Coming from reading #8 I would like to add an idea:
I would really like to have indicators of impact as optional fields. One of the reasons is having a nudge (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory) for people to think about impact - at least when they are adding a civic.json. We often build toys and let them die. Thinking about impact and how to measure it lets us see more clearly what we want to achieve.
But there are other reasons: Most of our work is done by volunteers so resources are scarce. We should focus on things that work. Wie only know what works if we measure and learn. Like in build, measure, learn. Also potential funders are interested in impact. They have a hard time working with anecdotes. They want facts. Having this data in the civic.json app-catalogs like http://www.civicexchange.eu/ could give additional relevant information and draw interesting comparisons between apps.
But here comes the tricky part: What is impact? For some projects it might be simply reach. So page views, media coverage and social media shares might be interesting metrics. For apps monthly active users could be a relevant metric. Growth rates might be interesting, too. This all becomes pretty fuzzy soon. But we need some standardization in order to keep things comparable. I don't have a definitive solution for this - I would like to discuss. Maybe I am the only one who thinks, this is a good idea? I'd like to hear your opinion, especially from @pmackay.
Coming from reading #8 I would like to add an idea:
I would really like to have indicators of impact as optional fields. One of the reasons is having a nudge (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory) for people to think about impact - at least when they are adding a
civic.json. We often build toys and let them die. Thinking about impact and how to measure it lets us see more clearly what we want to achieve. But there are other reasons: Most of our work is done by volunteers so resources are scarce. We should focus on things that work. Wie only know what works if we measure and learn. Like in build, measure, learn. Also potential funders are interested in impact. They have a hard time working with anecdotes. They want facts. Having this data in thecivic.jsonapp-catalogs like http://www.civicexchange.eu/ could give additional relevant information and draw interesting comparisons between apps.But here comes the tricky part: What is impact? For some projects it might be simply reach. So page views, media coverage and social media shares might be interesting metrics. For apps monthly active users could be a relevant metric. Growth rates might be interesting, too. This all becomes pretty fuzzy soon. But we need some standardization in order to keep things comparable. I don't have a definitive solution for this - I would like to discuss. Maybe I am the only one who thinks, this is a good idea? I'd like to hear your opinion, especially from @pmackay.