I've gone through all three posts about this closure (the initial post, the follow-up post, and this results post) since number of respondents seems to have been your biggest metric for whether to keep this account open or not. As the fate of this account was decided by someone going through and counting how many people commented, I was curious how that number had changed since the decision criteria had been made clear.
There are now 72 named users who have commented, of the 1219 current subscribers. This makes for a 5.9% response rate. If you include the 11 anonymous comments as separate users, that bumps it up to a 6.8% rate. This is now over the 5% cutoff talked about in the amount of response section of this post.
Would that have been enough to keep this account open? What percentage of people were you hoping would respond and where was the line for "enough" to make it worthwhile for this account to stay open?
no subject
There are now 72 named users who have commented, of the 1219 current subscribers. This makes for a 5.9% response rate. If you include the 11 anonymous comments as separate users, that bumps it up to a 6.8% rate. This is now over the 5% cutoff talked about in the amount of response section of this post.
Would that have been enough to keep this account open? What percentage of people were you hoping would respond and where was the line for "enough" to make it worthwhile for this account to stay open?