Hubbry Logo
Active usersActive usersMain
Open search
Active users
Community hub
Active users
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Active users
Active users
Active users
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Active users
Number of new and active Wikipedia users in Indonesia between September 2010 and March 2012
General information
Unit systemProduct metric
Unit ofMedia consumption
SymbolDAU, WAU, MAU

Active users is a software performance metric that is commonly used to measure the level of engagement for a particular software product or object, by quantifying the number of active interactions from users or visitors within a relevant range of time (daily, weekly and monthly).

The metric has many uses in software management such as in social networking services, online games, or mobile apps, in web analytics such as in web apps, in commerce such as in online banking and in academia, such as in user behavior analytics and predictive analytics. Although having extensive uses in digital behavioural learning, prediction and reporting, it also has impacts on the privacy and security, and ethical factors should be considered thoroughly. It measures how many users visit or interact with the product or service over a given interval or period.[1] However, there is no standard definition of this term, so comparison of the reporting between different providers of this metric is problematic. Also, most providers have the interest to show this number as high as possible, therefore defining even the most minimal interaction as "active".[2] Still the number is a relevant metric to evaluate development of user interaction of a given provider.

This metric is commonly assessed per month as monthly active users (MAU),[3] per week as weekly active users (WAU),[4] per day as daily active users (DAU)[5] and peak concurrent users (PCU).[6]01340022105

Commercial usage

[edit]

Predictors of success engagement measurement (KPI) and advertisement

[edit]

Active users on any time scale offers a rough overview of the amount of returning customers a product maintains, and comparing the changes in this number can be used to predict growth or decline in consumer numbers. In a commercial context, the success of a social-networking-site is generally associated with a growing network of active users (greater volume of site visits), social relationships amongst those users and generated contents. Active Users can be used as a key performance indicator (KPI), managing and predicting future success, in measuring the growth and current volume of users visiting and consuming the site. The ratio of DAU and MAU offers a rudimentary method to estimate customer engagement and retention rate over time.[7] A higher ratio represents a larger retention probability, which often indicates success of a product. Ratios of 0.15 and above are believed to be a tipping point for growth while sustained ratios of 0.2 and above mark lasting success.[8]

Chen, Lu, Chau, and Gupta (2014)[9] argues that greater numbers of users (early adopters) will lead to greater user-generated content, such as posts of photos and videos, that "promotes and propagates" social media acceptance, contributing to social-networking-site growth. The growth of social media use, characterised as increase of active users in a pre-determined timeframe, may increase an individual's social presence. Social presence can be defined as the degree to which a social-networking communications medium allows an individual to feel present with others.[10][11]

Moon and Kim's (2001)[12] research results found that individual's enjoyment of web systems have positive impacts on their perceptions on the system, and thus would form "high behaviour intention to use it". Munnukka (2007)[13] have found strong correlations between positive previous experience of related types of communications and adoption of new mobile site communication services. However, there are also cases where active users and revenue seemed to have a negative correlation. For instance, Snap Inc.'s gains in daily active users (DAU) have stabilised or decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, revenue still exceeded estimates, with strong similar strong trends in the current period.[14]

Number of new articles (red line) and active users (blue line) on Swedish Wikipedia

Greater number active users boost the number of visits on particular sites. With more traffic, more advertisers will be attracted, contributing to revenue generation.[15] In 2014, 88% of corporation's purpose of social media usage is advertising.[16] Active Users increase allows social-networking sites to build and follow more customer profiles, that is based on customer's needs and consumption patterns.[17] Active user data can be used to determine high traffic periods and create behavior models of users to be used for targeted advertising. The increase of customer profiles, due to increase of active users, ensures a more relevant personalised and customised advertisements. Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015)[18] found that more personalised and relevant advertisements increase "view-through responses" and strengthen the effectiveness of "the advertised banner" significantly. DeZoysa (2002)[19] found that consumers are more likely to open and responsive on personalised advertisements that are relevant to them.

External reporting purposes

[edit]

The Financial Accounting Standard Board defines that objective of financial reporting is provide relevant and material financial information to financial statement users to allow for decision making and ensure an efficient economic |resource allocation.[20] All reporting entities, primarily publicly listed companies and large private companies are required by law to adhere to disclosure and accounting standards requirements. For example, in Australia, companies are required to comply with accounting standards set by the Australian Accounting Standards Board, which is part of the Corporations Act 2001. In social media company's context, there is also reporting of non-financial information, such as the number of users (active users). Examples may include:

Company Non-financial metrics[21]
Facebook Daily Active Users (DAU), Monthly Active Users (MAU)
Twitter Monthly Active Users (MAU), Timeline Views Per MAU
Groupon Active Customer Units

Alternative methods of reporting these metrics are through social networks and the web, which have become important part of firm's "information environment" to report financial and non-financial information, according to Frankel (2004),[22] whereby firm relevant information is being spread and disseminated in short spans of time between networks of investors, journalists, and other intermediaries and stakeholders.[23] Investment blogs aggregator, like Seeking Alpha, has become significant for professional financial analysts,[24] who give recommendations on buying and selling stocks. Studies by Frieder and Zittrain (2007)[25] have raised new concerns about how digital communications technologies information reporting have the ability to affect market participants.

Admiraal (2009)[26] emphasised that nonfinancial metrics reported by social media companies, including active users, may give not desirable assurance in success measurements, as the guidance, and reporting regulations that safeguards the reliability and quality of the information are too few and have not yet been standardized. Cohen et al. (2012)[27] research on a set of economic performance indicators found that there is a lack of extensive disclosures and a material variability between disclosure practices based on industries and sizes. In 2008, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission took a cautious approach in revising their public disclosure guidance for social media companies and claim the information to be "supplemental rather than sufficient by themselves".[28] Alexander, Raquel, Gendry and James (2014)[29] recommended that executives and managers should take a more strategic approach in managing investor relations and corporate communications, ensuring investor's and analyst's needs are jointly met.

Usage in academia

[edit]

Researching and web-behavioural analysis and prediction

[edit]

The active user metric can be particularly useful in behavioural analytics and predictive analytics. The active user metric in the context of predictive analytics can be applied in a variety of fields including actuarial science, marketing, finance services, healthcare, online-gaming, and social networking. Lewis, Wyatt, and Jeremy (2015),[30] for example, have used this metric conducted a research in the fields of healthcare to study quality and impacts of a mobile application and predicted usage limits of these applications.

Active users can also be used in studies that addresses the issue of mental health problems that could cost the global economy $16 Trillion U.S. Dollars by 2030, if there is a lack of resource allocated for mental health.[31] Through web-behavioural analysis, Chuenphitthayavut, Zihuang, and Zhu (2020)[32] discovered that the promotion of informational, social and emotional support that represents media and public perception has positive effects on their research participants behavioural intention to use online mental health intervention. Online psychological educational program, a type of online mental health interventions are found to promote well-being, and decreased suicidal conception.[33]

In the fields of online-gaming, active users is quite useful in behaviour prediction and churn rates of online games. For example, active user's features such "active Duration" and "play count" can have inverse correlations with churn rates, with "shorter play times and lower play count" associated with higher churn rates.[34] Jia et Al. (2015)[35] showed that there are social structures that transpire or emerge and centred around highly active players, with structural similarity between multiplayer online-games, such as StarCraft II and Dota.

The Active Users metric can be used to predict one's personality traits, which can be classified and grouped into categories. These categories have accuracy that ranges from 84%–92%.[36] Based on the number of user's in a particular group, the internet object associated with it, can be deemed as "trending", and as an "area of interest".

Ethical considerations and limitations

[edit]

With the internet's evolution into a tool used for communications and socialisation, ethical considerations have also shifted from data-driven to "human-centered", further complicating the ethical issues relating with concepts of public and private on online domains, whereby researchers and subjects do not fully understand the terms and conditions[37] Ethical considerations need to be considered in terms of participative consent, data confidentiality-privacy-integrity, and disciplinary-industry-professional norms and accepted standards in cloud computing and big data research. Boehlefeld (1996)[38] noted that researchers usually refer to ethical principals in their respective disciplines, as they seek guidance and recommended the guidelines by the Association for Computing Machinery to assist researchers of their responsibilities in their research studies in technological or cyberspace.

Informed consent refers to a situation that participant voluntarily participates in the research with full acknowledgement of the methods of research, risks and rewards associated. With the rise internet being used as a social networking tool, active users may face unique challenges in gaining informed consents. Ethical considerations may include degree of knowledge to the participants and age appropriateness, ways and practicality in which researchers inform, and "when" it is appropriate to waive the consent.[39] Crawford and Schultz (2014)[40] have noted consent to be "innumerable" and "yet-to-be-determined" before the research is conducted. Grady et al. (2017)[41] pointed out that technological advancements can assist in obtaining consent without the in-person meeting of investigators (researchers) and the research participants.

A large number of researches is based on individualised data, that encompass users online identity (their clicks, readings, movements) and contents consumed and with data-analytics produced inferences about their preferences, social relationships, and movement or work habits. In some cases, individuals may greatly benefit, but in others they can be harmed. Afolabi and García-Basteiro (2017)[42] believed that informed consent to research studies is beyond "clicking blocks or supplying signature", as participants could have feel pressured in to joining the research, without researcher's awareness of the situation. There is yet to be a universally accepted form of industry standards and norms in terms of data-privacy, confidentiality and integrity, a critical ethics consideration, but there has been attempts to design a process to oversee the research activities and data collection to better meet the community and end-user's expectations.[43] There are also policy debates around ethical issues regarding the integration of edtech (education technology) into K-12 education environment, as minor children are perceived to be most vulnerable segment of the entire population.[44]

Technical limitations and challenges

[edit]

Many social media companies have their respective differences definition and calculation methods of the active users metric. These differences often cause differences in the variable that the metric is measuring. Wyatt (2008)[45] argues that there is evidence that some metrics reported by social media companies do not appear to be reliable, as it requires categorical judgements, but is still value-relevant to financial statement users. Luft (2009)[46] conveyed that non-financial metric, like active users, there presents challenges in measurement accuracy and appropriateness in weighting when coupled with accounting reporting measures. There has been increasing notice from business presses and academia on corporate conventions of disclosure of these information.[47]

Active users are calculated using the internal data of the specific company. Data is collected based on unique users performing specific actions which data collectors deem as a sign of activity. These actions include visiting the home or splash page of a website, logging in, commentating, uploading content, or similar actions which make use of the product. The number of people subscribed to a service may also be considered an active user for its duration. Each company has their own method of determining their number of active users, and many companies do not share specific details regarding how they calculate them. Some companies make changes to their calculation method over time. The specific action flagging users as active greatly impacts the quality of the data if it does not accurately reflect engagement with the product, resulting in misleading data.[48] Basic actions such as logging into the product may not be an accurate representation of customer engagement and inflate the number of active users, while uploading content or commenting may be too specific for a product and under-represent user activity.

Weitz, Henry and Rosenthal (2014)[21] suggested that factors that may affect accuracy of metrics like active users include issues relating to definition and calculation, circumstances of deceptive inflation, uncertainty specification and user-shared, duplicate or fake accounts. The authors describes Facebook monthly active users criterion as registered users past 30 days, have used the messenger, and took action to share content and activity differing from LinkedIn who uses registered members, page visits and views. For example, a customer who uses the Facebook once, to "comment" or "share content", may also be counted as an "active user".[49] A potential cause for these inaccuracies in measurement is the implemented Pay-for-Performance systems, that encourages desired behaviours, included high-performance work system.[50] In social media companies, active users is one of the crucial metric that measures the success of the product. Trueman, Wong, and Zhang (2000)[51] have found that in most cases unique visitors and pageviews as a measurement of web-usage accounts for changes in stock prices, and net income in internet companies. Lazer, Lev and Livnat (2001)[52] found that more popular website generated greater stock returns, in their research analysis of traffic data of internet companies through the division of higher and lower than median traffic data. Yielding portfolio more returns may sway investors to vote on a more favourable bonus package for executive management. Kang, Lee and Na's (2010)[53] research on the 2008 financial crisis highlights the importance of prevention of "expropriation incentives" of investors, that provides very prominent implications on corporate governance, especially during an economic shock.

Active user is limited in examining pre-adoption and post-adoption behaviours of users. Users commitment to a particular online product may also depend on trust and the alternatives quality.[54] Pre-adoption behaviour's effects on post-adoption behaviour, that is predicted by past research has suggested,[55] is found to have associations with factors such as habit, gender and some other socio-cultural demographics.[56] Buchanan and Gillies (1990)[57] and Reichheld and Schefter (2000)[58] argues that post-adoption behaviours and continuous usage is "relatively more important than first-time or initial usage" as it shows "the degree of consumer loyalty", and that ultimately produces long term product value.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Active users

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Active users, in the context of MediaWiki-based platforms such as , 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. This metric, accessible via the Special:Statistics page and Special:ActiveUsers interface, serves as a primary indicator of and platform vitality, distinct from narrower definitions like "active editors," which require at least five content-namespace edits per month by non-bot users. 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. 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. 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. While active user counts have shown modest fluctuations—rising temporarily during events like the before stabilizing—their stagnation relative to page view growth has prompted internal into retention barriers, including interface complexity and dynamics, without yielding sustained reversal of decline trends observed since the mid-2000s. This metric's simplicity facilitates cross-project comparisons, as evidenced in language-specific , yet critiques note its overinclusivity of minor or automated activities, potentially inflating perceptions of over substantive output.

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. 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. In contrast to pageviews or , 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. 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. 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 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. This focus enables about product stickiness, as ratios like DAU/MAU reveal daily habits (e.g., values above 0.2 often indicate habitual tools like ), distinguishing habitual platforms from sporadic ones without conflating acquisition with retention.

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. This metric emphasizes short-term frequency, making it suitable for platforms with habitual daily use, like or messaging apps. 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. WAU is often applied to services with episodic usage, such as productivity tools or gaming apps where engagement clusters around specific days. 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. 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. 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 (e.g., a 20% ratio suggesting strong daily retention). Similarly, the MAU to WAU ratio is influenced by factors such as user churn and usage frequency. High-engagement daily apps typically exhibit lower ratios of approximately 1.2–1.5×, moderate-frequency tools range from 1.5–2.5×, and low-frequency platforms have ratios of 3× or higher. Definitions of "active" vary by provider, often requiring customization based on , such as session starts in platforms.

Historical Development

Origins in Web Analytics

The measurement of active users in 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 page tagging and HTTP cookies—first standardized by in 1994—to enable persistent identifiers for tracking unique users across visits. 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 tools underscored the metric's probabilistic nature.

Popularization by Tech Platforms Post-2000s

The shift toward active user metrics in the early 2000s coincided with the rise of platforms, which emphasized and participatory interactions over static page views, necessitating measures of ongoing engagement to assess network value and retention. Social networking sites like , launched in 2003, pioneered the tracking of daily interactions to quantify user loyalty amid rapid growth, marking a departure from traditional focused on total visits. This era's platforms recognized that mere registration or downloads overstated viability, as sustained daily usage signaled stronger potential through and data. 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. By 2006, as Facebook expanded beyond colleges, it highlighted monthly active users (MAU) in media kits and investor pitches, achieving a DAU/MAU around 65%, which underscored high "stickiness" compared to peers. The DAU/MAU itself emerged as a benchmark for in social games and apps around this time, with platforms like adopting it to evaluate user retention in viral mechanics. 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. By the , 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. 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.

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 SDK for mobile apps or gtag. for websites, which automatically or manually log qualifying events—such as app launches, page views, or session starts—triggered by user activity. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Tools such as or facilitate custom queries for DAU/MAU, summing unique users per day or month via SQL-like operations on event data streams. 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. Hybrid approaches combine client- and server-side for robustness, as server logs capture all requests independently of client execution, mitigating issues like ad blockers that block SDK transmissions.

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. Deduplication occurs through unique identifiers like account IDs, device fingerprints, or hashed IP addresses, preventing overcounting of the same user across sessions or devices. 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 . 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. 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. Platforms like 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. For public reporting, companies disclose methodologies in financial filings, such as Meta's definition of MAU as unique users logging into .com or mobile apps monthly, with quarterly estimates of duplicate or fake account removals exceeding hundreds of millions. Independent audits or third-party tools, like those from , cross-verify reported figures against panels, though discrepancies arise due to proprietary data silos. regulations, including GDPR and CCPA, constrain cross-site tracking, prompting reliance on consented signals like opt-in logins, which can introduce undercounting but enhance . 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. Ongoing protocols include of detection thresholds and periodic model retraining to adapt to evolving bot tactics, ensuring metrics reflect genuine human engagement over time.

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. 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 in product development. In strategies, active users underpin streams, especially in advertising-centric models where they represent the for , clicks, and targeted placements. Platforms leverage behavioral from active sessions to optimize ad relevance, boosting metrics like click-through rates and (CPM), which directly scale with user volume and frequency. For ad-dependent firms, sustained DAU growth correlates with expanded addressable audiences, enabling and pursuits by demonstrating scalable . Meta Platforms exemplifies this linkage, deriving 97.3% of its 2024 —totaling $160.63 billion—from vertising, fueled by over 3 billion DAU across its family of apps (, , Messenger, and ). This intensity reflects an (ARPU) of $49.63, elevated by engagement-driven efficacy amid a 21.7% year-over-year increase in Q2 2024. Similarly, broader expenditures, projected to rise 9.37% annually through 2030, hinge on active user bases that sustain personalized targeting and impression volumes. Beyond s, active users facilitate freemium-to-premium conversions in subscription models, though advertising remains dominant, with platforms like generating $959.1 million in U.S. youth-targeted in 2023 via high-engagement cohorts.

Usage in Investor Communications and Reporting

Technology companies, particularly those in , 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 , and investor presentations to quantify user engagement and platform scale. 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. For example, 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 illustrating usage ; this , 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." Similarly, 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. 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. In earnings calls and investor decks, executives emphasize active user trends to contextualize financial ; 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 . Investors scrutinize these metrics for comparability across peers—e.g., Snapchat's DAU focus versus LinkedIn's MAU—using them to model future ad , often applying multiples like $100–$200 per MAU for valuation in pre-IPO assessments. However, definitions can vary; some firms count any login as activity, potentially inflating figures without corresponding uplift, a point raised in analyst critiques during post- discussions. 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. Private firms in investor updates or pitch decks similarly track MAU as a core vital sign for reporting, correlating it with churn rates and lifetime value to justify funding rounds. 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.

Academic and Analytical Applications

Behavioral Research and User Prediction

Behavioral research on active users examines patterns of 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 formation and reduced churn risk; for example, analyses of 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. These findings underscore causal links between behavioral —driven by repeated exposure and —and long-term platform adherence, rather than mere . Differentiation between active and passive usage further refines behavioral insights, with active behaviors (e.g., or direct interactions) associated with elevated emotional outcomes, including greater positive affect but also heightened anxiety symptoms, as evidenced in longitudinal surveys of cohorts. In online communities, activity patterns predict real-world behavioral shifts, such as escalated participation in domain-specific groups (e.g., work or forums) leading to measurable changes in or habit , based on observational data from platforms tracking and contribution frequencies. Such 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 . 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. For retention specifically, 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. These models emphasize 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. Advanced applications extend to location-based social networks, where spatiotemporal activity patterns enable classification of user intents with , outperforming generalized linear models by capturing sequential dependencies in mobility-derived engagements. Critically, prediction efficacy hinges on , as bot-inflated activity can distort models, prompting hybrid approaches combining rule-based filters with probabilistic 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.

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. This pattern emerges from mechanisms such as , whereby popular content attracts further engagement, amplifying disparities in participation. 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. Distinctions between active and passive further elucidate patterns, as active behaviors—like posting or commenting—correlate with sustained platform retention, unlike passive consumption. A 2024 study on , analyzing over 79,000 users and 105 million sessions from July-August 2021, demonstrated that context-aware models incorporating location and connectivity predict active (e.g., messaging) with 52% explained variance, outperforming behavioral baselines by 51%. Such models highlight temporal and situational factors driving bursts of activity, often following diurnal or event-triggered cycles. In collaborative platforms like , 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. 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. These findings, drawn from network analyses of editing histories, emphasize causal links between early momentum and long-term dynamics in volunteer-driven ecosystems.

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 projections and company valuations. For instance, bots are deployed to amplify signals such as likes, shares, and follows, distorting the perceived scale of user bases. On (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 demands, highlighting how undetected could pad metrics like monetizable daily active users (mDAU), which reported at around 237 million in Q1 2022 before adjustments. Independent analyses have varied, with a 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. 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. In collaborative platforms like , approved bots perform substantial automated tasks, accounting for up to 77% of edits on affiliated projects like as of 2014, which can elevate aggregate activity metrics if not segregated from editor counts. While Wikipedia's active user definitions emphasize 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 engagement, though official metrics prioritize verified edits.

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. 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. 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. Overreliance on these metrics has fueled investor deception claims in multiple high-profile cases, as executives touted user growth to justify valuations detached from fundamentals. In litigation, plaintiffs have contended that MAU disclosures were misleading, portraying them as proxies for when they functioned more as superficial benchmarks susceptible to manipulation. 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 efficiency. 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 , often at the expense of or lifetime value metrics that better predict . Courts have sometimes dismissed deception claims by affirming MAU's contextual , as in rulings emphasizing that investors must weigh metrics against disclosures of limitations like non-unique counting methods. 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. 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.

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 , commenting, or . This threshold can capture passive behaviors, such as brief or automated check-ins, which do not necessarily indicate value accrual for users or the platform. , an analytics firm, has highlighted that relying on as the sole activity proxy reflects external hype rather than genuine retention or satisfaction, potentially misleading stakeholders about long-term sustainability. Similarly, an analysis in notes that while billions of reported active users signal reach, the metric's vagueness—often limited to login events—obscures whether users derive meaningful , as passive consumption dominates over interactive participation. 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 . A study in the Journal of Interactive Marketing synthesizes literature showing that while active user counts correlate with initial adoption, true —encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions—predicts loyalty more reliably, as minimal activity often precedes churn. Platforms like Meta and X (formerly ) 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 , fueling debates on metric manipulation for investor appeal. These debates extend to causal implications: high active user tallies may drive short-term valuations but fail to ensure causal links to revenue if remains superficial, as evidenced by cohort analyses where low-interaction users exhibit rapid attrition rates. 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.

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 and potential over- or underestimation of engagement. For instance, monthly active users (MAU) often equate minimal interactions, like a single , with sustained usage, rendering the metric susceptible to hype-driven inflation rather than reflecting genuine participation. Technical implementation relies heavily on identifiers like , IP addresses, or device fingerprints, but these are inherently unreliable for deduplicating unique users. Cookies can be deleted, blocked by 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. 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 reporting, where weighting and verification remain problematic without standardized auditing.

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 without fully transparent mechanisms. This practice raises concerns, as platforms aggregate behavioral data across sessions to deduplicate unique users, potentially exposing individuals to risks of data breaches or unauthorized profiling. For instance, reliance on , IP addresses, or persistent IDs to compute these metrics can conflict with regulations like the EU's (GDPR), which mandates explicit for non-essential tracking, yet many platforms embed such measurement in core functionality, blurring lines between necessary and invasive data use. Ethical critiques highlight the opacity of privacy policies, where users may unknowingly agree to activity monitoring that extends beyond mere counting to enable or algorithmic . Studies indicate that complex policy language hinders genuine , effectively undermining user autonomy and fostering a surveillance economy where active user data fuels commercial exploitation. Moreover, cross-platform for user uniqueness—common in federated metrics—amplifies re-identification risks, as anonymized activity logs can be de-anonymized through correlation with other datasets. 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 rather than enhance user welfare. These tactics, rooted in , prioritize metric optimization—per , 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. Ethical analyses argue that algorithms tuned for maximal manipulate user , akin to behavioral nudges without , raising concerns over erosion and societal polarization. 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 spread under the guise of . Regulatory scrutiny underscores these issues; the U.S. has investigated platforms for deceptive engagement practices that mislead users about data use for metrics, while probes into algorithmic manipulation emphasize the need for transparency in how activity data influences feeds. Critics from bodies like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) contend that without stricter auditing of active user methodologies, platforms evade for manipulative architectures that conflate voluntary activity with coerced retention. Balancing these ethical tensions requires prioritizing user-centric designs over metric-driven growth, though suggests persistent conflicts between business incentives and privacy rights.

References

  1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Metric_definitions
  2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Active_editor
  3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Configuration_settings
  4. https://analyzify.com/statsup/wikipedia
  5. https://stats.wikimedia.org/
  6. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Product_Analytics/Data_products/ptwiki_metrics_summary_Apr2024/en
  7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Modeling_monthly_active_editors
  8. https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/12253918?hl=en
  9. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monthly-active-user-mau.asp
  10. https://mixpanel.com/blog/mau/
  11. https://adapty.io/blog/dau-wau-mau-active-users/
  12. https://databox.com/sessions-users-pageviews-in-google-analytics
  13. https://help.adjust.com/en/article/understanding-dau-wau-and-mau-metrics
  14. https://userpilot.com/blog/dau-wau-mau/
  15. https://www.statsig.com/perspectives/active-users-dau-wau-and-mau-explained
  16. https://mixpanel.com/blog/daily-active-users/
  17. https://equals.com/guides/saas-metrics/engagement-metrics/
  18. https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/12993725?hl=en
  19. https://www.statsig.com/perspectives/5-key-metrics-to-understand-waumau-ratios
  20. https://medium.com/sequoia-capital/selecting-the-right-user-metric-de95015aa38
  21. https://www.adjust.com/glossary/active-user/
  22. https://amplitude.com/blog/the-early-days-of-web-analytics
  23. https://www.opinionx.co/blog/product-analytics-is-broken
  24. https://aimclear.com/the-ancient-geek-history-of-web-analytics/
  25. https://www.techdogs.com/td-articles/curtain-raisers/explore-the-multiverse-of-web-analytics-tools
  26. https://leady.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-website-analytics/
  27. https://roirevolution.com/blog/collecting-web-data-a-look-at-web-analytics-methodology/
  28. https://avc.com/2010/02/how-unique-is-a-unique-visitor/
  29. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/web-20.asp
  30. https://medium.com/design-bootcamp/top-10-product-metrics-3c3cbaa12f65
  31. https://avc.com/2011/07/301010/
  32. https://sendshort.ai/statistics/facebook/
  33. https://www.quora.com/Has-Facebooks-DAU-MAU-always-been-50
  34. https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/cc097808-8091-422f-9ae9-183a9b1d4865/download
  35. https://www.theringer.com/2016/11/10/tech/daily-active-users-is-techs-new-most-important-metric-9cfd89b261fd
  36. https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/11/08/monthly-active-users-maus-how-do-facebook-twitter.aspx
  37. https://andrewchen.com/dau-mau-is-an-important-metric-but-heres-where-it-fails/
  38. https://firebase.google.com/docs/analytics/screenviews
  39. https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/9304153?hl=en
  40. https://firebase.google.com/products/analytics
  41. https://measureschool.com/google-analytics-unique-visitors/
  42. https://support.appsflyer.com/hc/en-us/articles/39071744864657-Calculate-daily-and-monthly-active-users-DAU-and-MAU
  43. https://firebase.google.com/docs/analytics/user-properties
  44. https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/launch/monitor-stats.html
  45. https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/monthly-active-users-mau/
  46. https://www.humansecurity.com/learn/topics/what-are-bot-detection-tools/
  47. https://www.openappsec.io/post/effective-bot-detection-strategies
  48. https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/12253918
  49. https://backlinko.com/facebook-users
  50. https://dfdnews.com/2022/09/15/estimating-twitters-bot-free-monetizable-daily-active-users-mdau/
  51. https://www.feedzai.com/blog/what-is-bot-detection/
  52. https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-platform/query/advanced-statistics/examples/statistics-and-ml-bot-filtering
  53. https://bernardmarr.com/important-user-engagement-kpis-what-are-dau-wau-and-mau/
  54. https://www.gainsight.com/essential-guide/product-management-metrics/dau-mau/
  55. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/social-app-market/
  56. https://sociallyin.com/meta-statistics/
  57. https://ycharts.com/indicators/meta_platforms_inc_meta_advertising_revenue
  58. https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/
  59. https://www.moomoo.com/us/learn/detail-a-peek-into-meta-s-earnings-cyclical-advertising-revenue-and-loss-changes-in-metaverse-113843-231292029
  60. https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-statistics/
  61. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/social-media-platforms-generate-billions-in-annual-ad-revenue-from-u-s-youth/
  62. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/valuation/monthly-active-users-mau/
  63. https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/daily-active-users-dau/
  64. https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/dau-mau-ratio/
  65. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1562088/000156208824000048/q4fy23shareholderletter.htm
  66. https://www.geckoboard.com/best-practice/kpi-examples/dau-mau-ratio/
  67. https://www.sec.gov/files/reada10k.pdf
  68. https://rundit.com/blog/metrics-for-investor-report/
  69. https://isjem.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Journal.1.pdf
  70. https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/29/1/zmad055/7595758
  71. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00112-6
  72. https://journalofbigdata.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40537-024-00955-0
  73. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2573234X.2025.2551950?src=exp-la
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10239051/
  75. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/6/3517
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386432118_Predictive_Analytics_for_Customer_Retention_A_Data-Driven_Framework_for_Proactive_Engagement_and_Satisfaction_Management
  77. https://misq.umn.edu/misq/article/38/3/795/102/Emergence-of-Power-Laws-in-Online-Communities-The
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268386888_Emergence_of_Power_Laws_in_Online_Communities_The_Role_of_Social_Mechanisms_and_Preferential_Attachment
  79. https://repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/2207_Cameron.pdf
  80. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/download/14695/14544/18213
  81. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1985347.1985352
  82. https://sciencejournal.re/index.php/studies-in-science-of-science/article/view/355
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11370216/
  84. https://spideraf.com/articles/social-media-bots-what-they-are-and-how-to-protect-your-brand
  85. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/17/tech/elon-musk-twitter-bots
  86. https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotforsecurity/facebook-says-5-of-monthly-active-accounts-are-fake-deletes-3b-in-6-months
  87. https://transparency.meta.com/reports/community-standards-enforcement/fake-accounts/facebook/
  88. https://www.shopify.com/blog/facebook-statistics
  89. https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/02/13/112291/the-shadowy-world-of-wikipedias-editing-bots/
  90. https://www.mostlymetrics.com/p/the-dangers-of-vanity-metrics
  91. https://www.lightercapital.com/blog/daily-active-users-dau-vs-monthly-active-users-mau
  92. https://amplitude.com/blog/measuring-active-users
  93. https://www.finrofca.com/news/value-mau-valuation-trap
  94. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/recurring-trend-securities-fraud-complaints-targeting-key-metrics-2024-08-02/
  95. https://classactionlawyertn.com/improper-financial-reporting-6676/
  96. https://mashable.com/article/silicon-valley-companies-misleading-metrics
  97. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tech-startups-problem-vanity-metrics-startuplag-jqyhc
  98. https://www.mostlymetrics.com/p/north-star-metrics-the-myth-of-active
  99. https://theconversation.com/social-media-apps-have-billions-of-active-users-but-what-does-that-really-mean-226021
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8354841/
  101. https://datareportal.com/social-media-users
  102. https://contextsdk.com/blogposts/key-differences-between-active-users-and-engaged-users-in-app-metrics
  103. https://www.socialinsider.io/blog/views-vs-engagement/
  104. https://cmlabs.co/en-us/seo-terms/monthly-active-user
  105. https://brianclifton.com/blog/2009/02/11/why-counting-uniques-is-meaningless/
  106. https://www.heatmap.com/blog/track-user-activity-on-website
  107. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLUhzuQ0DHY
  108. https://www.ynotyoumedia.com/blog/challenges-and-opportunities-in-cross-platform-user-behavior-tracking-and-analysis
  109. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55335434.pdf
  110. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0965254X.2023.2232817
  111. https://epic.org/issues/consumer-privacy/social-media-privacy/
  112. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/6-common-social-media-privacy-issues
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7183769/
  114. https://www.puresquare.com/blog/the-ethics-of-social-media-tracking-is-it-time-for-change/
  115. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/campbells-law/
  116. https://theconversation.com/how-engagement-makes-you-vulnerable-to-manipulation-and-misinformation-on-social-media-145375
  117. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/exposure-to-social-engagement-metrics-increases-vulnerability-to-misinformation/
  118. https://www.multipostdigital.com/blog/o22lse6mbzx3948wfborarnfiqwyym
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.