On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:11:54 PM UTC-3, clifford wrote:
There was then a dearth of interesting problems for a while. I am not sure that that one controversy and its two main participants should be used to make any general claims about Lojban's popularity, etc.
To be clear, I'm not trying to measure popularity so much as activity -- not how many people have been exposed to lojban or what their sentiments are towards it, but rather, the extent to which people are actively discussing and using lojban. For these purposes, an extended debate about some aspect of lojban is a positive indicator. A lack of "interesting problems" -- problems and/or interest -- registers as a negative indication. (Disgusted silence would also count as a negative -- it seems to me that it ought to!)
Activity is a difficult thing to measure. Gleki suggested including tiki edits, which ties in with lojbab's observations about how communications have diffused across different channels over time. I'm interested to hear other suggestions about how to construct a more complete account of the use of lojban over time. It's my hope that such measurements can play a part in future policy discussions.
mi'e la mukti mu'o