Depends on what your standard is, to me a community on here having 100+ daily users is already a huge success. I don’t think people expect the whole subreddit to migrate, just enough to have roughly the same amount of content/interaction.
Then its not a migration, which is what we’re talking about.
If you’re happy leaving a group of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands in some communities for a group of 100 that’s cool, but don’t spin it as a successful migration.
The rest of the world didn’t even realize we left.
It’s 100 daily interacting, which is much more than 100 subscribers. And Reddit doesn’t have daily users statistics so you can’t really know how many of those 700k are still using the site. Some might have not even logged for the past 14 years. I’d say actual daily users are less than 10k, maybe not even 2/3k looking at upvotes.
The statistics are not comparable, but as long as a community managed to form in here I’d say it’s still a success.
Less than 100 times. That was a high estimate. Top post in the past 24h has like 900 upvotes, that means 9 times at a bare minimum estimate.
And no one expected the whole community, or even a majority, to move to Lemmy. There was a (partial) migration, and to the end user it doesn’t mean that much if their post is viewed by 100 or 1000 people. A hundred people are plenty to just discuss a tv series.
So if a poster from the Star Trek Lemmy moves to Facebook Groups and brings along a small fraction of the userbase, is it fair to say the Star Trek Lemmy community migrated to Facebook?
I’d say it’s fair to say “there has been a migration” from Lemmy to Facebook, in that case.
It’s not like the definition itself matters though, the important thing is the end user experience and that’s pretty much been replicated with a community of that size.
Depends on what your standard is, to me a community on here having 100+ daily users is already a huge success. I don’t think people expect the whole subreddit to migrate, just enough to have roughly the same amount of content/interaction.
Then its not a migration, which is what we’re talking about.
If you’re happy leaving a group of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands in some communities for a group of 100 that’s cool, but don’t spin it as a successful migration.
The rest of the world didn’t even realize we left.
It’s 100 daily interacting, which is much more than 100 subscribers. And Reddit doesn’t have daily users statistics so you can’t really know how many of those 700k are still using the site. Some might have not even logged for the past 14 years. I’d say actual daily users are less than 10k, maybe not even 2/3k looking at upvotes.
The statistics are not comparable, but as long as a community managed to form in here I’d say it’s still a success.
So 100 times bigger, by your own estimate?
They created a new community, sure. The reddit community didn’t migrate though.
Less than 100 times. That was a high estimate. Top post in the past 24h has like 900 upvotes, that means 9 times at a bare minimum estimate.
And no one expected the whole community, or even a majority, to move to Lemmy. There was a (partial) migration, and to the end user it doesn’t mean that much if their post is viewed by 100 or 1000 people. A hundred people are plenty to just discuss a tv series.
So if a poster from the Star Trek Lemmy moves to Facebook Groups and brings along a small fraction of the userbase, is it fair to say the Star Trek Lemmy community migrated to Facebook?
I’d say it’s fair to say “there has been a migration” from Lemmy to Facebook, in that case.
It’s not like the definition itself matters though, the important thing is the end user experience and that’s pretty much been replicated with a community of that size.