137

In the recent blog post there is the following paragraph (emphasis mine):

Opinions and feelings about the best way forward are extremely valid things to consider, but the devil is in the details data, too. We’ve spent a lot of time re-examining how we look at engagement on meta in terms of the ways people participate, and how that correlates to their participation on the main site. Looking at data about meta that’s eluded us until recently (we promise we’re not ever going to call it metadata), it’s clear that our focus there needs a lot of work and better resourcing.

What is this data that has eluded Stack Exchange?

| improve this question | | | | |
  • 7
    @anonymous surely that 15% mark would go down as those users checked out? That might explain the "until recently" in the quote. Once those brave enough to voice criticism leave, they're free to rule as monarchs having to answer only to the Iron Bank. – JJ for Popcorn and Monica Feb 17 at 18:00
  • 1
    @AdamLear - Why isn't [support] applicable here? The question isn't asking for a discussion; it's asking a specific question of the company and excepts a concrete answer, which would seem to fit the support tag. – Mithical Feb 17 at 19:31
  • 11
    @Mithical [support] is generally for questions about site features. I... disagree somewhat strongly with the edits to the wiki that added the "questions where you're expecting a concrete answer" phrasing, and I see it's been rolled back and re-added... Gonna think on that some. – Adam Lear Feb 17 at 19:51
  • 81
    Somebody predicted a while back that the all-new™ improved™ Stack Overflow Executive Leadership®, after having successfully fired/alienated most of the people holding the place's institutional knowledge, will, over the coming years, step by step, incredulously rediscover the things that Jeff & Co. had already discovered and built into the way the site works back in 2009. Looks like we're at step "having a Meta is in fact important even though it is really really annoying to have one" now 😄 – Pekka Feb 18 at 15:24
  • 13
    @Pekka this looks also how Clay Shirky described it long time ago (why oh why did they let him leave Board of Directors at Stack Exchange), "this story has been written many times. It's actually frustrating to see how many times it's been written. You'd hope that at some point that someone would write it down, and they often do, but what then doesn't happen is other people don't read it. The most charitable description of this repeated pattern is "learning from experience...." – gnat Feb 19 at 10:17
  • 1
    @Pekka Thank god you can just hire more data analysts to find these things out. ;-) – Christian Rau Feb 19 at 12:13
  • 1
    So Meta is the cleaners lounge, even if many of them only sit there rather quietly enjoying a break from cleaning. – Trilarion Feb 19 at 13:41
  • 3
    @gnat I first found that essay over here and made arguments that sound a little like the premise of George Stocker's characterizations of SO Inc. I still think my logic was sound, but SO's conclusion was "Crap, if we can't increase engagement indefinitely, we can't make F.U. money," rather than subsisting on ad revenue from visitors to the best curated Q&A on the planet---where "subsisting" is 70MM/y. – Michael - Where's Clay Shirky Feb 21 at 16:31
  • 1
    @Trilarion Long live the internet janitors. – Michael - Where's Clay Shirky Feb 22 at 3:10
186
+250

Original Data Analysis

  • In April 2019 there was an investigation performed that looked at the number of users who regularly post and vote on Meta Stack Overflow, and how answering on Stack Overflow predicted that participation.
  • The results were that posting and voting on Meta is done by 200-300 users (on average), and that answering on Stack Overflow had a weak positive correlation with participating on Meta.
  • The results also showed that answering on Stack Overflow had a weak positive correlation with participating on Meta: the more answers a user posts on SO, the more likely they are to be active on Meta. However, even at extremes of answering behavior like 10 answers per month, a minority (~10%) of power Stack Overflow answerers vote or post on Meta.

This is the source of the oft-quoted stat that Meta has 0.015% of Stack Overflow's active users. And from this perspective, the statistic is true. However, in retrospect, this does not present the full picture (as we see below). This data painted a picture that contributed to some of the well-intentioned internal thinking related to Meta that continued through the end of 2019.

And please do not try to figure out who is to blame for what here (things are always clearer in hindsight). Everyone who worked on this internally (and there were many people) was coming from a place of trying to make the best product and strategy decisions to benefit the largest number of users to the greatest degree possible given the limited resources of money, developers and other product team members, and time.

Asking a Different Question

Fast-forward to mid-January (nothing much interesting happened in the interim, right?). I asked a question on our internal Teams instance summarized as follows:

  • I first queried some internal data sources to look at the numbers of logged-in users who were active (viewed a page other than the home page) on MSO or MSE at least once per month in 2019, and the numbers of users who had engaged (post, comment, edit, vote) on MSO or MSE at least once per month during that time. The numbers looked like this:

MSO-MSE engaged and active users, 2019

  • I observed that there were on average 94K active users and ~6500 engaged users per month on MSO or MSE (and this doesn't include anonymous users).
  • The engagement percent averaged around 7%, which is significantly lower than most other sites, but one can assume that many people go to MSO/MSE purely to lurk and read, and the lack of engagement there should not be construed as lack of being affected by what is going on there.
  • I theorized that, though the relative number of SO users who visit MSE/MSO may be relatively minuscule, the group of users who is active (just visiting) on MSE/MSO is extremely active in the areas of site moderation.
  • If true, this would mean that MSE/MSO have an incredibly high degree of influence among the users who contribute to the core areas of site upkeep of Stack Overflow.
  • I submitted a request to the data team to ask them to look into the question of: What percentage of content moderation/curation activities on Stack Overflow are performed by accounts that are active on MSO/MSE, specifically looking at flags submitted, review tasks performed and post edits made, and checking these numbers for users who had visited MSO/MSE in the last 30 or 60 days.

Results

Our awesome data team (in this case the data work and analysis was run, checked, and double-checked by Kevin Montrose and Jason Punyon) crunched the numbers, and got back with the following:

TL;DR - a high percentage (50+%) of curation/moderation actions on Stack Overflow come from users who at least occasionally visit MSO or MSE. This is true for the entire range of time we looked at. These graphs give a sense at a glance:

Curation numbers on SO for active Meta users

To get more into it:

  • 86% / 91% of flags created on SO are created by users who had visited MSO/MSE in the past 30/60 days
  • 75% / 81% of review tasks on SO are processed by users who had visited MSO/MSE in the past 30/60 days
  • 61% / 66% of post edits on SO are saved by users who had visited MSO/MSE in the past 30/60 days
  • 44% / 50% of own-content edits and 84% / 89% of others'-content edits were made by users who had visited MSO/MSE in the past 30/60 days
  • While it is still accurate to say that the conversations on Meta are dominated by a relatively small number of users (200-300), the readership of those conversations includes users who perform the majority of the curation/moderation actions on Stack Overflow.

The immediate repercussion of this is that our estimation of the "reach" of Meta (based on the earlier data analysis and a different set of assumptions) had been incorrectly low, as we assumed that viewership correlated with answering activity - which does not appear to be the case.

We also found that there had not been any sign of a change to the amount of moderation activities that were performed by this group on Stack Overflow since our series of crises with the Community starting in September 2019.

Subsequently, the same data analysis was also applied to look at the content moderation activities on SO by users who had been engaged on MSO/MSE at least once per month (the original question looked only at being active - visiting at least once per month):

curation on SO by engaged Meta users

The TL;DR on this was that a high percentage (30+%) of curation/moderation actions on Stack Overflow come from users who at least occasionally act on MSO or MSE. This is ~50% of the actions performed by users who read MSO or MSE, despite this being a smaller group. This is higher than would seem to be implied by the earlier research.

  • 59% / 64% of flags created on SO are created by users who had engaged on MSO/MSE in the past 30/60 days
  • 35% / 39% of review tasks on SO are processed by users who had engaged on MSO/MSE in the past 30/60 days
  • 28% / 32% of post edits on SO are saved by users who had engaged on MSO/MSE in the past 30/60 days
  • 12% / 14% of own-content edits and 50% / 57% of others'-content edits were made by users who had engaged on MSO/MSE in the past 30/60 days

An interpretation of all of this is that MSE and MSO allow us to:

  • Reach the people performing a majority of our curation and moderation tasks, and those posting a sizable percentage (if not a majority) of our answers.
  • Get feedback from the people mostly doing curation and moderation tasks on SO, but a sizable number (10-20%) of answers are also being provided by these people.

Which brings us full circle to the quote cited in the question above:

Looking at data about Meta that’s eluded us until recently (we promise we’re not ever going to call it metadata), it’s clear that our focus there needs a lot of work and better resourcing.

Many people at Stack are working on these issues. Hopefully this data and history will shed some light on the questions and data that is helping to guide us in this endeavor.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • 29
    Great insight, thank you Yaakov. – Luuklag Feb 18 at 14:28
  • 71
    So curators are very much Meta visitors and displeasing them over and over again shouldn't be the way to go if we want clean sites. – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Feb 18 at 14:31
  • 7
    ...also, please consider editing to clarify whether analysed data included deleted posts or not – gnat Feb 18 at 14:46
  • 76
    Thanks so much Yaakov. While it's still slightly frustrating that those invested in SO have known this for ages (if just intuitively - or in some cases being a mod recognising the same users in the flag/review queues and in meta posts either guiding/helping people, reporting bugs or suggesting new features), it's very welcome that someone's thought to ask a question of community concern from a different POV. It seems the numbers have talked and there's been a bit of a eureka moment here... I sincerely hope the momentum continues on this. I'll keep my fingers crossed (even if you don't! :p) – Jon Clements Feb 18 at 15:02
  • 16
    Thanks for sharing this. It seems to clearly vindicate the voices on Meta who've been saying for the past ~n months "no really, we are worth far more than 0.015% of your calculus". I think Pekka's comment rings quite true. Regarding "61% / 66% of *post edits* on SO are saved by users", what do you mean by "saved by" here? Submitted by? Or something else? – TylerH Feb 18 at 15:45
  • 14
    Hmm, I wonder how much of that content editing statistic is just Perter Mortensen ;-) – Don't Panic Feb 18 at 16:49
  • 39
    Anyone else find it really ironic that this answer includes a link to a question and answer that points out these conclusions, back in July 2019? – anonymous Feb 18 at 18:32
  • 9
    This analysis is nice to see. I might suggest looking at trends over prior years as well. I don't know if I'm alone, but I was sure fed up by mid-2019 and deliberately not "engaging" even when I saw things that I would have spent time helping with a year prior, to say nothing of two. – jscs Feb 18 at 18:40
  • 32
    Ok, now management have numbers to know what every regular on metas already knew for a long time: that metas are critically important and shouldn't be neglected and that SE can't simply get rid of them thinking that tomorrow will be a better day than yesterday. Now, what SE's management will do to recover the broken and lost trust from the communities? What SE's management will do to recover from the loss of many experts on many sites? – Victor Stafusa Feb 18 at 19:29
  • 16
    @VictorStafusa great question. I recommend that you check out MSE tomorrow, hopefully around this time. – Yaakov Ellis Feb 18 at 19:34
  • 8
    @VictorStafusa I'll be shocked if anything of note is really said. Given some of the comments that staff (e.g., SC) made about Meta and some of the layoffs, short of spinning SO off as a non-profit or having a user Board of Directors I don't see anything being meaningful change anymore. – anonymous Feb 18 at 19:43
  • 24
    Just wanted to say how much I appreciate this post, and particularly the tone. Feels like a long time since we have heard this level of transparency and acknowledgement of SO's mistakes. Personally, I found the company's position that (my words) "meta is just a bunch of angry people who don't represent the community" hard to fathom, but it sounds like there is maybe a shift away from that. Thank you so much. – Steve Bennett Feb 18 at 21:00
  • 12
    There's one graph missing from this that I think would be extremely valuable: "% of answers from Meta visitors". – Mark Feb 18 at 21:01
  • 4
    @Lamak in the light of what I learned today, this old story of .015% feels like "Titanic, meet the iceberg". Granted, there were signs of it even back then - I recall thinking of thousands votes cast on prominent meta posts and suspecting that company may underestimate its influence – gnat Feb 18 at 22:30
  • 11
    Actually there might be an effect visible in the data. %of reviews of Meta actors went down a little bit over 2019 (at least the orange line from 50% to ~40%) and all the other lines for Meta Actors remained kind of constant, while the engagement peaked in October to December (8-10% compared to 5-7%). This means that Meta Actors did lower their share of curation (per person), probably they were busy writing on Meta instead. – Trilarion Feb 19 at 10:12
98

I believe the data was just beginning to be understood differently around the time I left the company. (The timeline fits at least.) For many years the company used meta sites as a way of communicating with the most engaged users. Sometime in late 2015, I noticed a different model of meta users. Instead of seeing Meta as influencers, parts of the company began promoting a funnel model of users. In the funnel model, everyone who visits a Stack Exchange site is at the top and you winnow down to paying customers at the bottom. Since we only had products related to the Stack Overflow brand, this model suggested resources promoting the Stack Exchange brand were only helping if they converted people to Stack Overflow. For a variety of reasons this never happened, so the rest of the network was essentially excluded from the funnel altogether.

Meta is another strange situation. Again, there's no direct way to funnel meta users into paying customers. It's obvious that efforts to convert occasional readers into customers are far better spent on features on the main site. The latest incarnation of the podcast looks pretty successful in this light since a relatively small banner draws many users into that marketing vehicle. The annual survey (which is largely intended to assist marketing) also demonstrates the promise of reaching out directly to passive users. Meanwhile, meta sites tended to be distractions.

In December, there was a very real risk the company would move support, bug tracking, feature suggestions and announcements to other mechanisms besides meta sites. The only thing left would be discussions and I suspect those were allowed to stay because they could be easily ignored by employees. (It should be noted that replacing these functions would be incredibly expensive. This was, I believe, well understood. In times of belt-tightening, I don't really see how this was supposed to work.) I'd pretty much checked out of the internal discussion by then (new job offer and all), but the situation looked pretty dim from my perch as a community manager. Meta was the only real way I knew to influence the community without changing features on the main site.

Right around the time I left, there was a post to our internal Q&A Team that pointed out that while Meta was only a tiny subset of active users if you look at people posting here, when you look at active users by how often they visited, it was a much larger percentage. (I don't have the numbers at hand, but it should be possible to draw them out via SEDE if you join on AccountId across schemas.) Even after removing some of the paths to meta such as Hot Meta Posts (which come to think of it sounds vaguely NSFW), active users on main are often enthusiastic readers of meta.

Legend has it the CMs were once tasked with responding to every post on every meta. ("I'll take 'Things that Don't Scale' for 1000, Alex.") When I left the company there was a real chance meta would be all but ignored by employees according to policy. Actually including Meta as part of the company's communication strategy is hugely encouraging to me as a member of the Stack Exchange community. It doesn't make the hurt of the last four months go away, but it does indicate there is a path toward rebuilding fractured relationships. While the company is far worse positioned to meet the challenges it's currently faced with, I'm confident in the ability of many of the remaining employees to refocus on community (or rather communities) and avoid distractions that divide rather than unite.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • 1
    Thanks for the insight. In the last sentence, "far worse positioned" -- you meant "worse" compared to what? – ChrisW Feb 18 at 1:00
  • 82
    You may've missed it, but I did some research at the request of a CM back in December to see how many avid answerers were reading meta questions on a regular basis. The numbers were, uh, large. Much, much too large to fit into a NYC apartment. Given answer % has already been falling for years, I'd guess that further annoying the most avid answerers is probably a bad call... I'm inordinately happy to see that someone has finally realized this. – Shog9 Feb 18 at 1:03
  • 6
    @ChrisW The most obvious reading might be worse compared to when the company employed people like Jon, Shog9, and Robert, or more generally, had a larger CM team. – Bryan Krause Feb 18 at 1:04
  • 7
    @ChrisW: In addition to the smaller CM team that Bryan mentioned, there have been a number of loses in other teams (particular PMs) that make it difficult to execute on plans. The PM for Q&A is still being advertised, which is a pretty critical position. – Jon Ericson Feb 18 at 1:22
  • 5
    @Shog9: It seems likely I was thinking of that research, but I don't have a good grasp of details like who wrote it. ;-) – Jon Ericson Feb 18 at 1:36
  • 12
    A little bird told me that there has been additional research since I left, and since there was close to a week where you were employed here and I wasn't, it's entirely possible that you know something I don't. But regardless, better research - and especially better interpretation of the results - is all for the best, regardless of who is doing it. Ain't like I can publish stuff I dropped into a private Slack channel anyway ;-) – Shog9 Feb 18 at 1:42
  • 3
    @VictorStafusa: I don't know that anyone ever sat down and said "let's make meta users into customers" or anything like that. It's more that people focused on revenue growth tend to have less idea what benefit meta has. Honestly people who don't use the network aren't going to understand meta right away. Even regular users who aren't focused in meta issues would be forgiven for not really knowing what it's all about. – Jon Ericson Feb 18 at 6:17
  • 12
    @JonEricson It is ok for regular users who only use the site occasionally and aren't very used to SO/SE not understanding what metas are or how they work. However, people who work at SE trying to maximize the revenue not knowing properly how does the very thing that they are working on functions is just a very sad shame, to say at least. – Victor Stafusa Feb 18 at 7:29
  • 25
    So basically: a company that depends on free labour from expert users chose to treat those users like a commodity valued by sales potential only, and its most active users like a liability, and it took 5 years for them to consider that this might not be a great plan and might have side effects. – user56reinstatemonica8 Feb 18 at 7:48
  • 14
    @user56reinstatemonica8: That's not entirely accurate. Parts of the company certainly used the funnel model and to the degree it's used tactically to smooth out rough edges on the site, it's actually a helpful way of looking at things. More recently the funnel model became the primary way of looking at the community and that's when some of the most destructive decisions were made. – Jon Ericson Feb 18 at 9:17
  • 1
    Very insightful. I've been wondering where power users fit into the organizational tree. In some ways, we're the zebra meat in the lion trap – Scott Seidman Feb 18 at 11:35
  • 3
    @ScottSeidman It's somewhat indirect. You mostly need to keep the zebras happy, at least so that they do not go on strike. The message here is rather that surprisingly the zebras listened to each other at the water pit that was placed next to the lion trap. – Trilarion Feb 18 at 13:46
  • 37
    Can I just say, publicly: it feels so good to see you and @Shog9 conversing here. It's a true blow to the company that your collective expertise and talents are no longer front-and-center, but I'm heartened to see the community not losing your perspectives. Thank you both, again! – nitsua60 Feb 18 at 16:19
  • 10
    @VictorStafusa Indeed, I've been places where someone would have gotten fired for something like what's been going on the past couple months. I'm still trying to figure out how they didn't connect Meta users to active main site users. I mean, most people have no reason to be on a Meta unless they are already active on a main site! – anonymous Feb 18 at 19:35
  • 19
    @nitsua60: One of the great things about being a CM for a community you grew up in is that it's a pleasure to work every day. (And often late at night too!) I couldn't believe my good luck to also get paid. The message to SO leadership who might be listening: the events of the last few months broke my trust in the company, but greatly increased my trust in fellow members of the community. Now that you've stopped digging, I hope you can also learn to trust the people who care about sharing knowledge enough they will dedicate themselves to it even when facing headwinds from the company. – Jon Ericson Feb 18 at 21:08
51

Data can be interesting in funny ways, like being so obvious once you discover probable correlations that previously eluded you. I'm going to give a very high-level answer because the specifics are still settling and I don't want to assert ahead of people way smarter than me being certain.

We've known that engagement models (or how we derive active and engaged users) for main sites and meta sites differ, and on some of our smaller sites they differ pretty vastly. What we didn't understand and what was harder to surface were the ways that the models differ, and how they differ at scale.

Folks that are heavily invested in Meta might not always show the same behaviors in how they use it, but what they have in common is how much caretaking work they regularly perform on the main sites. So, instead of asking "Who are the engaged users on meta?" one should probably say "Who are the engaged caretakers on the main site, and what do they have in common when it comes to meta?"

I don't think we have fully settled on models to the point where I could go look at the queries and write up some "Cliffs notes", but we didn't see a lot of folks when we look at who's really invested here until we reversed the way we were looking at it.

There are groups of a few hundred people on both MSE and MSO that essentially show the kind of engagement that we'd normally see on the main site, without much activity on the main site. And it's easy to see that as overall engagement, but doing that seriously undercuts how you value the reach that the meta sites tend to have, on the larger sites at least.

I think we can eventually be a lot more deliberate in how we describe and document it as we finish figuring it out and what influences it. There's also an uncharacteristically large (as compared to the last 10 or so years of growth year over year) uptick in behaviors that both point to more engagement and disengagement, which is explained by some recent events, but still calls for more study long-term. The data has always been there, we just weren't looking at it from the right direction.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • 12
    "...There are groups of a few hundred people on both MSE and MSO that essentially show the kind of engagement that we'd normally see on the main site, without much activity on the main site..." - How are you defining "main site" the second time here? Just SO? Or any site on the network? Also, what time frame for engagement are you taking into account? If I've largely paused activity on main sites for a few months yet still partake in meta, in what category would I fall? – Mithical Feb 17 at 18:37
  • 72
    Tl; Dr: the town council meetings are boring and poorly-attended, but turns out the entire Chamber of Commerce membership reads the minutes. – Shog9 Feb 17 at 18:49
  • 4
    Downvoted - not really an answer, or at the very least an extremely evasive one. – Sébastien Renauld Feb 17 at 18:52
  • 31
    @SébastienRenauld I appreciate your position. It's not my intent to be evasive, but to give you what I have, even if it's not much. That's better than deliberately not answering until "everything is clear" (which objectively might never happen), and answering is better than crickets. If I had more solid info I'd provide it (and I imagine it will be provided once we're more sure of a bunch of things). – Tim Post Feb 17 at 18:57
  • 4
    @Mithical Most reporting is quarterly and under perfectly normal circumstances, quarterly would make a lot of sense when we set meta engagement goals going forward. The last six months do skew things pretty considerably, but not so much that your previous activity would have made you less visible when all of 2019 is examined. If anything, you'd just fall in all categories, which isn't uncommon with a lot of folks that stayed logged in but didn't do much else pretty suddenly. It'll be months before that data normalizes again no matter what. – Tim Post Feb 17 at 19:06
  • 10
    Folks that are heavily invested in Meta might not always show the same behaviors in how they use it ... until lately, I intended to do both. It is up to SE Inc. to convince that I want to seriously contribute to any main ever again ... – GhostCat Feb 17 at 19:07
  • 6
    @Tensibai I did not ask for approval of this post or show it to anyone prior to writing it. – Tim Post Feb 17 at 19:07
  • 31
    Well, it was intuitive enough that I depended on it to do my job for 9 years, @anonymous. But different people have different intuitions... That's always the danger with data: if you're not careful, you cherry-pick the facts that reinforce your existing biases instead of looking for that which might explain what has been observed, or reveal what is unseen. – Shog9 Feb 17 at 19:15
  • 50
    People, it's all about perspective here. Some of you claim Tim is being evasive, as he isn't sharing much facts. On the other hand Tim thought, let's be pro-active and show what we DO have right now, instead of waiting 6-8 time units untill things are set in stone. Lets just remember we can't have it both ways... – Luuklag Feb 17 at 19:16
  • 8
    @Luuklag Agreed. Also, to me this reads as a completely appropriate response to looking at complexities in data of this type, and reflects a much more reasonable approach than throwing out some numbers to say: "oh, before we thought X% of users were on meta; now we realize its Y%" - that approach itself is the wrong one so I think it's misguided to demand more specifics when more specifics are not useful. Thanks Tim. – Bryan Krause Feb 17 at 19:28
  • 5
    It might be light on details, but it IS an answer; and the tone while vague seems to be "meta might have more impact than we initially thought". – Culyx Feb 17 at 19:31
  • 21
    @TimPost Thank you for your answer. One of the things that I, and others here, have been complaining about is that there's not enough communication from company staff to us. Although I would've preferred more specific & conclusive info, I appreciate that you made the effort to communicate to us what you currently know as best as you could. I trust that you, or somebody else, will continue to keep us informed with the best data available at the time. – John Omielan Feb 17 at 19:45
  • 4
    Thank you for your answer. The communication is greatly appreciated. – Stevoisiak Feb 17 at 20:27
  • 12
    @SébastienRenauld but this post isn't "legalese/marketese language", it's sharing what can be shared from incomplete work in progress, which is a good thing and one of many things that has been desperately lacking recently. We want to see incomplete ideas early like this, because that's the point it's possible to help improve them, before they're set in stone. I understand the frustration and feel the same way, but please don't poison the well by lashing out at baby-steps in the right direction. – user56reinstatemonica8 Feb 17 at 21:50
  • 32
    One of our devs (actually, the one that had the eureka moment) will be chiming in soon folks. I don't have an ETA because they've got to take a lot of internal stuff and get it ready for display (although, not much of it is really all that seekrit, it's just hard to explain without some context). Anyway, they said they'd drop a line soon to get specific where I just wasn't sure enough about what I interpreted to really say. So there should be another answer soon. Hang tight :) – Tim Post Feb 18 at 4:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .