maegul@hachyderm.io to Fediverse@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoThis happened quickly…Lemmy is now the second biggest platform next to mastodon!?!message-squaremessage-square34fedilinkarrow-up140arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up140arrow-down1message-squareThis happened quickly…Lemmy is now the second biggest platform next to mastodon!?!maegul@hachyderm.io to Fediverse@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square34fedilinkfile-text
This happened quickly…Lemmy is now the second biggest platform next to mastodon!?! https://fedidb.org/software @fediverse @fediversenews
minus-squaremaegul@hachyderm.ioOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year ago@Odo Interesting. Lemmy is somewhat strict in its definition of “active user”. You must post to be “active”, so all lurkers aren’t counted. I’m not even sure commenting counts toward being “active”, though I’d guess it does. So user growth without growth in “active users”, especially on smaller servers, is plausible.
minus-squareOdo@startrek.websitelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-21 year agoI guess that’s possible. The instances I mentioned look like this: https://fedidb.org/network/instance/parapheum.com 2 posts, 1 comment overall. It had 10 users two days ago and 4.6k today, not a single one of them seems to have posted or commented.
@Odo Interesting. Lemmy is somewhat strict in its definition of “active user”. You must post to be “active”, so all lurkers aren’t counted.
I’m not even sure commenting counts toward being “active”, though I’d guess it does.
So user growth without growth in “active users”, especially on smaller servers, is plausible.
I guess that’s possible. The instances I mentioned look like this:
https://fedidb.org/network/instance/parapheum.com
2 posts, 1 comment overall.
It had 10 users two days ago and 4.6k today, not a single one of them seems to have posted or commented.