Compiling this data was not as hard as I expected, let’s go through the data and the shiny graphs!
Age of Beeple
Most are above 24! Seems we got an older average age compared to a lot of social media. It would be interesting to see how many came here with experiences from independent forums before Reddit.
Where Beeple reside
This one’s a big graph. Though we can notice most people are from the US. Would be nice to see more countries represented though a big part of it likely has to do with language. (You will need to open the big graph in another tab, it’s too big to show properly.)
Gender identity of Beeple
So, as expected, mostly men. However, less than expected which is nice to see. There should be outreach to at least equalize this.
Sexual orientation of Beeple
This is kinda surprising. It seems we managed to get a lot more LGBTQ+ people than expected considering most of you all come from Reddit - so this is nice to see. This is most likely because of our focus on a safe space.
Whiteness of Beeple
As expected, mostly white which is unfortunate. I think there’s outreach to be done in that regard as well.
Neurodivergence of Beeple
We seem to have a really surprising amount of neurodivergent people! Definitely nice to see.
Beeple with disabilities
I… have no idea how to interpret this data so I’ll just say, shiny graph.
Beeple’s awareness of the Fediverse
Most knew about the fediverse but still a good 20% had not heard about it so glad to see you all managed to find your way here!
How Beeple have been dealing with Beehaw
It seems most people feel relatively confident in their ability to use Beehaw and most people seem to enjoy it. That makes me really happy to see. Feels rewarding, feels good.
Conclusion
I wanna thank everyone for the feedback about the survey and its questions - we’ll do better next time! I’m glad we did this survey because it shows the areas to work on in terms of outreach! Thank you all for your participation!
I’d like to respectfully ask that you don’t hide behind the excuse of people acting in bad faith. I think that section, as written, is actually difficult to interpret in good faith. The charitable interpretation of it is that we need to be intentionally welcome and aware of POC in the community, but that is just factually not what that sentence says. It just says that it’s unfortunate most of the people here are white. It just seems like an intentionally inflammatory way of phrasing the meaning.
This has been addressed ad nauseum in this post.
Words are entirely made up. You are bringing social connotations to the definition of the word unfortunate. The person who used the word clarified how it was meant to be used. Your ‘charitable interpretation’ has been both definitively proven already. We’ve asked for people to treat each other with good faith in this space and have requested that you ask questions rather than assume bad faith unless it’s unequivocally clear they are spreading hate speech. This is outlined in our philosophy docs and is generally nice behavior.
I understand that you are upset, but I’d ask of you and anyone else reading this to stop creating the same conversation again in another place on this post.
[edit: on re-reading, the sentence that followed it that said “I think there’s outreach to be done” is clear, even if I think the words could have been ordered better for flow, and connect this more directly and closely to the “unfortunate” comment.]
Yeah, I think as written it implies too much to be interpreted unambiguously. I agree, the charitable interpretation is “we need to do more” but that’s an inference that is drawn from my pre-existing understanding of beehaw’s management and vision, and maybe a sprinkling of trust in their intentions.Without explicitly stating “unfortunately we failed to reach minority communities,” my feeling is that it leaves a lot of room for accusation of other parties for the “unfortunateness” of the situation or misreading of future intent, and personally I think that just leads to unclear communication.