
Double your userbase with two lines of code and a box of Modafinil - samueladam
http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2007/04/double_your_use.html
======
OmarIsmail
We've seen this with our site. The difference between getting a personalized
feedback message and not is even more pronounced than the 62% cited in the
article. And similar to the findings reported, the more a person has
contributed the more likely they are to contribute into the future. Though for
us, there is a dip in the middle that we're trying to resolve.

We actually came up with what we call an "engagement" curve, which is the
PERCENTAGE of people that will contribute at least X+1 times given they've
contributed X times to the site.

~~~
Shamiq
Do you think...you could post that somewhere? It would be neat to see (also,
your target demographic?)

Thanks!

~~~
OmarIsmail
Here's the rough outline: <http://s5.tinypic.com/2db9vyw.jpg> X-axis is number
of contributions. Y-Axis is percentage of people that have contributed at
least X+1 times for the given X.

So we can segment that out with various tests to see how it affects the
engagement curve. For example, how does the curve shift when a user gets a
personalized message? or a generic e-mail? Or does contribution type A, etc
etc.

~~~
Shamiq
Interesting graph -- any idea why that second peak is followed by such a large
drop?

(though i guess if you could answer that correctly, maybe you could make it go
away)

~~~
OmarIsmail
The broad answer I'd surmise is boredom.

The solution: make it as fun as Call of Duty or Counter-Strike.

Problem: How do you make a website as fun as killing virtual terrorists? ...
outside of having a website that let's you kill virtual terrorists.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
..."outside of having a website that let's you kill virtual terrorists"

Somwhere, someone gets a facebook developer account and and opens up vim.

You can make pretty much anything game-like:
[http://startup2startup.com/2009/01/09/jan29-amyjokim-
shuffle...](http://startup2startup.com/2009/01/09/jan29-amyjokim-
shufflebrain/)

------
sgrove
Very interesting post. I've actually been following that same exact idea - I
check over the error logs to see if any users encountered an error, email them
an apology and let them know I'm working on it right now, and then email them
once it's worked again thanking them for their patience.

Also, for questions which have been posted, I email the author (if they've
given us their email address) and ask them if they're satisfied with the
answer. If not, we'll spend some more time researching it and contact some
special authority.

We've done that for one week, but the results have been mixed. I still think
it's critical, but it's only one factor - you need the initial userbase just
to get the new users to post.

EDIT: It also occurred to me (thinking about to pg's "If you measure it you'll
improve it" quote") that I'll need some substantial reporting as well. To that
end, I'll be writing some rake tasks today so I can plot the data over time.

~~~
markessien
Post your 'mixed' results. Does your site offer the possibility to test on
peers (see my post below on the main thread.) I'm interested in graphing the
result of this.

------
markessien
I think it would be better if you just send an email to all signed up users
saying "Christie has sent you a message...". Something along those lines.

~~~
unalone
Our web site sends registration information directly from my cofounder's email
address. (We don't like private messaging systems.) The plan is to start
really personal conversations with all the people who sign up, until that gets
too overwhelming.

~~~
markessien
Just as a test, do this: Pick 10 random users who sign-up and start a co-
founder conversation. Pick another 10 random users and send an email saying "A
member has replied to your message" or "A message was sent to you from
Michael". See which is more effective.

You are discounting a very important factor - authority. Your co-founder is an
authority figure, he's selling a site. He belongs in another group as the
signed-up user. Another user sending a message is a peer. He tells the user
that there are other people there, and that they are interested in what he is
doing.

There is a big social difference in the two. Don't do one and never test the
other.

~~~
unalone
But we don't _have_ messages. So I'm not certain quite how that would work.

