Creationism:

I've been having a conversation on another site recently about user participation on/in social networks.

Discussing how many people actively contribute or passively observe, with a particular interest in the proportion/percentage who upload original content, or mainly contribute via comments/uploading existing work, or are happy to simply lurk/read only?

And why, you may ask, do I ask?.

Well, there's nothing inherently wrong with any of these activities, (and I hasten to add, this isn’t a rant or finger-pointing exercise). Rather, it's a genuine inquiry into user involvement here.

In the early days of most SN's, there seemed to be a surge of enthusiasm to create, contribute and upload here. (Early adopter syndrome?)

However the traffic seems to ultimately degenerate into the; ‘Member A is friends with Member B’, or Member A joins Group C,' or 'here's another mindless music/lookylike/cute cat picture widget that I have figured out how to embed', variety.

All well and good, if that's what floats your boat, but it does seem to confirm the 1/9/90 principle I've been reading about recently. (Also known as the 1% rule.)

It postulates, (oh dear, dipping into the new meeja, stripey Paul Smith shirt, lexicon again), that 1/9/90 % of social media users split into create/contribute/lurk camps.

Much of the theory comes from research covering social spaces like YouTube and the much-respected Jakob Nielsen.

(I’ve personally always taken JN’s pronouncements with a large pinch of salt, but amongst the sodium you can often find a few gems.)

And more importantly, he does adopt a killer look. See below. One which I am sincerely considering emulating:

But I digress, again, and steer myself back to the question, 'Do enough people contribute enough original content on social networks?

Or is the majority happy to let a small, often unpaid percentage, carry most of the creative weight? 

 

Footnote,

Perhaps it’s ROT thing for some?

In addition to Return On Investment, we now live in the era of ROT, Return On Time.

With a whole bunch of social 'outlets' to express ourselves in words, pictures, films and bookmarks: Writing a comment here and there, or cutting together a little movie, posting a tweet, embedding stuff in Google Maps etc, not only takes time to generate for the benefit of others social spaces, but it also consumes/steals time and content from some of our other, perhaps more ‘mainstream’ social channels.

For example, I’m posting less on my business blog, and it’s suffering because I now divert time in my day to a new, business-focussed social network in my neck of the woods. (Willing, and happily of course.)

And where I fall along the 1/9/90 continiuum could be to do with the fact that I’ve got far too much time on my hands, (but my diary, wife and local publican says otherwise), it maybe that most people on social networks are too busy earning a living to contribute more.

I’d be interested in your reaction, your views, and opinions in how we can encourage more creationists.

And if indeed we need to.

Or if we're content to recycle and repackage existing content. (Which in itself is no bad thing, if it’s work unseen by the community before.)

My guess is it’s a combo of both new and old.

With a bit more of an emphasis and boost to the new.

Comments

[mark gorman]

you got that look a long time ago...

[Darcie]

I think, honestly, I'm in category b & c. I am a huge lurker of MANY sites and when I am part of a site, even my own blog, I'm not sure how much of it I could say is actually my own creation, apart from my thoughts on what I'm posting. Usually it's someone else's creation I'm giving my opinion on.

However, you know as well as anyone else, that I am my worst critic, so I could be exaggerating a bit. I don't even know anymore!

Reading many rss feeds on a regular basis, it does get quite unnerving to see the same stuff discussed/used over & over, so I am posting less and trying not to post about something unless I have a new position on it or I REALLY REALLY appreciate it and want it in my "online journal" which, effectively, is why I began a blog in the first place.

[Jon Mountjoy]

Interesting questions Mike. I'm going to disagree with one point you make: "In the early days of most SN's, there seemed to be a surge of enthusiasm to create, contribute and upload here. (Early adopter syndrome?)"

I think the folk that are the early adopters are the same folk that typically contribute. They get involved, they experiment.

So I don't think there's been a degeneration, as you indicate. Rather, the natural balance was created.

But that doesn't mean to say that the 1% rule always holds. For example, in a community with a good vibe - something a community manager tries to create - you can up this quite significantly. For example, by making sure that new members are welcomed. That their "newness" and "newbieness" are embraced. That it's okay to ask dumb questions, 'cos dumb questions don't exist. By having reward systems for participation and so on.

At the end of the day, there has to be some reward for my giving time to a community - why else would you actively participate (as opposed to simply passively read). That reward may be something as simple as a "good feeling" - or more complex "I want more points than him" etc.

:-)