We should think about what editor retention related information we want to monitor during the IP masking deployment. E.g. where do temp users arriving to the registration page come from? How prominent are the various sources of temp user creation?
T341650: Update authentication metrics for IP masking is a related issue.
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In Progress | • Niharika | T324492 Temporary accounts - MVP | |||
| Open | None | T326816 Update features for IP Masking | |||
| Open | KStoller-WMF | T326877 [Epic] Update Growth Team-owned products that may be affected by IP Masking | |||
| Open | nettrom_WMF | T341651 Define editor retention related instrumentation for IP masking |
One hypothesis we had for IP masking is that better communication options compared to anon users (Echo; more reliable message targeting) means less non-constructive edits and less communication problems. Do we want to try measuring that?
Relatedly, in past community conversations around communicating with anonymous users, an oft-stated hypothesis was that the orange bar of doom is more noticeable than the smaller warning bar shown by Echo to logged-in users, and that this has some moderation benefits. Again, is that something we can measure?
One potential obstacle is that it's not really feasible to A/B test IP masking, so any signal would have to be extracted from seasonal changes and other noise.