless cheering and extrapolating out of one data point.
Successful or not, it isn’t back to baseline
Again: “back to baseline” is not meant in absolute numbers, but trend-wise.
It’s not “again” for anything you’ve written in this comment thread.
And you specifically suggested that these numbers can’t be extrapolated, i.e. that they are not a trend. If it’s indeed a trend for Lemmy to have 200% yoy growth then yeah, I’d think that’d be pretty successful.
Try the sibling: https://communick.news/comment/4203442
You got it exactly backwards. There is a decline trend (monthly users go down month after after a spike) while the “200% growth” is not determined by any curve and can not be measured by any specific interval, because it was driven by one stochastic event that brought 100k people out of a sudden (the Reddit migration)
To go back to my original comment: let’s see how the numbers are going to be in the next month. If the first derivative is still positive, then we can talk about “trends”, until then we are just senseless cheering and extrapolating out of one data point.