This page is currently a draft.</translate> <translate> More information pertaining to this may be available on the talk page.</translate>
To do 
Needs normalized charts for days on study.
Daily reporting 
Snapshot metrics 
As always, more detailed metrics are available on our workspace, and analysis follows.
|Date||Mentored edits (all)||Control edits (all)||Mentored edits (mainspace)||Control edits (Mainspace)|
On April 4, we began to look intensively at the statistics. Our mentees are compared to a control group.
We found some interesting things, which we'll go through here, but the key points are:
- First, we can make a difference in editing behavior. We're seeing that mentored users are contributing more to the encyclopedia, and spending less time on user and user talk space.
- We've got to get to them the day that they create their account. Waiting three days is too long, and we lose them.
The first metric we looked at was the number of edits in each group, per day. Initially, we narrowed to just edits within the Wikipedia namespace, as on this chart:
We charted the difference between the number of edits in the mentored group and the number of edits in the control. In this case, numbers below zero reflect more edits by the control. Positive numbers are better. The average is +22.
Obviously, this is good for our mentored users! They're editing the mainspace more.
So let's look now at the same trending for the User and User talk namespaces:
Notice that aberration at the front of the graph? We'll get to that in a second.
And again, the difference:
The average is -0.4. Our mentored users are editing User and User talk space LESS.
Remember the aberration we talked about on the previous graph? Here's why:
By the 3rd day of their editing, we'd already lost many of the new users. This graph is from our first cohort. But the one from the second cohort is almost the same.
This means we've got to get to them faster to offer mentorship: before they lose interest.