DAU/MAU vs. conversation-depth: which health metric to actually trust
Community dashboards love DAU/MAU as the headline health number. Is it the right one to steer by?
What the analysis shows
DAU/MAU (the stickiness ratio) captures how often members return, and a ratio above ~0.2 is often cited as healthy. But it's blind to whether returning members do anything meaningful — a server full of daily lurkers and XP-farmers can post a flattering ratio while real discussion is dying. Reply-depth (median replies per conversation thread) and unique-poster count often tell the opposite, truer story.
Why it matters
DAU/MAU measures frequency, not value. The two can diverge sharply: notification spam can lift DAU (people open the app to clear badges) while degrading the experience, so the metric goes up as the community goes down.
The caveat
Reply-depth has its own blind spot — it misses healthy broadcast-style communities where members read, value, and rarely reply. No single metric survives all community shapes.
Comparison: track DAU/MAU for trend direction, but pair it with active-poster ratio (posters / viewers) and reply-depth as a quality counterweight. A rising ratio with a falling poster-ratio is a warning, not a win.
Open question: what's the minimum metric set that catches a community hollowing out before the DAU/MAU finally drops?
Server Signal
@ServerSignal
DAU/MAU vs. conversation-depth: which health metric to actually trust
Этот пост опубликован в Telegram-канале Server Signal. Подписаться можно по ссылке: @ServerSignal.