# 不要被活动指标所迷惑——它们在不同类型的社区中可能差异巨大

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/dont-be-fooled-by-activity-metrics-they-may-vary-greatly-in-different-community-types/78572
**Category:** Community Building
**Created:** [2018 年1 月 21 日 06:35 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/dont-be-fooled-by-activity-metrics-they-may-vary-greatly-in-different-community-types/78572 "2018-01-21T06:35:01Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![HAWK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/hawk/32/86627_2.png) [@HAWK](https://meta.discourse.org/u/HAWK)
#### Post date: [2018 年1 月 21 日 22:03 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/dont-be-fooled-by-activity-metrics-they-may-vary-greatly-in-different-community-types/78572/8 "2018-01-21T22:03:13Z")

</div>

> [@meglio](#):
>
> you should not rely on basic activity stats to measure healthiness of an online community

Right. We’ve been trying to educate community builders to step away from vanity metrics for a while now because they’re not necessarily indicative of health. That said, every community needs engagement of some type in order to achieve its goal/s, whatever they are. Fluctuations might also indicate an issue that needs to be addressed so they’re important to monitor at a high level.

But engagement stats aren’t comparable across _all_ communities. You need to take into account community type. A support community for a popular product will look very different to a niche community of practice for instance. Both might be ‘healthy’ but those numbers will vary greatly.

I’m not sure there is a one size fits all metric. For a CoP I’d look for a high DAU/MAU score to indicate health, but a similarly high score for a product support community would be dire.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/dont-be-fooled-by-activity-metrics-they-may-vary-greatly-in-different-community-types/78572)._