[pvg]

The upward trend is much smaller than what happens in 2023 so that looks worth looking into. When you have this one outlier and one year can actually mean two years, it's not completely clear how much of the outlier is actual outlieriness and how much is some accidental artifact.

[osm3000]

Hey,

I double checked. I don't really see an issue. The only specific thing that affects 2023 is that I removed the users seen / last seen in 2024 (since it is not complete year). The aggregation is simple also: count the users first seen, grouped by year. count the users last seen, grouped by year.

There was a separate issue though (I didn't filter out the "dead" and "deleted" stories / comments). I fixed that and updated the article. Some values changed, but the patterns and conclusions stands.

[pvg]

Thanks for looking into this. I'll try to reproduce this myself (but with elapsed times) and see what happens.

Just to double check we're talking about the same thing: The red line is 'users who have been inactive for a year or more, at the time of the aggregate point'. So, for instance, for 2016 you'd have a point for 'users with a year+ inactivity, counted from 2016 back'.

[osm3000]

> Thanks for looking into this. I'll try to reproduce this myself (but with elapsed times) and see what happens.

That will be great! Please don't hesitate to reach out if there is anything I can help with.

> Just to double check we're talking about the same thing: The red line is 'users who have been inactive for a year or more, at the time of the aggregate point'. So, for instance, for 2016 you'd have a point for 'users with a year+ inactivity, counted from 2016 back'.

Not quite. It is means the user has been last seen in that year (2016). By "last seen" I mean the user last shared story or comment (separate graphs) was that year.

[pvg]

I guess I don't exactly understand 'last seen, (not active from >= year)'. So to be part of the red value for a given year, you have to be seen in that year and then what? Be idle for a year after that? What's the connection between seen-ed-ness and idleness?

[osm3000]

Perhaps I should have articulated this in a better way.

> So to be part of the red value for a given year, you have to be seen in that year and then what? Be idle for a year after that?

Exactly! Last seen: this is year of their last contribtuion (story / comment).

A user shared their first story in 2012, and last one in 2016: 2012 is when they were first seen, and 2016 is when they where last seen. So, on the blue line, they are part of 2012, and on the red line, they are part of 2012

> What's the connection between seen-ed-ness and idleness?

If I am last seen in 2016, then I am idle since then, no?

[pvg]

Aha ok, but if I am understanding this right, the future can change the past of this graph, right? Like our hypothetical user who first appeared in 2012 and last posted in 2016 - right now they appear in the 2016 red line but if they showed up again today and you made the graph again next year, they wouldn't be in the 2016 red line anymore. Or put another way and one that you can try: What happens if you cut off the data at 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, etc and plotted those graphs? You'd see a different (rather than merely truncated) graph, no? Maybe even a different trend. So if my understanding is right, this is a pretty wiggly metric. The history of something you want to use as a historical trend line should not change as you append more data.

[osm3000]

I will double check. I see your point