Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey
Hide table of contents

Executive summary

On behalf of CEA, SEADS (Sharing EA Data Science) analysed view metrics of the EA Forum for the 14-month period from February 2020 to March 2021. We focused on two metrics:

  • View count (the number of times pages were viewed by anyone)
  • View time (time spent on a page before the user leaves for another page[1]) Both metrics roughly doubled in the analysed period. By March 2021, the Forum had about 2500 views and 100 view hours per day. Aggregation of view metrics by post, author, and tag showed a very asymmetric distribution: most posts, authors, and tags received very few views, while a few held most of the view share. The top 5% of posts accounted for about half of the views and view time.

Introduction

Situation

SEADS — Sharing EA Data Science[2] — is an output-oriented project group. We aim to study questions relevant to EA and publish the results of our findings on the EA Forum. Our expertise lies in data analysis and data science.

We have been collaborating with CEA since around March 2020. Our first project with CEA focused on EAG survey data analysis (see our post on that). In this post, we discuss our analysis of view metrics of the EA Forum over a 14-month period spanning February 2020 through March 2021.

Motivation of analysis

The EA Forum is the central knowledge-exchange platform of the EA community. Therefore, metrics on its usage are potentially of interest to both CEA and the community as a whole.

Research question

CEA provided the following question to guide our analysis of the EA Forum:

Given the metrics view count and view time, what information do we gain by aggregating them in the following ways: overall, by post, by author, and by tag?

Methods & results

Data used

CEA collects anonymised user data on view count and view time for each EA Forum post. We analysed these two metrics over a single 14-month time period. All findings on the metrics are therefore limited to this period; we cannot determine whether they are representative of other time periods.

View metrics overall

Development over time

Figure 1 shows the growth of the view metrics’ view count and view seconds over the analysed time period. Both metrics roughly doubled. When modeled linearly (see the red lines in Figure 1), the increase per day was about 3 views and 8 view minutes. By March 2021, the EA Forum registered ~2500 post views and ~100 post view hours per day.[3] Remember: this linear increase is specific only to the timeframe we analysed.

Figure 1: view count per day (upper) and view seconds per day (lower) plotted against view date. The plot of each view metric is overlaid with a linear fitting function (red).

Distribution of view times

The distribution of post view times per user per day was heavily skewed towards short view times. Very few views were for extended periods, with the median post view time equal to 60 seconds.

View metrics by post

The all-time total number of EA Forum posts at the end of March 2021 was 14643. Of those, 6159 posts were viewed over the analysed time period. As with the post view times, the view count per post was heavily skewed — most posts had low counts, with the median at 28 views and with few posts showing high counts. The same distribution holds true for total view time per post (adding up all views ever), with the median at 1900 seconds.

In terms of view share, the top 5% of posts accounted for around half of the view metrics:

  • 46% of the view count
  • 58% of view time

The top three posts for the period by view count were:

The top three posts for the period by total view seconds were:

View metrics by author

The all-time number of authors[4] by the end of March 2021 stood at 3645. Of these, 1447 had views on one or more of their posts. The number of posts per author viewed in this period ranged from 1 to 398, with the median at 1. In other words, more than half of all authors published only one post.

Once again, the view metrics per author showed heavily skewed distributions: most authors’ posts had low averages, and just a few had high averages. The average total view time per post ranged from 10 to ~1.1 million seconds, with a median of 2620 seconds. The average number of views per post ranged from 1 to ~5800, with a median of 34 views.

View metrics by tag

233 different tags were assigned to the posts published over the analysed period.[5] The most-used tag was used 1061 times, with the median at 15 posts per tag. These are the top three tags which were assigned to posts:

  • Community
  • Existential risk
  • Cause prioritization

Again, the view counts per tag were heavily skewed; most tags had low average views and few had high ones. The median was 269. The median post view time per tag was 700 minutes.

Figure 2 shows the top ten tags by average view count (left) and by average view time (right). The top four tags were the same for both metrics, albeit in differing order: “Totalitarianism” (which had the highest view count), “Persistence of political cultural variables” (which had the highest view time), “bounded rationality”, and “memetics”. All tags were included, even those with only one post.

Figure 2: top ten tags by average view count (left) and by average view seconds (right). By average view count, the tag “totalitarianism” ranked highest and by average view time the tag “persistence of political cultural variables” came first.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the two EA Forum view metrics view count and view time over a 14-month time period shows that both metrics roughly doubled, to about 2500 views and 100 view hours per day. Each of the views by post, author, and tag were heavily skewed towards very low numbers. The top 5% of posts accounted for about half of the views and view time.


  1. Special case: If a user with the same browser tag accesses the same post several times a day, then this time is added up. So we measured “view time per post per user per day”. ↩︎

  2. We replaced “Swiss” with “Sharing” in anticipation of future collaborators, and to be more inclusive. ↩︎

  3. By only including views/hours for post viewing, we excluded all views/hours on pages like the homepage, the “All Posts” page, and tag pages. ↩︎

  4. People who published at least one post. ↩︎

  5. Note that this was before the Editing Festival, when there were many fewer tags than there are now. ↩︎

30

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments7


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

"The top 5% of posts accounted for about half of the views and view time."

Looks like the EA forum, just like the overall project of effective altruism itself, is a hits-based business!

Does anyone know what other forums and media are like in this regard? One guess is that the distribution of views on major media sites is not as lopsided.

I recall Kelsey Piper mentioning that there was significant variation in the popularity of Future Perfect articles. It would be interesting to see how it compares to the EA Forum in this respect.

Thank you!

Does anyone know how this compares to other EA sites, forums in general and to the EA growth rate?

How well is this forum doing as a main internet hub of the EA community?

Cool! Just in case you have the data quickly at hand, I’d‘ve been interested in more than just the top three articles, maybe you could add the top ten? Also, maybe minutes would be the more intuitive unit, compared to something like 2600 seconds.

Hi MaxRa
Thanks for your question and input. We don't want to encourage too much of a comparison between posts to avoid giving the impression that some are "better" than others. Therefore, we'd prefer to let the post stand as it is.

Thanks SEADS for your help with this research, and for taking the time to share it publicly!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This is Part 1 of a multi-part series, shared as part of Career Conversations Week. The views expressed here are my own and don't reflect those of my employer. TL;DR: Building an EA-aligned career starting from an LMIC comes with specific challenges that shaped how I think about career planning, especially around constraints: * Everyone has their own "passport"—some structural limitation that affects their career more than their abilities. The key is recognizing these constraints exist for everyone, just in different forms. Reframing these from "unfair barriers" to "data about my specific career path" has helped me a lot. * When pursuing an ideal career path, it's easy to fixate on what should be possible rather than what actually is. But those idealized paths often require circumstances you don't have—whether personal (e.g., visa status, financial safety net) or external (e.g., your dream org hiring, or a stable funding landscape). It might be helpful to view the paths that work within your actual constraints as your only real options, at least for now. * Adversity Quotient matters. When you're working on problems that may take years to show real progress, the ability to stick around when the work is tedious becomes a comparative advantage. Introduction Hi, I'm Rika. I was born and raised in the Philippines and now work on hiring and recruiting at the Centre for Effective Altruism in the UK. This post might be helpful for anyone navigating the gap between ambition and constraint—whether facing visa barriers, repeated setbacks, or a lack of role models from similar backgrounds. Hearing stories from people facing similar constraints helped me feel less alone during difficult times. I hope this does the same for someone else, and that you'll find lessons relevant to your own situation. It's also for those curious about EA career paths from low- and middle-income countries—stories that I feel are rarely shared. I can only speak to my own experience, but I hop
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
This is a cross post written by Andy Masley, not me. I found it really interesting and wanted to see what EAs/rationalists thought of his arguments.  This post was inspired by similar posts by Tyler Cowen and Fergus McCullough. My argument is that while most drinkers are unlikely to be harmed by alcohol, alcohol is drastically harming so many people that we should denormalize alcohol and avoid funding the alcohol industry, and the best way to do that is to stop drinking. This post is not meant to be an objective cost-benefit analysis of alcohol. I may be missing hard-to-measure benefits of alcohol for individuals and societies. My goal here is to highlight specific blindspots a lot of people have to the negative impacts of alcohol, which personally convinced me to stop drinking, but I do not want to imply that this is a fully objective analysis. It seems very hard to create a true cost-benefit analysis, so we each have to make decisions about alcohol given limited information. I’ve never had problems with alcohol. It’s been a fun part of my life and my friends’ lives. I never expected to stop drinking or to write this post. Before I read more about it, I thought of alcohol like junk food: something fun that does not harm most people, but that a few people are moderately harmed by. I thought of alcoholism, like overeating junk food, as a problem of personal responsibility: it’s the addict’s job (along with their friends, family, and doctors) to fix it, rather than the job of everyday consumers. Now I think of alcohol more like tobacco: many people use it without harming themselves, but so many people are being drastically harmed by it (especially and disproportionately the most vulnerable people in society) that everyone has a responsibility to denormalize it. You are not likely to be harmed by alcohol. The average drinker probably suffers few if any negative effects. My argument is about how our collective decision to drink affects other people. This post is not