Community Health Metrics
Measure the community without counting only members.
Added October 15, 2026. Written with AI assistance and checked for clarity and placeholders; not reviewed by a lawyer, accountant, clinician or other professional. How these prompts are made
The Open buttons send the prompt text as currently shown below to that site only when you click. Fill in the placeholders first.
[VERIFY] is an editorial flag, not a blank to fill. Wherever the prompt shows [VERIFY], check that item against a reliable source before you use it (what [VERIFY] means).
Design community health metrics. Community purpose and platform data available: [PURPOSE_DATA]. Stakeholders who need reports: [STAKEHOLDERS]. Concerns about vanity metrics: [CONCERNS]. Propose eight metrics across participation (active members, share who post), quality (answered questions, helpful responses), connection (replies between members), value (self-reported benefits, deflected support tickets), and risk (reports, moderation actions). Define each, the data source, how to avoid gaming, and what a healthy trend looks like, to be set after a baseline. Provide a dashboard layout and a quarterly review. Do not invent benchmarks. Mark data protection considerations as items to verify [VERIFY] for [JURISDICTION]. Also add a worked example of three metrics with invented values and the interpretation, labelled as an illustration, and a rule to look at trends over at least three months. Use anonymised or invented data in every example. Mark rules on recording, profiling and direct messages as items to verify [VERIFY] for [JURISDICTION] with whoever owns privacy here.
Fill in before use
Optional: type your details and the prompt above updates. Nothing is saved or sent.
Replace each bracketed placeholder with your own details, then paste into Any AI or another assistant.
See an example result (fictional data)
Metric | Definition | Invented value | Reading Active members | Posted or commented in last 30 days | 140 of 1,200 | 12 percent; compare to own history Questions answered | Questions with a reply in 48 hours | 71 percent | Good; check quality Member-to-member replies | Replies not from staff | 58 percent | Healthy signal Support deflection | Tickets avoided (estimate) | not measured | Needs method Review: trends over three months, not one month. Action note: if member-to-member replies stay above half, shift staff time from answering to seeding new discussions.
Illustrative only, made-up data. Your results will differ and must be reviewed.