<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Insights on Effective Data Consulting</title><link>http://effectivedataconsulting.com/insights/</link><description>Recent content in Insights on Effective Data Consulting</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="http://effectivedataconsulting.com/insights/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Why metric definitions drift, and what actually stops it</title><link>http://effectivedataconsulting.com/insights/why-metric-definitions-drift/</link><pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>http://effectivedataconsulting.com/insights/why-metric-definitions-drift/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;A familiar situation: two dashboards report active users, the numbers differ by
eleven percent, and the meeting stops while everyone tries to work out which is
right. Someone volunteers to reconcile them. Two weeks later a third dashboard
exists.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The instinct is to treat this as a data quality problem and go looking at the
pipeline. Occasionally that is where the answer is. Far more often both numbers
are computed correctly and they are answering different questions — one counts
any session, the other counts a meaningful action; one attributes to signup date,
the other to first activity; one excludes internal accounts and the other never
knew to.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>