geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> writes:
t> On 2/27/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I would argue that hyper-active admins are more
likely to have
a short admin
> career (whether that be because of desysopping or
just
leaving), and further
> that the likelihood is greater than proportional
to their
edits.
Not exactly whuile the burn out rate is high (2-3 of the top ten
on
that list I posted are gone) most are not that new.
Perhaps. Without a longer-term comparison, we might be seeing a
[[survivorship bias]] there. And I think a 30% burn out rate is
fairly high - I don't think the burnout rate of the full cohort of
1,132 admins is so high.
> My ideal situation would be that admins would be
very active
initially so
they can learn
the ropes,
You can't inforce this
No, not really. It's just what would be a better way of doing
things.
>and that they would then settle down to an
> activity level more characteristic of the long tail, where they
are not so
> much admins but editors with admin powers who
regularly (but
not
> excessively) help out the current batch of very
active new
admins and once
in a while
clear out backlogs.
There are not enough new admins. Throw in the rate of rule shift
and
you have a problem with the older admins.
The long tail isn't doing enough with the result that the head
has to.
--
geni
--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.