Participation Inequality

[Size Nine Elm]

Not so much feedback as an interesting article regarding Internet posters and their relative numbers of posts.

www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

Wonder what the ratios are for PH...

[Tripps]

It'd be interesting to see the numbers of members at each band of postings, from 0, 1, 2-10, 11-50, 51-100, 101-500 etc, going up to the hallowed few that have achieved 20000+ posts.

Obviously 0 would have by far the highest, but of the active members, where would the majority sit?

Edited by Tripps on Monday 9th October 22:10

[Bodo]

link said:

Summary:
In most online systems, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all the action.

Reminds me on the offline-society.

[R998]

linked site said:

Signal-to-noise ratio. Discussion groups drown in flames and low-quality postings, making it hard to identify the gems. Many users stop reading comments because they don't have time to wade through the swamp of postings from people with little to say.

I used to be a lurker for some time, now I'm probably a 1%er

[fidgits]

site said:

Discussion groups drown in flames and low-quality postings, making it hard to identify the gems. Many users stop reading comments because they don't have time to wade through the swamp of postings from people with little to say.

[Tripps]

R998 said:

I used to be a lurker for some time, now I'm probably a 1%er

And you've got there damn fast too.

Makes me think of another interesting stat, most post per months as a member...

[Phil Hopkins]

Personally I was never a lurker prior to signing up. I found this place via a linked post from rs246.com and have never looked back since. For me it provided the perfect mix of petrol headed enthusiasm to a place in which you can 'socialise' and discuss pretty much anything. Hence why i've stayed and have got a silly amount of posts in a short period of time.