4
$\begingroup$

Two months ago, I wrote up this post:

Our totally unofficial 30-day checkup

In it, I gave our site stats (available here). We're at about the same levels, 70 days later. That might seem discouraging. But the post got a nice answer from LoganM. I'd like to quote part of it:

if we're at the same level at 90 days that we are now, that's not something to worry about.

It's not. We're doing just as well as we were 70-odd days ago, and it's looking like we're holding steady. Could the stats be higher? Yes. They always could. But they're also highly unrealistic. What we want to do next is to attract new users. If we build up our user base, the site can grow itself. All it needs is that tiny nudge.

Here's to the next 100 days!

For posterity, here are the stats:

  • Questions per day: 1.7/10 (Needs work)
  • Percent answered: 88%/90% (Okay)
  • Users: 57/150 users with 200+ rep, 5/10 users with 2000+ rep, 2/5 users with 3000+ rep (Needs work)
  • Answer ratio: 1.7/2.5 (Okay)
  • Visits/day: 113/1,500 (Needs work)

And yes, the "good" levels have since changed, at the behest of (I believe) Robert Cartaino.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .