User:EpochFail/Journal/2011-08-25
Monday, Aug. 22nd
editLOTS OF MODELS!
Improves
editDoes the editor improve the quality of their work?
| Coefficients | "unlikely" | "possible" | "golden" | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | |
| (Intercept) | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.94 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.31 |
| edits_before_msg | 0.03 | 0.01 | <.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.03 | -0.00 | 0.00 | 0.78 |
| teaching | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.28 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.27 | -0.05 | 0.08 | 0.57 |
| personal | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.70 | -0.00 | 0.07 | 0.97 |
| teaching:personal | -0.15 | 0.20 | 0.45 | -0.05 | 0.10 | 0.66 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.50 |
- The larger number of edits an editor performs before being huggled, more likely they are to improve if they are in the "unlikely" and "possible" groups.
- It's difficult for editors to be both classified "golden" and to improve.
Contact
editDid the reverted editor try to contact the huggler at all?
| Coefficients | "unlikely" | "possible" | "golden" | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | |
| (Intercept) | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.36 |
| edits_before_msg | -0.00 | 0.01 | 0.56 | -0.00 | 0.00 | 0.89 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.07 |
| teaching | -0.14 | 0.14 | 0.35 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.66 | -0.19 | 0.16 | 0.25 |
| personal | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.55 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.27 | 0.13 | 0.05 |
| teaching:personal | 0.28 | 0.20 | 0.16 | -0.12 | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.33 |
- Reverted editors who are not blatant vandals are more likely to contact the reverting editor if the message posting was personal.
- This makes sense. A personal message posting is more inviting and reminds the reverted editor that the revert operation was actually performed by a person.
- It's interesting that the probability of contact with the reverting editor does not increase for blatant vandals. This is probably a good thing for hugglers.
Good contact
editFor those reverted editors try to make contact, is the contact good (i.e not bad).
| Coefficients | "unlikely" | "possible" | "golden" | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | |
| (Intercept) | 0.41 | 0.21 | 0.09 | 0.53 | 0.24 | '0.03 | 0.70 | 0.17 | <.01 |
| edits_before_msg | -0.03 | 0.04 | 0.59 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.37 |
| teaching | -1.01 | 0.19 | <.01 | 0.04 | 0.28 | 0.89 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.53 |
| personal | 0.69 | 0.22 | 0.01 | -0.06 | 0.26 | 0.83 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.52 |
| teaching:personal | na | na | na | -0.26 | 0.36 | 0.47 | na | na | na |
Note: This regression is only over reverting edits that resulted in the reverted editor contacting the huggler who reverted him/her.
- For blatant vandals (unlikely) the probability of having a negative contact is increased for the teaching message, but decreased for a personal message.
- One theory for the decrease of negative contact in the case of the personal message is the embarrassment of the vandal. A vandal might be less excited about vandalizing when they realize that they are causing another human being trouble.
- It's interesting that the teaching message predicts an increase in the probability of negative contact. (It would be nice to have an idea for why this might be the case.)
Stay
editWill the reverted editor perform any edits after reading their message?
| Coefficients | "unlikely" | "possible" | "golden" | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | Estimate | StdErr | P(>|t|) | |
| (Intercept) | 0.43 | 0.08 | <.01 | 0.22 | 0.03 | <.01 | 0.51 | 0.09 | <.01 |
| edits_before_msg | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | <.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | <.01 |
| teaching | -0.21 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.10 | -0.18 | 0.13 | 0.18 |
| personal | -0.08 | 0.10 | 0.43 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.90 |
| teaching:personal | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.46 | -0.10 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.70 |
Note: Some coefficients are marked with bold and italics to denote marginal significance.
- In all cases, the number of edits an editor performs before reading the message is a positive predictor of performing more edits.
- The teaching message predicted a decrease in the probability of a blatant vandal sticking around to perform more edits after reading the message.
- This is probably a good thing as getting rid of blatant vandals should be more efficient than reverting them again.
- We found marginal significance that the teaching and personal messages increase the probability that an editor would continue to edit. This is probably a good thing, but it should be taken with a grain of salt due to its marginal significance.
- In the case of the personal and teaching message, the effects of personal and teach appear to not sum up, but rather decrease slightly. It appears that it could be better to have either personal or teaching elements in the message rather than both.