One consideration here might be whether to make the top-level metrics displayed in the Impact module more flexible (if they're not already)? e.g. for users getting involved in patrolling, they might want to swap out "Last edited" for "Edits reviewed", for example. Or maybe the Impact module itself determines that's a more useful metric for a given user? Maybe this is a future consideration in terms of the UX details, but if you're adjusting how things work now maybe it's worth keeping this possible use case in mind.

@Samwalton9-WMF my current thinking is that we would just add Thanks sent and Edits reviewed to the Impact module once the Review changes suggestions are made visible to account holders. But we are still early in planning this work, so open to other ideas! And I agree that (eventually) it would be great if what was presented to users was actually customizable based on their interests.

While the feature has been successful in reinforcing contributor motivation, its current implementation reflects its origins as a Growth MVP.

Just to chime in on this facet in case there's appetite for making some small changes in how it works. These are findings and potential ideas coming largely from research done in T410360: [Request] Continuous research / insight-->decision lifecycles as led by @dchen (but including folks on Growth so some of this won't come as a surprise) where we observed newcomers as they were asked questions about their editing activity in those first weeks of creating an account:

• Some newcomers expressed a guilt component that is worth considering. This was mostly as a positive thing -- i.e. they appreciated that we didn't gamify things to the point where they would feel guilty for not editing (e.g., Duolingo's methods came up a few times in this context). And for example, when asked about e.g., receiving no thanks, my sense was that newcomers hadn't really seemed to notice that so I don't think the current Impact Module is driving major guilt at the moment. That said, I think one part of a redesign that might be useful would be setting a threshold for each statistic to determine whether it is shown or not. For example, if your longest editing streak isn't more than 2 days, maybe don't show it (more on that below)? Edit count probably can always be shown. Maybe thanks-received only after you receive at least one? etc.
• Longest Streak is the statistic that I'm probably most torn about in the current Impact Module. I think it can be a thing for some experienced editors but it's both the piece that potentially most touches on the guilt component and it doesn't match how many newcomers (or experienced editors) seem to approach editing. I did a bit of analysis on this in this notebook and found that weekly/monthly patterns are more common than daily for more experienced editors (suggesting that when folks build an editing habit, it's not usually every day). Daily is a bit more common as the strongest cadence for newcomers but 71% of the time it's a one-day streak and 16% of the time it's a two-day streak, so they aren't really building up a "streak" the vast majority of the time.
• The thing that editors really did seem to like/engage with in the Impact Module was the fact that clicking the edit count link would take them to their list of contributions. If we asked them to show us an edit they had made, they would often go this route (Homepage -> Impact Module -> Special:Contributions -> find the edit in question) as opposed to going to the article and clicking over to its history tab. This suggested that they had already discovered this functionality on their own. As to why, they seem to enjoy looking at their contribution history (something that has come up in past work on how editors use their watchlist). Newcomers also generally liked the exploration that came with editing and learning about all of the behind-the-scenes things on Wikipedia. I think it can help with them forming their identity as an editor. But also my theory as to how Impact Metrics might boost motivation is that the aggregate numbers won't do it themselves as they're too vague but being reminded of some of the specifics can potentially do it. Given all of that, I think it would be great if we make the other statistics click-able too. You all already covered the most obvious one (edit count -> Special:Contributions) and have thanks-received -> Thanks Log. Ideas for a few others:
  • Maybe the pageviews visualization could link to https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/ with some relevant articles from their edit history pre-loaded so they could explore the data further?
  • Maybe the "last edited" box could link to the article history for the article they last edited so they could see if anyone else had made changes since then? (this one feels especially valuable for teaching them about article history)
  • If you implement Thanks sent, then it could go to the alternative view of the Thanks Log with the user as the Performer and not the target?
  • Longest streak is probably harder -- in theory you could send them to e.g., the first day of their streak in their editing history but that feels a bit redundant to the edit count link. So maybe leave as is or switch it to being an optional extended metric in the edit count box when you e.g., achieve 5-in-a-row (so no extra link needed)?