6 ms·

But also, the percentage of the userbase responding poorly also responded almost an order of magnitude more when the person on the other end was a woman.

javadocmd 9y ago
And I think we would all agree that the ideal amount of abuse heaped on your team is zero.
- tomlock 9y ago
  That's obviously true, but it doesn't detract from the point that women, in this case and many others, are unfairly targeted for abuse, particularly online.
  - javadocmd 9y ago
    Ms. Enthoven covered that point rather nicely, I thought.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    I hear this all the time, but I'd love some stats on this. It's not like the internet is a great place for those who don't reveal their gender.
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      This article had stats. Several thousand interactions with a statistically significant difference. Exactly how many stats do you need?
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        I don't have a precise number, but I need more than one anecdote from one website. Preferably something with data that was rigorously obtained.
adventured 9y ago
> the percentage of the userbase That's not what their data is showing. That would be a valuable break-out to see. What their data is showing is number of messages. If you look at the chats, it appears they're counting multiple abusive messages (one minute to the next and many within the same minute stamp) from single actors. If one jerk sends eight abusive messages in one minute, they're counting all of those in the order of a magnitude you're referring to. It makes sense the abusive actors will send as many abuse messages as they can as quickly as they can, as one would expect that to get shut-down. Simply put, the abuse they're showing, which is about ~14 rude + harrassment messages per week to Julia, could easily consist of just two or three individual jerks sending a burst of messages (which again appears to be the case based on the screenshots). By their numbers, they're getting ~4,500 visitors per week. Out of those, it appears that about 0.1% or less of those visitors are likely a problem.
- jenthoven 9y ago
  No - I counted each thread separately. A "burst of messages" counts as 1
  - adventured 9y ago
    edit: and for the downvoters, I operate a service in the retail space that is exclusively for women. Information/data/blog posts of this sort are extremely valuable to me, that's why I'm asking for clarification. Ok, then I'm confused. In the post it shows, for example this: https://i.imgur.com/P4QCWO4.png https://i.imgur.com/P4QCWO4.png That says ~14 messages per week. So you're saying the labeling is wrong, that it should say chat sessions per week? The overall math in that scenario is also confusing me, if that refers to sessions. If the average abusive session contained even just six or seven messages, times 14 abuse sessions per week, upwards of 100 abuse messages contained within the abusive sessions in a week, ~400 per month. Roughly half of your customer interaction messages, or more, at that time, were occuring in abuse threads? Or does "2,100 messages" actually refer to 2,100 individual chat sessions?
    - jenthoven 9y ago

javadocmd 9y ago

And I think we would all agree that the ideal amount of abuse heaped on your team is zero.

tomlock 9y ago
That's obviously true, but it doesn't detract from the point that women, in this case and many others, are unfairly targeted for abuse, particularly online.
- javadocmd 9y ago
  Ms. Enthoven covered that point rather nicely, I thought.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  I hear this all the time, but I'd love some stats on this. It's not like the internet is a great place for those who don't reveal their gender.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    This article had stats. Several thousand interactions with a statistically significant difference. Exactly how many stats do you need?
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      I don't have a precise number, but I need more than one anecdote from one website. Preferably something with data that was rigorously obtained.

adventured 9y ago

> the percentage of the userbase That's not what their data is showing. That would be a valuable break-out to see. What their data is showing is number of messages. If you look at the chats, it appears they're counting multiple abusive messages (one minute to the next and many within the same minute stamp) from single actors. If one jerk sends eight abusive messages in one minute, they're counting all of those in the order of a magnitude you're referring to. It makes sense the abusive actors will send as many abuse messages as they can as quickly as they can, as one would expect that to get shut-down. Simply put, the abuse they're showing, which is about ~14 rude + harrassment messages per week to Julia, could easily consist of just two or three individual jerks sending a burst of messages (which again appears to be the case based on the screenshots). By their numbers, they're getting ~4,500 visitors per week. Out of those, it appears that about 0.1% or less of those visitors are likely a problem.

jenthoven 9y ago
No - I counted each thread separately. A "burst of messages" counts as 1
- adventured 9y ago
  edit: and for the downvoters, I operate a service in the retail space that is exclusively for women. Information/data/blog posts of this sort are extremely valuable to me, that's why I'm asking for clarification. Ok, then I'm confused. In the post it shows, for example this: https://i.imgur.com/P4QCWO4.png https://i.imgur.com/P4QCWO4.png That says ~14 messages per week. So you're saying the labeling is wrong, that it should say chat sessions per week? The overall math in that scenario is also confusing me, if that refers to sessions. If the average abusive session contained even just six or seven messages, times 14 abuse sessions per week, upwards of 100 abuse messages contained within the abusive sessions in a week, ~400 per month. Roughly half of your customer interaction messages, or more, at that time, were occuring in abuse threads? Or does "2,100 messages" actually refer to 2,100 individual chat sessions?
  - jenthoven 9y ago