Skip to main content
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
Source Link

From http://serverfault.com/electionhttps://serverfault.com/election:

2011: 3,834 voters were eligible, 566 visited the election, and 310 voted (8% of eligible users voted)

2012: 6,350 voters were eligible, 1,361 visited the site during the election, 474 visited the election page, and 208 voted (3,2% of eligible users voted)

So - we have more users, and more people visiting the election page, but less votes - even with nearly twice the userbase. What's going on?

From http://serverfault.com/election:

2011: 3,834 voters were eligible, 566 visited the election, and 310 voted (8% of eligible users voted)

2012: 6,350 voters were eligible, 1,361 visited the site during the election, 474 visited the election page, and 208 voted (3,2% of eligible users voted)

So - we have more users, and more people visiting the election page, but less votes - even with nearly twice the userbase. What's going on?

From https://serverfault.com/election:

2011: 3,834 voters were eligible, 566 visited the election, and 310 voted (8% of eligible users voted)

2012: 6,350 voters were eligible, 1,361 visited the site during the election, 474 visited the election page, and 208 voted (3,2% of eligible users voted)

So - we have more users, and more people visiting the election page, but less votes - even with nearly twice the userbase. What's going on?

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/ServerFault/status/161953083688103936
added 58 characters in body
Source Link
pauska
  • 19.7k
  • 15
  • 18

From http://serverfault.com/election:

2011: 3,834 voters were eligible, 566 visited the election, and 310 voted (8% of eligible users voted)

2012: 6,350 voters were eligible, 1,361 visited the site during the election, 474 visited the election page, and 208 voted (3,2% of eligible users voted)

So - we have more users, and more people visiting the election page, but less votes - even with nearly twice the userbase. What's going on?

From http://serverfault.com/election:

2011: 3,834 voters were eligible, 566 visited the election, and 310 voted

2012: 6,350 voters were eligible, 1,361 visited the site during the election, 474 visited the election page, and 208 voted

So - we have more users, and more people visiting the election page, but less votes - even with nearly twice the userbase. What's going on?

From http://serverfault.com/election:

2011: 3,834 voters were eligible, 566 visited the election, and 310 voted (8% of eligible users voted)

2012: 6,350 voters were eligible, 1,361 visited the site during the election, 474 visited the election page, and 208 voted (3,2% of eligible users voted)

So - we have more users, and more people visiting the election page, but less votes - even with nearly twice the userbase. What's going on?

Source Link
pauska
  • 19.7k
  • 15
  • 18

Userbase has gone up, but participation in the election has gone down?

From http://serverfault.com/election:

2011: 3,834 voters were eligible, 566 visited the election, and 310 voted

2012: 6,350 voters were eligible, 1,361 visited the site during the election, 474 visited the election page, and 208 voted

So - we have more users, and more people visiting the election page, but less votes - even with nearly twice the userbase. What's going on?