| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 03:50:52PM +0000 or thereabouts, Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 2 |
> +The success of the planet will be evaluated by examining the number of hits to |
| 3 |
> +the planet. 3 months after launch, one weeks worth of logs will be recorded, |
| 4 |
> +and hits will be counted. If the hit count for that week is below 1000, the |
| 5 |
> +planet will be deemed as not having met its target, and appropriate action can |
| 6 |
> +be taken if the planet appears to be harming our image. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
This is fine with me, but I thought we had decided to ask the users and use |
| 9 |
their response as a more accurate gauge of its success? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That said, if we're going with hits, I'd suggest the following text: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
------- |
| 14 |
The success of the planet will be evaluated by examining the number |
| 15 |
of unique users to the planet. Approximately 3 months after launch, a |
| 16 |
sample of activity will be selected from a random 7 day period and users |
| 17 |
will be counted. If the user count for that week is below 1000, the planet |
| 18 |
will be deemed as not having met its target and will be decommissioned. |
| 19 |
------- |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The "if the planet appears to be harming our image" is rather subjective |
| 22 |
and I'd rather take subjectivity out of this as much as possible. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
--kurt |
Archives