Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Active users

Active users, in the context of MediaWiki-based platforms such as Wikipedia, denote registered accounts that have executed any logged action—encompassing edits, deletions, or other modifications—recorded in the recent changes log within the preceding 30 days.^[1] This metric, accessible via the Special:Statistics page and Special:ActiveUsers interface, serves as a primary indicator of community engagement and platform vitality, distinct from narrower definitions like "active editors," which require at least five content-namespace edits per month by non-bot users.^[1]^[2] The calculation of active users relies on querying the recent changes database for unique user identifiers with activity in the specified timeframe, configurable via the $wgActiveUserDays parameter, defaulting to 30 days and focusing on edit-like actions though inclusive of broader logs.^[3] In Wikimedia projects, this yields figures such as approximately 122,000 active registered users on the English Wikipedia as of early 2025, representing a minuscule fraction of total registered accounts exceeding 50 million, underscoring a persistent challenge in sustaining broad participation despite millions of monthly readers.^[4]^[5] Such metrics highlight the concentration of contributions among a dedicated core, with very active editors (100+ monthly content edits) numbering far fewer, often in the low thousands per major language edition.^[1] While active user counts have shown modest fluctuations—rising temporarily during events like the COVID-19 pandemic before stabilizing—their stagnation relative to page view growth has prompted internal research into retention barriers, including interface complexity and content moderation dynamics, without yielding sustained reversal of decline trends observed since the mid-2000s.^[6]^[7] This metric's simplicity facilitates cross-project comparisons, as evidenced in language-specific analytics, yet critiques note its overinclusivity of minor or automated activities, potentially inflating perceptions of engagement over substantive editorial output.^[2]

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition and Distinctions from Other Metrics

Active users quantify the number of unique individuals who perform qualifying interactions with a digital platform, application, or service within a specified timeframe, such as 24 hours for daily active users (DAU), seven days for weekly active users (WAU), or 30 days for monthly active users (MAU). Qualifying interactions typically include events like logging in, posting content, or initiating sessions that exceed minimal thresholds, such as viewing multiple pages or spending sufficient time engaged, thereby serving as a proxy for genuine user involvement rather than passive presence.^[8]^[9]^[10] This metric fundamentally differs from total registered users, which count all accounts created irrespective of post-registration activity, often inflating figures with dormant or abandoned profiles that do not contribute to platform vitality. For instance, a service might report millions of registered users accumulated over years, yet active users could represent only a fraction if retention falters, highlighting engagement decay rather than nominal sign-ups.^[9]^[11] In contrast to pageviews or impressions, which aggregate all content loads or ad exposures without deduplicating by individual, active users enforce uniqueness via identifiers like device IDs or logged-in accounts, preventing overcounting from repeated actions by the same person.^[12] Sessions, another related measure, track discrete periods of continuous activity per user but accumulate across multiple instances without capping at one per timeframe, thus capturing frequency within engagement rather than mere participation breadth.^[12]^[8] Definitions of "active" can vary across platforms—for example, some tech firms like Meta count any login or core feature use for MAU, while analytics tools such as Google Analytics require an "engaged session" involving at least 10 seconds of activity or specific events—underscoring that active users prioritize behavioral evidence of value extraction over superficial metrics like downloads or installs, which ignore sustained use.^[9]^[8] This focus enables causal inference about product stickiness, as ratios like DAU/MAU reveal daily habits (e.g., values above 0.2 often indicate habitual tools like social media), distinguishing habitual platforms from sporadic ones without conflating acquisition with retention.^[11]^[10]

Variants Including DAU, MAU, and WAU

Daily active users (DAU) represent the count of unique individuals who interact with a digital product or service within a 24-hour period, typically defined by at least one session or qualifying engagement such as logging in or performing a core action.^[13]^[14] This metric emphasizes short-term frequency, making it suitable for platforms with habitual daily use, like social media or messaging apps.^[10] Weekly active users (WAU) extend the measurement to unique users engaging over a seven-day window, capturing broader weekly patterns while accounting for variations in daily habits.^[13]^[15] WAU is often applied to services with episodic usage, such as productivity tools or gaming apps where engagement clusters around specific days.^[16] Monthly active users (MAU) quantify unique users active within a 30-day or calendar-month span, providing a longer-term view of retention and reach without overemphasizing daily fluctuations.^[10]^[11] This variant is prevalent in investor reporting for consumer apps, as it reflects sustained interest over time, though it can mask underlying churn if not paired with shorter metrics.^[17] These variants derive from a core active user concept—unique entities performing predefined interactions—but diverge in temporal scope to suit analytical needs, with ratios like DAU/MAU indicating "stickiness" or habitual engagement (e.g., a 20% ratio suggesting strong daily retention).^[18]^[10] Definitions of "active" vary by provider, often requiring customization based on business logic, such as session starts in analytics platforms.^[19]

Historical Development

Origins in Web Analytics

The measurement of active users in web analytics emerged in the mid-1990s as websites sought to quantify distinct visitor engagement beyond crude aggregates like total hits. Server log analysis formed the initial foundation, capturing requests to web servers and enabling rudimentary tracking of user paths through page views.^[20]^[21] Early tools prioritized volume metrics, but the limitations of shared server data—such as inability to reliably differentiate unique individuals from repeat accesses—prompted refinements toward user-level granularity.^[22] Pioneering software like Analog, launched in 1995, represented a key milestone by parsing server logs to detail which pages users visited, providing the first structured insights into navigational behavior and implying active participation.^[21]^[23] Commercial adoption accelerated with firms such as WebTrends, established in 1993, which commercialized log-based reporting and introduced estimates of unique visitors via IP address proxies to approximate distinct active entities.^[24] This approach treated an IP-session combination as a stand-in for an active user, though inaccuracies arose from network address translation (NAT), dynamic IPs, and corporate proxies masking multiple users behind single addresses. The late 1990s saw enhancements through client-side technologies, including JavaScript page tagging and HTTP cookies—first standardized by Netscape in 1994—to enable persistent identifiers for tracking unique users across visits.^[22]^[25] These innovations shifted metrics from server-centric logs to hybrid models, allowing analytics platforms to report "unique visitors" as a direct precursor to modern active user counts, defined as individuals generating activity within defined timeframes like daily or monthly periods. By quantifying distinct interactions rather than mere impressions, this evolution supported causal inferences about site efficacy, such as correlating visitor uniqueness with content appeal or conversion potential, though persistent challenges like cookie deletion and privacy tools underscored the metric's probabilistic nature.^[26]

Popularization by Tech Platforms Post-2000s

The shift toward active user metrics in the early 2000s coincided with the rise of Web 2.0 platforms, which emphasized user-generated content and participatory interactions over static page views, necessitating measures of ongoing engagement to assess network value and retention.^[27] Social networking sites like MySpace, launched in 2003, pioneered the tracking of daily interactions to quantify user loyalty amid rapid growth, marking a departure from traditional web analytics focused on total visits.^[28] This era's platforms recognized that mere registration or downloads overstated viability, as sustained daily usage signaled stronger monetization potential through advertising and data.^[29] Facebook accelerated the metric's standardization starting in 2004, when it began internally prioritizing active users to differentiate engaged communities from dormant sign-ups, publicly reporting 1 million active users by late that year and scaling to 12 million by end-2005.^[30] By 2006, as Facebook expanded beyond colleges, it highlighted monthly active users (MAU) in media kits and investor pitches, achieving a DAU/MAU ratio around 65%, which underscored high "stickiness" compared to peers.^[31] The DAU/MAU ratio itself emerged as a benchmark for engagement in social games and apps around this time, with platforms like Zynga adopting it to evaluate user retention in viral mechanics.^[32] Post-2007, the iPhone's launch and mobile app proliferation further entrenched daily active users (DAU) as a core indicator, with Twitter (founded 2006) and early apps reporting DAU to investors for real-time usage validation over inflated totals.^[33] By the 2010s, these metrics dominated SEC filings and earnings calls; Facebook's 2012 IPO prospectus, for example, detailed 845 million MAU and 483 million DAU, framing them as proxies for ad revenue scalability.^[34] This adoption influenced venture funding, where ratios below 20-30% DAU/MAU often signaled churn risks, prioritizing causal links between engagement frequency and long-term value over vanity metrics like total downloads.^[35]

Measurement Techniques

Data Collection Methods

Data collection for active users relies on event logging systems integrated into digital platforms, where user interactions are captured and associated with unique identifiers to enable aggregation into metrics like daily active users (DAU). Platforms typically embed analytics SDKs or scripts, such as Firebase SDK for mobile apps or gtag.js for websites, which automatically or manually log qualifying events—such as app launches, page views, or session starts—triggered by user activity.^[36]^[8] These events are transmitted to backend servers in real-time or batched, often including timestamps and device/app-specific data to delineate activity within defined periods, like 24 hours for DAU.^[37] Unique user identification forms the core of deduplication, preventing overcounting from multiple interactions by the same individual. For web applications, Google Analytics employs client IDs stored in first-party cookies, generated upon initial visit and persisting across sessions unless cleared, while mobile apps use app instance IDs or device-specific identifiers like the Google Advertising ID on Android.^[8]^[38] When users are authenticated, server-assigned User IDs override device-based tracking for cross-device consistency, linking activity across browsers or devices to a single profile.^[8] Analytics providers like Google apply probabilistic modeling to estimate uniqueness when identifiers are absent or inconsistent, drawing from signals such as IP addresses, user agents, and behavioral patterns, though this introduces approximation rather than exact counts.^[39] Server-side processing aggregates these logs by querying databases for distinct identifiers tied to engaged events within time frames, with engagement often defined as sessions exceeding 10 seconds or involving key actions like conversions.^[8] Tools such as AppsFlyer or Amplitude facilitate custom queries for DAU/MAU, summing unique users per day or month via SQL-like operations on event data streams.^[40] Privacy regulations like GDPR influence collection by requiring consent for identifiers, prompting anonymization techniques such as hashing or sampling, which platforms implement to comply while preserving metric utility.^[41] Hybrid approaches combine client- and server-side logging for robustness, as server logs capture all requests independently of client execution, mitigating issues like ad blockers that block SDK transmissions.^[42]

Accuracy and Verification Protocols

Platforms implement accuracy protocols for active user metrics by standardizing definitions of "activity," such as logging in, posting content, or interacting with features, to ensure consistent measurement across periods.^[15] Deduplication occurs through unique identifiers like account IDs, device fingerprints, or hashed IP addresses, preventing overcounting of the same user across sessions or devices.^[43] These methods rely on server-side logging to capture events in real-time, with rolling 28- or 30-day windows for DAU, WAU, or MAU calculations to reflect recent engagement.^[11] Verification against artificial inflation involves bot detection techniques, including analysis of user-agent strings to flag automated scripts, IP reputation checks against known bot networks, and behavioral heuristics like session duration, mouse entropy, or click patterns that deviate from human norms.^[44] Machine learning models trained on historical data classify suspicious activity by clustering anomalies, such as rapid-fire actions or uniform timing, often achieving detection rates above 90% for sophisticated bots when combined with rule-based filters.^[45] Platforms like Google Analytics automatically exclude traffic from Google's crawler and other verified bots via predefined filters, while custom implementations use probabilistic sampling to audit subsets of data for manual review.^[46] For public reporting, companies disclose methodologies in financial filings, such as Meta's definition of MAU as unique users logging into Facebook.com or mobile apps monthly, with quarterly estimates of duplicate or fake account removals exceeding hundreds of millions.^[47] Independent audits or third-party tools, like those from Similarweb, cross-verify reported figures against web traffic panels, though discrepancies arise due to proprietary data silos.^[48] Privacy regulations, including GDPR and CCPA, constrain cross-site tracking, prompting reliance on consented signals like opt-in logins, which can introduce undercounting but enhance data integrity.^[49] Challenges persist in verifying cross-platform or multi-device activity, where probabilistic matching via graph algorithms links sessions without unique IDs, potentially yielding error margins of 5-10% in high-traffic environments.^[50] Ongoing protocols include A/B testing of detection thresholds and periodic model retraining to adapt to evolving bot tactics, ensuring metrics reflect genuine human engagement over time.^[45]

Commercial and Business Applications

Role in Key Performance Indicators and Monetization

Active user metrics, particularly daily active users (DAU) and monthly active users (MAU), function as foundational key performance indicators (KPIs) for technology platforms, quantifying engagement levels and user retention to gauge product viability and growth trajectories.^[51] The DAU/MAU ratio, a derivative metric expressing the proportion of monthly users active daily, serves as a proxy for "stickiness," indicating habitual usage patterns essential for long-term platform health and informing resource allocation in product development.^[35]^[52] In monetization strategies, active users underpin revenue streams, especially in advertising-centric models where they represent the inventory for impressions, clicks, and targeted placements. Platforms leverage behavioral data from active sessions to optimize ad relevance, boosting metrics like click-through rates and cost per mille (CPM), which directly scale with user volume and frequency.^[53] For ad-dependent firms, sustained DAU growth correlates with expanded addressable audiences, enabling revenue forecasting and funding pursuits by demonstrating scalable demand.^[10] Meta Platforms exemplifies this linkage, deriving 97.3% of its 2024 revenue—totaling $160.63 billion—from advertising, fueled by over 3 billion DAU across its family of apps (Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp).^[54]^[55] This revenue intensity reflects an average revenue per user (ARPU) of $49.63, elevated by engagement-driven ad efficacy amid a 21.7% year-over-year ad revenue increase in Q2 2024.^[56]^[57] Similarly, broader social media ad expenditures, projected to rise 9.37% annually through 2030, hinge on active user bases that sustain personalized targeting and impression volumes.^[58] Beyond ads, active users facilitate freemium-to-premium conversions in subscription models, though advertising remains dominant, with platforms like YouTube generating $959.1 million in U.S. youth-targeted ad revenue in 2023 via high-engagement cohorts.^[59]

Usage in Investor Communications and Reporting

Technology companies, particularly those in social media, gaming, and mobile applications, routinely disclose active user metrics such as daily active users (DAU) and monthly active users (MAU) in quarterly earnings releases, SEC filings like Form 10-Q, and investor presentations to quantify user engagement and platform scale.^[60] These figures serve as proxies for network effects and long-term monetization potential, where higher active user counts signal stronger user retention and advertising inventory value, often prioritized over short-term profitability in growth-stage firms.^[61] For example, Meta Platforms reports DAU and MAU in its earnings materials, with Q2 2024 figures showing 3.27 billion family daily active people (DAP) and a DAU/MAU ratio illustrating usage frequency; this ratio, calculated as DAU divided by MAU, typically ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 for social platforms and is interpreted by investors as a measure of "stickiness."^[62] Similarly, Spotify Technology S.A. included in its FY 2023 shareholder letter a 46% year-over-year increase in MAUs to 602 million and a 65% rise in DAUs to 239 million, linking these to revenue growth from premium subscriptions.^[63] Such disclosures appear in management's discussion and analysis (MD&A) sections of 10-Q filings, where companies define active users based on logged-in interactions like viewing content or posting, excluding bots to varying degrees of verification.^[61] In earnings calls and investor decks, executives emphasize active user trends to contextualize financial performance; for instance, sequential or year-over-year growth in MAU is highlighted as evidence of market expansion, while stagnation may prompt explanations tied to algorithmic changes or competition.^[64] Investors scrutinize these metrics for comparability across peers—e.g., Snapchat's DAU focus versus LinkedIn's MAU—using them to model future ad revenue, often applying multiples like $100–$200 per MAU for valuation in pre-IPO assessments.^[9] However, definitions can vary; some firms count any login as activity, potentially inflating figures without corresponding revenue uplift, a point raised in analyst critiques during post-earnings discussions.^[60] Regulatory requirements under SEC rules mandate material non-GAAP metrics like active users if they aid understanding of operations, with companies providing reconciliations and historical trends in exhibits.^[65] Private firms in investor updates or pitch decks similarly track MAU as a core vital sign for venture capital reporting, correlating it with churn rates and lifetime value to justify funding rounds.^[66] This usage underscores active users' role in bridging operational data to investor expectations, though reliance on self-reported figures invites scrutiny over auditability compared to audited revenue lines.^[62]

Academic and Analytical Applications

Behavioral Research and User Prediction

Behavioral research on active users examines patterns of engagement derived from metrics such as daily active users (DAU) and monthly active users (MAU), which quantify users performing specific actions like logging in, posting, or interacting within defined time frames. Empirical studies demonstrate that higher activity levels correlate with sustained retention, as frequent interactions signal habit formation and reduced churn risk; for example, analyses of social network data reveal that users with consistent activity exhibit 81.12% retention rates compared to 18.87% churn, with activity frequency identified as a primary predictor alongside transaction volumes.^[67] These findings underscore causal links between behavioral inertia—driven by repeated exposure and reinforcement—and long-term platform adherence, rather than mere correlation. Differentiation between active and passive usage further refines behavioral insights, with active behaviors (e.g., content creation or direct interactions) associated with elevated emotional outcomes, including greater positive affect but also heightened anxiety symptoms, as evidenced in longitudinal surveys of social media cohorts.^[68] In online communities, activity patterns predict real-world behavioral shifts, such as escalated participation in domain-specific groups (e.g., work or addiction forums) leading to measurable changes in productivity or habit reinforcement, based on observational data from platforms tracking login and contribution frequencies.^[69] Such research prioritizes longitudinal datasets over self-reports to mitigate recall biases, revealing that abrupt drops in activity precede disengagement, enabling early intervention models grounded in observable metrics. User prediction models employ active user data as core inputs for forecasting engagement trajectories, often via machine learning techniques like neural networks and logistic regression. Context-aware frameworks enhance accuracy by integrating activity logs with temporal and environmental variables, achieving superior performance in delineating active (e.g., posting) versus passive (e.g., viewing) states, as validated on large-scale interaction datasets.^[70] For retention specifically, predictive analytics on telecom and app users show activity intensity as a top feature in churn models, with neural networks yielding higher precision (e.g., via RoBERTa embeddings) than baselines, processing historical DAU/MAU ratios to flag at-risk users up to 30 days in advance.^[71] ^[72] These models emphasize feature engineering from raw activity timestamps, avoiding overreliance on demographic proxies, and report AUC scores exceeding 0.85 in empirical validations, though generalizability varies across platforms due to differing action thresholds.^[73] Advanced applications extend to location-based social networks, where spatiotemporal activity patterns enable classification of user intents with deep learning, outperforming generalized linear models by capturing sequential dependencies in mobility-derived engagements.^[73] Critically, prediction efficacy hinges on data quality, as bot-inflated activity can distort models, prompting hybrid approaches combining rule-based filters with probabilistic inference for robust causal attribution. Overall, these methodologies facilitate proactive platform optimizations, such as targeted re-engagement for low-activity users, supported by evidence that activity-normalized interventions boost retention by 15-20% in controlled studies.^[74]

Empirical Studies on Engagement Patterns

Empirical studies consistently identify power-law distributions in user activity levels across online platforms, where a minority of highly active users generate the bulk of content and interactions.^[75] This pattern emerges from mechanisms such as preferential attachment, whereby popular content attracts further engagement, amplifying disparities in participation.^[76] For instance, analyses of social networks reveal Zipf-like scaling in posting frequencies, with exponents typically ranging from -1 to -2, indicating heavy-tailed activity.^[77] Distinctions between active and passive engagement further elucidate patterns, as active behaviors—like posting or commenting—correlate with sustained platform retention, unlike passive consumption. A 2024 study on Snapchat, analyzing over 79,000 users and 105 million sessions from July-August 2021, demonstrated that context-aware models incorporating location and connectivity predict active engagement (e.g., messaging) with 52% explained variance, outperforming behavioral baselines by 51%.^[70] Such models highlight temporal and situational factors driving bursts of activity, often following diurnal or event-triggered cycles. In collaborative platforms like Wikipedia, editor engagement exhibits similar skewed distributions, with edit counts adhering to power laws and low overall retention rates. New contributors who initiate with high edit volumes show elevated probabilities of transitioning to sustained activity, a recurrent predictor identified in longitudinal analyses of editor trajectories.^[78] Collaboration dynamics reveal role-based patterns, such as coordinators sustaining article quality through iterative edits, while empirical classifications of contributor interactions underscore how diverse participation modes— from minor tweaks to major revisions—shape content evolution.^[79] These findings, drawn from network analyses of editing histories, emphasize causal links between early momentum and long-term dynamics in volunteer-driven ecosystems.^[80]

Criticisms and Controversies

Inflation Through Bots and Fake Accounts

Bots and automated accounts, along with fake or duplicate human-operated profiles, have been documented to artificially boost reported active user metrics on various online platforms, often by generating simulated logins, views, or interactions that mimic genuine activity. These entities can evade detection long enough to be included in monthly or daily active user (MAU/DAU) tallies, thereby inflating key performance indicators used for advertising revenue projections and company valuations. For instance, social media bots are deployed to amplify engagement signals such as likes, shares, and follows, distorting the perceived scale of user bases.^[81]^[82] On Twitter (now X), concerns over bot-driven inflation peaked during Elon Musk's 2022 acquisition attempt, where he publicly estimated that at least 20% of the platform's reported users were bots or spam accounts, potentially overstating the genuine active audience by tens of millions. Musk's skepticism stemmed from internal data demands, highlighting how undetected automation could pad metrics like monetizable daily active users (mDAU), which Twitter reported at around 237 million in Q1 2022 before adjustments. Independent analyses have varied, with a 2017 study pegging bot prevalence at up to 15% of accounts, though post-acquisition purges in 2023 removed millions of suspicious profiles without fully resolving transparency debates.^[83] Meta Platforms, operator of Facebook and Instagram, routinely discloses fake account prevalence through sampled audits of monthly active users (MAUs), estimating that about 5% of Facebook's MAUs were fake as of early 2019, with proactive removals exceeding 3 billion accounts in the first half of that year alone. By Q4 2023, Meta's transparency reports indicated ongoing quarterly takedowns of 1.7 to 2.6 billion fake profiles across its family of apps, suggesting persistent challenges in preventing these from contributing to active user counts prior to detection—despite claims that the net impact on reported MAUs remains below 5-10% after adjustments. Critics, including security researchers, argue that self-reported figures may understate the issue, as advanced AI-driven fakes increasingly blend with real activity, potentially skewing advertiser perceptions of reach.^[84]^[85]^[86] In collaborative platforms like Wikipedia, approved bots perform substantial automated tasks, accounting for up to 77% of edits on affiliated projects like Wikidata as of 2014, which can elevate aggregate activity metrics if not segregated from human editor counts. While Wikipedia's active user definitions emphasize human contributions (e.g., excluding bot-only accounts in editor rankings), unauthorized sockpuppet or spam bots have occasionally infiltrated to simulate broader participation, prompting policy enforcements like edit filters and account audits to mitigate artificial inflation of perceived community vitality. Such manipulations undermine trust in edit volume as a proxy for active human engagement, though official metrics prioritize verified human edits.^[87]

Overreliance as Vanity Metrics and Investor Deception

Active user counts, particularly metrics like daily active users (DAU) and monthly active users (MAU), are frequently labeled vanity metrics because they emphasize raw volume over indicators of sustainable value, such as retention rates or per-user revenue.^[88] ^[89] These figures can be inflated by defining "activity" loosely—such as a single login or page view—without verifying meaningful engagement, leading companies to project illusory growth that obscures operational weaknesses. ^[90] Critics argue this approach prioritizes optics for funding rounds, where high user numbers signal scalability, even if they correlate poorly with profitability or long-term viability.^[91] Overreliance on these metrics has fueled investor deception claims in multiple high-profile cases, as executives touted user growth to justify valuations detached from revenue fundamentals. In securities fraud litigation, plaintiffs have contended that MAU disclosures were misleading, portraying them as proxies for monetization when they functioned more as superficial benchmarks susceptible to manipulation.^[92] ^[93] For example, Snapchat's pivot to reporting DAU in 2016 amplified perceptions of user stickiness, contributing to a valuation surge to $25 billion, though subsequent scrutiny revealed inconsistencies between user counts and advertising revenue efficiency.^[94] Similarly, Quibi's 2020 launch hyped projected DAU in the millions to secure $1.75 billion in funding, but actual metrics plummeted over 90% within three months, highlighting how vanity-driven projections deceived backers about market fit. Such practices extend to broader tech ecosystems, where startups leverage active user benchmarks in pitch decks to attract venture capital, often at the expense of cohort analysis or lifetime value metrics that better predict sustainability.^[95] Courts have sometimes dismissed deception claims by affirming MAU's contextual relevance, as in rulings emphasizing that investors must weigh metrics against disclosures of limitations like non-unique counting methods.^[92] Nonetheless, empirical patterns show that platforms overindexing on user acquisition via low-barrier activity—without correlating it to engagement depth—face higher churn risks, eroding investor trust when growth stalls, as evidenced by serial declines in MAU-to-revenue ratios across underperforming unicorns.^[96] This dynamic underscores a causal disconnect: inflated active user reports drive short-term capital inflows but precipitate corrections when underlying activity fails to convert to economic output.^[91]

Debates on True Engagement vs. Minimal Activity

Critics of the active users metric argue that it often conflates minimal platform access with substantive user involvement, leading to inflated perceptions of platform vitality. For instance, many platforms define "active users" broadly as individuals who log in or initiate a session within a given period, such as daily active users (DAU) or monthly active users (MAU), without requiring deeper interactions like content creation, commenting, or sharing. This threshold can capture passive behaviors, such as brief scrolling or automated check-ins, which do not necessarily indicate value accrual for users or the platform. Amplitude, an analytics firm, has highlighted that relying on logins as the sole activity proxy reflects external hype rather than genuine retention or satisfaction, potentially misleading stakeholders about long-term sustainability.^[90] Similarly, an analysis in The Conversation notes that while billions of reported active users signal reach, the metric's vagueness—often limited to login events—obscures whether users derive meaningful utility, as passive consumption dominates over interactive participation.^[97] Proponents counter that active users provide a foundational gauge of audience scale, essential for network effects and advertiser interest, but acknowledge the need for complementary metrics to assess depth. Engaged users, by contrast, are typically measured through indicators like session duration, repeat interactions, or conversion actions, which better correlate with retention and monetization. A study in the Journal of Interactive Marketing synthesizes literature showing that while active user counts correlate with initial adoption, true engagement—encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions—predicts loyalty more reliably, as minimal activity often precedes churn. Platforms like Meta and X (formerly Twitter) report DAU figures exceeding 1 billion and 500 million respectively as of 2024, yet internal leaks and third-party audits reveal that a significant portion involves low-effort logins rather than content-driven engagement, fueling debates on metric manipulation for investor appeal.^[98]^[99] These debates extend to causal implications: high active user tallies may drive short-term valuations but fail to ensure causal links to revenue if engagement remains superficial, as evidenced by cohort analyses where low-interaction users exhibit rapid attrition rates. Empirical research from app analytics distinguishes active users (reach-focused) from engaged ones (effectiveness-focused), recommending hybrid models that weight actions by impact to mitigate vanity metric pitfalls. Such critiques underscore a broader tension in digital metrics, where minimal activity metrics prioritize quantifiable scale over qualitative depth, potentially distorting strategic decisions unless triangulated with behavioral data.^[100]^[101]

Limitations and Challenges

Technical Constraints in Tracking

Tracking active users on online platforms faces fundamental challenges due to the absence of a universal definition for "activity," which complicates consistent measurement across systems. Platforms may define active users variably—such as those logging in, performing specific actions like edits or posts, or simply generating sessions—leading to incomparable metrics and potential over- or underestimation of engagement. For instance, monthly active users (MAU) often equate minimal interactions, like a single login, with sustained usage, rendering the metric susceptible to hype-driven inflation rather than reflecting genuine participation.^[102]^[90] Technical implementation relies heavily on identifiers like cookies, IP addresses, or device fingerprints, but these are inherently unreliable for deduplicating unique users. Cookies can be deleted, blocked by privacy tools such as ad blockers, or invalidated by browser policies, while IP addresses fluctuate due to dynamic allocation, VPN usage, or shared networks, resulting in overcounting the same user as multiple or undercounting cross-device activity. Probabilistic modeling attempts to approximate uniqueness, but these introduce errors, especially in high-traffic environments where real-time processing demands scalable algorithms like those using sketches for cardinality estimation, yet still falter under volume.^[103]^[104]^[105] Privacy regulations, including GDPR and emerging restrictions on third-party tracking, further constrain persistent user profiling by mandating consent and data minimization, often forcing anonymization that erodes tracking fidelity. Server-side logging captures events but struggles to link them across sessions without client-side cooperation, exacerbating inaccuracies in platforms with anonymous access, such as wikis where unregistered edits evade full attribution. Nonfinancial metrics like active users thus exhibit measurement inaccuracies, as highlighted in analyses of social media reporting, where weighting and verification remain problematic without standardized auditing.^[106]^[107]

Ethical Issues Including Privacy and Manipulation

Measuring active users, such as through daily or monthly active user (DAU/MAU) metrics, necessitates extensive tracking of user interactions, logins, and device identifiers, which often involves collecting personal data without fully transparent consent mechanisms.^[108] This practice raises privacy concerns, as platforms aggregate behavioral data across sessions to deduplicate unique users, potentially exposing individuals to risks of data breaches or unauthorized profiling.^[109] For instance, reliance on cookies, IP addresses, or persistent IDs to compute these metrics can conflict with regulations like the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which mandates explicit consent for non-essential tracking, yet many platforms embed such measurement in core functionality, blurring lines between necessary and invasive data use.^[110] Ethical critiques highlight the opacity of privacy policies, where users may unknowingly agree to activity monitoring that extends beyond mere counting to enable targeted advertising or algorithmic personalization.^[108] Studies indicate that complex policy language hinders genuine informed consent, effectively undermining user autonomy and fostering a surveillance economy where active user data fuels commercial exploitation.^[111] Moreover, cross-platform data sharing for user uniqueness—common in federated metrics—amplifies re-identification risks, as anonymized activity logs can be de-anonymized through correlation with other datasets.^[112] On manipulation, the imperative to inflate active user figures incentivizes platforms to deploy addictive design elements, such as infinite scrolling and push notifications, which exploit psychological vulnerabilities to prolong engagement rather than enhance user welfare.^[113] These tactics, rooted in gamification, prioritize metric optimization—per Campbell's Law, where goodharting corrupts indicators by overemphasizing them—leading to unintended harms like reduced attention spans and exposure to polarizing content that sustains activity at the expense of truth-seeking behavior.^[113] Ethical analyses argue that algorithms tuned for maximal engagement manipulate user cognition, akin to behavioral nudges without opt-out, raising concerns over autonomy erosion and societal polarization.^[114] For example, visibility of engagement signals (likes, shares) has been shown to heighten susceptibility to low-credibility information, as users heuristically favor high-metric content, facilitating misinformation spread under the guise of popularity.^[115] Regulatory scrutiny underscores these issues; the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has investigated platforms for deceptive engagement practices that mislead users about data use for metrics, while EU probes into algorithmic manipulation emphasize the need for transparency in how activity data influences feeds.^[116] Critics from bodies like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) contend that without stricter auditing of active user methodologies, platforms evade accountability for manipulative architectures that conflate voluntary activity with coerced retention.^[109] Balancing these ethical tensions requires prioritizing user-centric designs over metric-driven growth, though empirical evidence suggests persistent conflicts between business incentives and privacy rights.^[112]

References

[1]
Analytics/Metric definitions - MediaWiki
Sep 21, 2024 · Note: This definition differs from that of "active users" in Special:Statistics, which counts any account with an action recorded in the RC ...
[2]
Research:Active editor - Meta-Wiki - Wikimedia.org
Aug 2, 2024 · An active editor is a permanent non-bot user who makes at least 5 edits to content namespaces during a given month.
[3]
Manual:Configuration settings - MediaWiki
Sep 10, 2025 · Statistics and content analysis. $wgActiveUserDays – The number of days within which a person must make edits to be considered an "active" user ...
[4]
Latest Wikipedia Statistics in 2025 (Downloadable) | StatsUp
Jan 7, 2025 · Wikipedia's English subdomain led with 122,000 active registered users, followed by French and German versions with over 18,000 users each, ...
[5]
https://stats.wikimedia.org/
[6]
Product Analytics/Data products/ptwiki metrics summary Apr2024
Number of active user editors is defined as the number of logged-in users who made at least one content edit on Portuguese Wikipedia in the given period of ...
[7]
Research:Modeling monthly active editors - Meta-Wiki
Oct 20, 2024 · Proportions of active editor classes in Monthly Active Editors is plotted with an equation showing how they add up. These values are based on ...Missing: calculation | Show results with:calculation
[8]
[GA4] Understand user metrics - Analytics Help
Differences in depth ; Active users. The number of unique users who engaged with your site or app in the specified date range. An active user is any user who has ...
[9]
Understanding Monthly Active Users (MAU): Definition and Uses in ...
Monthly active users (MAU) is a key performance indicator (KPI) that measures the number of unique users who engage with a site or app within a month. It ...What Is Monthly Active Users? · Different Uses and Calculations
[10]
MAU, WAU, and DAU: Why should we care about 'active' users?
Jul 26, 2024 · MAU is monthly active users, DAU is daily active users, and WAU is weekly active users. MAU measures users active in a month, DAU and WAU in a ...
[11]
Understanding DAU, WAU & MAU active users metrics - Adapty
Aug 25, 2025 · For apps and websites, “active users” are the individuals who engage with these platforms within a specific timeframe. This engagement can vary ...
[12]
Sessions vs. Users vs. Pageviews in Google Analytics | Databox Blog
May 29, 2024 · Users are unique visitors; sessions are visits (one user can have multiple sessions); pageviews are any view of a page. One user can have ...Missing: registered | Show results with:registered
[13]
Understanding DAU, WAU & MAU metrics - Adjust Help Center
Daily active users (DAU): The number of unique users that had at least one session in the app in a day. · Weekly active users (WAU): The number of unique users ...
[14]
DAU WAU MAU Metrics Explained: Guide to Measuring Active Users
Your weekly active users are the number of unique users that engage with your app in a week. Calculate WAU the same way you calculate MAU. The difference here ...Monthly Active Users (mau) · Daily Active Users (dau) · User Engagement Score
[15]
Active Users: DAU, WAU, and MAU Explained - Statsig
Jul 8, 2024 · WAU measures unique users over a 7-day period, and MAU looks at unique users over a 30-day span. Different apps might focus on different metrics ...
[16]
Daily Active Users (DAU): what and how | Signals & Stories - Mixpanel
Nov 22, 2017 · Weekly Active Users (WAU): A weekly version of DAU. It's a useful measurement for businesses whose apps are used predominantly during the ...
[17]
Understanding engagement metrics like DAU, WAU, MAU - Equals
For example, a DAU:WAU of 1.0 means that all your WAUs are active daily and return to your product every day of the week. A DAU:MAU of 0.5 is generally ...
[18]
[GA4] User stickiness - Analytics Help
Daily Active Users (DAU): the number of active users in the last 24 hours · Weekly Active Users (WAU): the number of active users in the last 7 days · Monthly ...
[19]
What is an active user and how to define them? - Adjust
An active user engages with an app within a period, counted uniquely. Common periods are daily, weekly, or monthly.
[20]
The Early Days of Web Analytics - Amplitude
Let's look back at the evolution of web analytics and how we got to where we are today. A Very Brief Historical Time Line of the Internet & Web Analytics.
[21]
The History of Web Analytics and Future Predictions (1990s-2020s)
Jan 17, 2022 · The first web analytics tool, Analog, was launched in 1995. It analyzed server logs to understand which pages a user visited on a website.
[22]
The Ancient Geek History of Web Analytics - AIMCLEAR®
Log files vs. The origin of analytics data started in log files and then moved on to JavaScript collectors and cookies. The log file is a server log. Someone ...
[23]
Explore The Multiverse Of Web Analytics Tools - TechDogs
In 1995, the first log-analyzer software was created, a tool called Analog, followed by a proliferation of tools known as "hit counters" in the late 90s. Hit ...
[24]
A brief history of website analytics | Leady.com - B2B lead generation
In 1993, the log file analysis gave rise to early commercial web analytics companies starting with the found of WebTrends in 1993.
[25]
Collecting Web Data: A Look at Web Analytics Methodology
Jan 4, 2019 · You probably remember the iconic web counters from the mid-90s. These were some of the first examples of client-side web traffic analysis.
[26]
How Unique Is A Unique Visitor? - AVC
Feb 18, 2010 · Each of those browsers I use every day drops a cookie identifying me as a "unique visitor" and the web analytics software the website is using ...Missing: early | Show results with:early<|separator|>
[27]
Understanding Web 2.0: Key Features, Impact, and Examples
Web 2.0 represents a transformative stage of the internet, characterized by increased user-generated content, participatory culture, and improved ...
[28]
Top 10 product metrics - Medium
Mar 3, 2024 · Origins: DAU and MAU metrics became widely used with the development of online services and mobile applications. They were developed to measure ...
[29]
30/10/10 - AVC
Jul 30, 2011 · One fairly common law of web/mobile physics is the ratio of registered users/downloads to monthly actives, daily actives, and max concurrent users.
[30]
Facebook: Revenue & Usage Statistics (2025) - SendShort
Jan 7, 2025 · Facebook's active user base has grown exponentially from 1 million in 2004 to 3.03 billion in 2023. Major milestones include reaching 608 million users by 2010.
[31]
Has Facebook's DAU/MAU always been ~50%? - Quora
May 15, 2012 · The original advertising media kit for Facebook with data back from 2004 confirms that their DAU/MAU was always very high, starting at 65% in ...How and when did Facebook make its first dollar? - QuoraHow long did it take Facebook to get to its often quoted ratio of - QuoraMore results from www.quora.com
[32]
[PDF] FINAL THESIS - University of Pennsylvania
Since social games, other consumer apps began being judged by the DAU/MAU ratio, which is now known as a popular metric for “user engagement.”
[33]
Daily Active Users Is Tech's New Most Important Metric - The Ringer
Nov 10, 2016 · Since the dawn of time (or at least Facebook), monthly active users (MAUs) have been the go-to metric to measure the success of internet ...
[34]
Monthly Active Users (MAUs): How Do Facebook, Twitter, and ...
Nov 8, 2016 · For example, in addition to the MAU figure in the preceding chart, Facebook also reports daily active users (DAUs) of 1.18 billion, mobile ...
[35]
DAU/MAU is an important metric to measure engagement, but here's ...
DAU/MAU is a popular metric for user engagement – it's the ratio of your daily active users over your monthly active users, expressed as a percentage.
[36]
Measure screenviews | Google Analytics for Firebase
Google Analytics tracks screen transitions and attaches information about the current screen to events, enabling you to track metrics such as user engagement ...
[37]
https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/9304153?hl=en
[38]
Get unlimited app analytics - Firebase - Google
Google Analytics provides free, unlimited reporting on up to 500 distinct events. The SDK automatically captures certain key events and user properties.Missing: methods | Show results with:methods
[39]
Google Analytics Unique Visitors Guide (2025) - MeasureSchool
Mar 26, 2025 · Learn how Google Analytics unique visitors are tracked, where to find them in GA4, and what limitations and best practices to keep in mind.
[40]
Calculate daily and monthly active users (DAU and MAU)
Sep 16, 2025 · At a glance: Learn how to calculate Daily and Monthly active users to get valuable insights about your campaignsOverviewDaily Active...
[41]
Set user properties | Google Analytics for Firebase
### Summary: Firebase Tracking of Unique Users and Active Engagement Metrics
[42]
Statistics | Google Play Console
Query, explore, and compare exclusive metrics about your app from across Play Console. Find answers, analyze trends in detail with custom dimensions.Missing: methods | Show results with:methods
[43]
Monthly Active Users (MAU) | Calculator + Example - Wall Street Prep
MAU stands for “monthly active users” and counts the number of unique users that actively engaged with a site throughout a given month. Two common key ...
[44]
A guide to bot detection tools - HUMAN Security
Google detects bots using a combination of user-agent analysis, IP filtering, and behavioral monitoring. It also uses strategies like CAPTCHAs and machine ...How To Choose A Bot... · Common Bot Detection... · Do I Need Bot Detection...
[45]
7 Top Strategies for Effective Bot Detection Revealed - open-appsec
Jan 1, 2024 · Understand and define the normal user behavior of your website. · Set dynamic thresholds for different behavioral metrics. · Implement machine ...<|separator|>
[46]
https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/12253918
[47]
Facebook User & Growth Statistics to Know in 2025 - Backlinko
Sep 22, 2025 · How Many People Use Facebook? According to Meta's most recent investor report, Facebook currently has 3.07 billion monthly active users (MAUs).
[48]
Estimating Twitter's Bot-Free Monetizable Daily Active Users (mDAU)
Sep 15, 2022 · We apply an explainable machine learning algorithm using datasets of digital activities of panels of users to provide robust estimates of Twitter's average ...
[49]
https://www.feedzai.com/blog/what-is-bot-detection/
[50]
Bot Filtering Using Statistics and Machine Learning
Jan 22, 2025 · This document provides a comprehensive guide to identifying and filtering bot activity using SQL and machine learning techniques.
[51]
Important User Engagement KPIs: What are DAU, WAU, and MAU ...
These metrics measure the number of users who engage with your product or service over the specific time period indicated.
[52]
The Essential Guide to The DAU/MAU Ratio: Tutorial & Examples
The DAU/MAU ratio is a widely used measure of stickiness. It's a metric that aims to answer the question: To what extent are users returning to use the product?
[53]
Social Networking App Revenue and Usage Statistics (2025)
Sep 2, 2025 · The average smartphone user spends 2 hours and 20 minutes a day or 70 hours on social media apps every month and 55% of the population, or 4.88 billion people, ...
[54]
Meta Statistics 2025: Key Metrics & Platform Performance - Sociallyin
Within this structure, advertising revenue reached an astonishing $160 billion in 2024, constituting 97.3% of Meta's total revenue. This concentration ...
[55]
Meta Platforms Inc (META) - Advertising Revenue (Yearly) - …
Meta Platforms Inc (META) - Advertising Revenue is at a current level of 160.63B, up from 131.95B one year ago. This is a change of 21.74% from one year ago ...
[56]
https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/
[57]
[October.2024] A Peek into Meta's Earnings: Cyclical Advertising ...
Aug 19, 2025 · In Q2 2024, Meta's ad revenue grew by 21.7% year-over-year. While this growth rate has slowed compared to the previous quarter, it remains above ...
[58]
80+ Must-Know Social Media Marketing Statistics for 2025
Feb 20, 2025 · Ad spending on social media is expected to grow by 9.37% each year from 2025 to 2030. Social media ads account for 3 in every 10 dollars spent ...
[59]
Social media platforms generate billions in annual ad revenue from ...
Dec 27, 2023 · YouTube derived the greatest ad revenue from users 12 and under ($959.1 million), followed by Instagram ($801.1 million) and Facebook ($137.2 ...
[60]
Monthly Active Users (MAU) - Overview, Importance, Use
Monthly active users (MAU) is a term that refers to the number of unique customers who interacted with a product or service of a company within a month.Missing: tech | Show results with:tech
[61]
Daily Active Users (DAU) | Definition + Calculation Example
Daily Active Users (DAU) measures user engagement by counting the unique visitors that interacted with an app or site on a particular date.Missing: explanation | Show results with:explanation
[62]
DAU/MAU Ratio | Formula + Calculator - Wall Street Prep
Aug 12, 2024 · DAU/MAU Calculation Example: Meta Platforms (Facebook) · DAUs = 1,930 million · MAUs = 2,910 million.
[63]
Q4 / FY 2023 - SEC.gov
User Metrics. Monthly active users (MAUs), 60.7, 88.4, 46%. Daily active users (DAUs), 16.3, 26.9, 65%. Paid subscribers (period end), 4.2, 6.6, 57%. Q4 2022 ...
[64]
DAU/MAU Ratio | KPI example - Geckoboard
The Daily Active Users (DAU) to Monthly Active Users (MAU) Ratio measures the stickiness of your product - that is, how often people engage with your product.
[65]
[PDF] Investor Bulletin: How to Read a 10-K - SEC.gov
SEC rules require that 10-Ks follow a set order of topics. SEC rules also require companies to send an annual report to their shareholders when they are holding.Missing: active | Show results with:active
[66]
15 most-used metrics for startup investor reports - Rundit
Aug 28, 2023 · 9. MAU – Monthly Active Users: A key metric for companies with a web presence, MAU determines how many users visited a company's website or ...Missing: communications | Show results with:communications<|separator|>
[67]
[PDF] a study on predictive analysis for customer retention using knn ...
Findings reveal a retention rate of 81.12% and a churn rate of 18.87%, with customer activity, subtotal, and quantity identified as key retention factors.
[68]
Are active and passive social media use related to mental health ...
Jan 31, 2024 · Studies showed that people who use SM more actively tend to report greater wellbeing and more positive emotions, but also greater symptoms of anxiety.
[69]
Online communities come with real-world consequences for ... - Nature
Aug 2, 2024 · We focus on online communities that are exemplary for three domains: work, hate, and addictions. We review the risks that emerge from these online communities.
[70]
Context-aware prediction of active and passive user engagement
Aug 8, 2024 · In this paper, we propose that a context-aware approach to user modeling can increase the performance of predictive models while deepening our ...
[71]
Customer retention model using machine learning for improved user ...
The empirical analysis, conducted using five machine learning models, demonstrates that the Neural Network model with RoBERTa outperforms traditional methods, ...
[72]
Customer retention and churn prediction in the telecommunication ...
Jun 3, 2023 · In this study, we explore the possible factors affecting churn in the Danish telecommunication industry and how those factors connect with retention strategies.
[73]
Prediction and Classification of User Activities Using Machine ...
Mar 9, 2023 · We proposed four models based on well-known machine-learning techniques, including the generalized linear model, logistic regression, deep learning, and ...
[74]
(PDF) Predictive Analytics for Customer Retention: A Data-Driven ...
Nov 30, 2024 · This comprehensive article examines the implementation of predictive analytics and data-driven frameworks for enhancing customer retention in modern business ...
[75]
Emergence of Power Laws in Online Communities - MIS Quarterly
Sep 1, 2014 · Power law distributions of user popularity appear ubiquitous in online communities but their formation mechanisms are not well understood. This ...Missing: active | Show results with:active
[76]
(PDF) Emergence of Power Laws in Online Communities: The Role ...
Aug 23, 2025 · This study tests for the emergence of power law distributions via the mechanisms of preferential attachment, least efforts, direct reciprocity, ...
[77]
[PDF] Zipf's Law across social media - University of Waikato
Mar 6, 2022 · We find strong evidence that a power law relationship exists for every one of the social networks that we study, although this relationship ...
[78]
[PDF] User Engagement on Wikipedia: A Review of Studies of Readers ...
They found a recurrent pattern in every future high activity editor; when new Wikipedians made a large num- ber of edits initially, the probability of becoming ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[79]
Collaboration patterns in the wikipedia and their impact on article ...
Based on an empirical study, we classify contributors based on their roles in editing individual Wikipedia articles. We identify various patterns of ...Missing: engagement studies<|control11|><|separator|>
[80]
Empirical Analysis of Wikipedia Contributors: Understanding Human ...
Oct 22, 2020 · This research conducts an empirical analysis of Wikipedia contributors to uncover the underlying human dynamics shaping online collaboration ...
[81]
Duped by Bots: Why Some are Better than Others at Detecting Fake ...
Within Twitter, social bots may be employed to inflate follower counts, generate message “likes,” and induce other users to share, or “retweet,” their content.
[82]
Social Media Bots: What They Are and How to Protect Your Brand
Jun 11, 2025 · Social media bots quietly undermine the integrity of online platforms. These automated accounts impersonate real users, distort engagement metrics, manipulate ...
[83]
Elon Musk pressured Twitter to give him access to a 'firehose' of data ...
Jun 17, 2022 · Musk said at a Miami tech conference last month that he believes bots and fake users make up at least 20% of Twitter's user base, and perhaps as ...Missing: count inflation
[84]
Facebook Says 5% of Monthly Active Accounts Are Fake, Deletes 3B ...
Facebook Says 5% of Monthly Active Accounts Are Fake, Deletes 3B in 6 Months ... Facebook removed 2.2 billion fake accounts between January and March 2019 ...
[85]
Community Standards Enforcement Report - Transparency Center
Our quarterly report on how well we're doing at enforcing our policies on Facebook and Instagram.
[86]
53 Key Facebook Statistics for Business Owners in 2025 - Shopify
Sep 6, 2024 · In 2023, Meta removed more than 2.6 billion fake Facebook accounts. Facebook removed more than 19 billion fake accounts from the site between ...<|separator|>
[87]
The Shadowy World of Wikipedia's Editing Bots
Feb 13, 2014 · And on Wikidata, 77 percent of the 15,000 edits are being done by bots. Steiner's page also lists the most active bots. Wikipedia and ...Missing: inflating users
[88]
The Dangers of Vanity Metrics
Mar 31, 2023 · 1/ Daily and Monthly Active Users. From talking to ... "Is the amount of capital a founder has raised for their startup a vanity metric?
[89]
Daily Active Users (DAU) vs. Monthly Active Users (MAU)
Jul 12, 2019 · In this article, we'll take a look at the importance of monthly active users and daily active users, how to use the DAU/MAU ratio, and how to calculate each of ...<|separator|>
[90]
You're Measuring Daily Active Users Wrong - Amplitude
Jan 14, 2016 · Daily active users (DAU) is the total number of users that engage in some way with a web or mobile product on a given day.What Is Daily Active Users? · Deliver On Your Core Value · Find Out Where Most Usage...
[91]
Don't Be Fooled: Why Value/MAU Is a Valuation Trap?
Feb 6, 2024 · Value/MAU is a trap because it doesn't account for user engagement depth, revenue per user, and profitability, and can lead to misleading ...
[92]
A recurring trend: securities fraud complaints targeting key metrics
Aug 2, 2024 · Plaintiffs asserted that "MAU was unhelpful at best and misleading ... vanity metric." The court rejected the claim. The court explained ...
[93]
Improper Financial Reporting: Hidden Triggers of Securities ...
Rating 5.0 (19,088) ... false impression that user acquisition drove revenue growth when MAU represented “really just a vanity metric”. The court rejected this claim, establishing ...
[94]
The big con: How tech companies made a killing by fudging their ...
Jan 18, 2018 · Liew noted how Snapchat, as a messaging app, invigorated the trend of sharing daily active users. Another one of the company's investments, ...
[95]
Tech Startups and the Problem of Vanity Metrics - LinkedIn
Aug 22, 2025 · In the rollercoaster world of tech startups, vanity metrics, page views, sign-ups, or app downloads that don't translate into sustainable growth ...
[96]
North Star Metrics, The Myth of Active Users, and Building with ...
Something I do see a lot is a focus on active users. And it's not that it's inherently wrong, but more the potential it brings for misguided application. One ...
[97]
Social media apps have billions of 'active users'. But what does that ...
Mar 21, 2024 · An “active user” is typically someone who has logged into a platform within a specific timeframe, such as the past month, indicating engagement with the ...Missing: meaningful | Show results with:meaningful
[98]
Conceptualising and measuring social media engagement - NIH
Aug 11, 2021 · This paper aims to systematically contribute to this academic debate by analysing, discussing, and synthesising social media engagement literature
[99]
Global Social Media Statistics - DataReportal
Facebook has 3.07 billion monthly active users (see more Facebook stats here); WhatsApp has 3 billion monthly active users; Instagram has 3 billion monthly ...Missing: verify | Show results with:verify
[100]
Key Differences Between Active Users and Engaged Users in App ...
Sep 23, 2024 · While active users provide a measure of the app's reach, engaged users offer insights into its effectiveness in retaining and satisfying users.
[101]
Views vs Engagement: Which Metric Matters More? - Socialinsider
Sep 29, 2025 · Views and engagement benchmarks: Benchmarks reveal that small accounts see higher engagement rates, while big accounts win on total views.Missing: true | Show results with:true
[102]
Monthly Active User: Definition and Its Limitations - cmlabs
May 16, 2023 · MAU is a metric that can help you measure the social networking performance of a website, as well as being the basis for calculating other website metrics.
[103]
Why counting uniques is meaningless - Brian Clifton
Feb 11, 2009 · The problem is that counting unique visitors is fraught with problems that are so fundamental, it renders the term 'uniques' meaningless.Missing: active platforms
[104]
5 Powerful Ways to Track User Activity on Your Website - Heatmap
Apr 28, 2025 · Tracking this complete journey provides a unified view but presents technical challenges like cookie limitations and users not always being ...
[105]
Counting Unique Users in Real-Time: Here's a Challenge for You!
Apr 22, 2019 · ... issues. In this presentation we will detail the journey of ... technology, Druid, with ThetaSketch, to overcome the limitations we were ...Missing: web | Show results with:web
[106]
Challenges and Opportunities in Cross-Platform User Behavior ...
Mar 4, 2025 · Stringent privacy regulations and user privacy concerns have significantly impacted user data collection and tracking practices across platforms ...Missing: active | Show results with:active
[107]
[PDF] Limitations of Nonfinancial Metrics Reported by Social Media ...
The primary challenges are measuring nonfinancial performance measures accurately and weighting measures appropriately when nonfinancial and accounting measures ...
[108]
Full article: Ethical concerns about social media privacy policies
In this article we examine the complexity of privacy policies and raise ethical concerns about the ability of users to comprehend their consent actions.
[109]
Social Media Privacy - Epic.org
Too many social media platforms are built on excessive collection, algorithmic processing, and commercial exploitation of users' personal data.Missing: active | Show results with:active
[110]
6 Common Social Media Privacy Issues - TechTarget
Nov 1, 2024 · Data protection issues and loopholes in privacy controls can put user information at risk when using social media.Why Is Social Media Privacy... · What Types Of Data Do Social... · Common Social Media Privacy...
[111]
Ethical and Regulatory Considerations for Using Social Media ... - NIH
We review research ethics and regulations and outline the implications for maintaining participant privacy, respecting participant autonomy, and promoting ...
[112]
The ethics of social media tracking: Is it time for change? - PureSquare
May 3, 2023 · Social media tracking raises ethical concerns about privacy, manipulation, and discrimination, including lack of transparency and potential for ...Missing: active | Show results with:active<|separator|>
[113]
Campbell's Law: The Dark Side of Metric Fixation - NN/G
Nov 7, 2021 · Summary: When organizations optimize metrics at the cost of all else, they expose themselves to metric corruption.Campbell's Law In Everyday... · Wait Time Vs. Hold Time In... · Rating Racketeering
[114]
How 'engagement' makes you vulnerable to manipulation and ...
Sep 10, 2021 · You have evolved to tap into the wisdom of the crowds. But on social media your cognitive biases can lead you astray.
[115]
Exposure to social engagement metrics increases vulnerability to ...
Jul 28, 2020 · We find that exposure to these signals increases the vulnerability of users to low-credibility information in a simulated social media feed.
[116]
The Ethics of Social Media Algorithms: Balancing Engagement with ...
Sep 19, 2024 · This blog delves into the ethical aspects of social media algorithms and the growing conversation around their impact on society.