811
Pixelfed user count has gone vertical.
(lemmy.world)
Editing to let people know that I will be blocking anyone who feels the need to tell me why this graph is inaccurate. I truly don't care, but feel free to chime in with your useless take and land a spot on my block list! 🙂
Lies, damn lies, and graphs that don't have the Y-axis starting at 0.
10% growth in a day is nice, but far from a revolution. Let's see this trend going for a month.
Monthly active users increased by 43% between 13 and 14 January: https://pixelfed.fediverse.observer/dailystats
https://xkcd.com/605/
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the entire world will be using pixelfed by the end of the year, and that its usage will expand to other galaxies by the end of the decade.
It's a comment about the current growth curve, and it is both accurate and interesting.
Lemmy had the same jump in numbers during the Reddit Exodus. Mastodon had a huge boost when Elon bought Twitter.
Every spike has been a followed by a slide back to baseline in less than a couple of months. After you've seen it happen so many times, it is no longer interesting.
The fact that you believe these platforms were the same before and after these events makes it sound like you were not, in fact, there to see it happen. In my experience, it permanently changed both platforms, transforming them from weird niche sites to genuine alternatives.
That said, what you find interesting or not is not any of my business.
This thread (and others in that post) might interest you: https://communick.news/post/2320430/4138857
https://archive.ph/YtA25
Yeah, I know I shouldn't bother. I am just annoyed by the misconception that all graphs should always start in 0 on the Y axis, as if it was some law of nature. Shouldn't allow myself to get dragged in further. :)
Good mindset :)
I don't think that either Mastodon or Lemmy slid back anywhere near as far as back to baseline? Sure, usage went down, perhaps even significantly compared to the peaks, but I think that both retained a lot more users than they had before their respective spikes. I'm an example of someone who came into Mastodon with the Twitter exodus and into Lemmy with the Reddit exodus, and I've stayed for both.
I don't mean that the numbers went exactly back where they were. I mean that every spike was followed by a steady decline.
Compare it with Bluesky now, or compare it with Reddit during Digg's meltdown. Their growth curves will look like an S-curve, not this series of discrete jumps followed by 40-60% loss.
@rglullis@communick.news tbh we shouldn't expect the adoption curve of any Fediverse software to be somewhat similar to the ones of centralised social networks, since Fediverse completely misses the commercial aspect that encourage key users to stay in the platform easing communities to stick to it as well. My guess is that without the action of commercial dynamics, the situation wouldn't be so different from the jumps-and-losses moments we're used to
ok, that's a fair point. But then this whole talk about "going vertical" and "exponential growth" is useless, and the only thing that we could (perhaps) try to take out of these mass migration events is to ask ourselves "would we able to reduce churn in the Fediverse without compromising on any principles?"
In other worlds, does this mean that the only reason that the Fediverse is small is because it is not as addictive as the other social networks? Does this mean that leaving Instagram and coming to PixelFed is the same as quitting unhealthy ultraprocessed foods and realizing that when you switch to a healthy diet you simply don't eat as much at all?
And if any of this is true, shouldn´t we change the effort from "leave Instagram and come to PixelFed" to "Leave Instagram and quit all social media"?
Got it, thanks.
Cool. You... don't have to engage in discussions that bore you. Why waste your time?
the head dev Dan Sup mentioned the number of active users jumping from 6k to 30k. we'll see how it holds, but there is strength in numbers, people only stay if other people see what they post there. i have good hopes and really want to ditch instagram
The y axis starting zero does not change the fact that it's exponentially growing right now. Filter that link posted below for 120 days and it is still a nearly straight vertical line of growth.
It's not exponentially growing. At best, the growth rate has exponentially increased. These are VERY different things.
It was exponentially growing, the platform would come screeching to a halt and crash.
Jesus fucking Christ, you people are miserably pedantic. Nothing about my original post is wrong, so please kindly shut the fuck up with your "well achtually" takes.
I'm not sure if people are pedantic or sarcastic at this point
They seem to be serious. The more concerning thing is that people are agreeing with them. I guess common sense is not so common.
I got the same criticism about a similar graph a while ago. Numbers are on the left, people can clearly see how big of a change the graph shows, and I have no way to present the graph differently as it's straight from the website, but people still want to argue about it
Tbf graphics like that are commonly used to be deceitful, because people don't actually check the numbers on the left.
But in this case I think it probably doesn't matter lol
And then tell you're throwing a tantrum when you get annoyed by it.
You're the one that made a false claim with a biased graph...it's okay to be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. No need to be so hostile about it. You could even edit your OP and add in the graph I threw together that normalizes the data. It's still a significant bump in users, which is cool.
You seem sensitive and very angry about it.
Sorry for getting annoyed when people needlessly correct others to make themselves seem smart.
Eh... It's important to not spread misinformation and correct it when you see it.
It's also important to just be ok with being wrong and get on with your life. No emotion needed.
I am very willing to admit when I'm wrong. However, the original post is not misinformation. The line on the graph is nearly vertical. That is objectively true. Even going back 120 days, the last few days are clearly vertical, and a sharp jump in users from previous time periods.
People just like to correct people to make themselves feel smart, and I have very little patience for that sort of thing. If someone makes a legitimate correction or proves to me that I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected, but needless and inaccurate corrections are just irritating.
If you're happy to be corrected, then let me please help.
Exponential growth is dependent on the original size, and is usually a multiple of that size. 10 going to 20 then going to 40 then going to 80 is exponential growth.
10 going to 20 then to 30 then to 40 is linear growth. The increments are not related to it's original size.
Going from 290k to 320k is barely a 10% increase. The way the graph is clipped LOOKS like an exponential line, but that's because it's clipped. If we showed the full data, 0 to 320k, it would not at all look exponential.
And even if we drop the mathematical meaning and go with the colloquial meaning, when people say exponential they usually mean doubling. So 290k to 580k.
People are calling you out because you exaggerated too hard. You called 10% growth exponential. That's just wrong on the face of it.
Now I will wait and see if you lied to me about being happy to be proven wrong.
The only thing worse than misrepresentation of statistics is completely misguided criticism of statistical representation.
While we're at it, the X axis doesn't start at zero either.
It's the perfect combo of karma farming and "well, achtually" to make your blood boil. Good thing karma isn't a thing on here from what I can tell.
There's no karma on Lemmy
Normalized graph for you:
Not a vertical line, at all. For sure cool, but very exaggerated with a dishonest graph.
Wake me up in 2 months when 80% of new users churned.