Re: Participation Inequality (Was: Participation in the NGC4LIB list)

I'd say stop and count to ten. :-)

--- On Fri, 8/20/10, Laval Hunsucker <amoinsde_at_YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> From: Laval Hunsucker <amoinsde_at_YAHOO.COM>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Participation Inequality (Was: Participation in the NGC4LIB list)
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Friday, August 20, 2010, 5:34 PM
> So how long would you say one should
> wait before 
> reacting to a post, in order to give everyone else 
> on the list the impression that one *does* have a 
> life ? :-)
> 
> 
> - Laval Hunsucker
>    Breukelen, Nederland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: B.G. Sloan <bgsloan2_at_YAHOO.COM>
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Sent: Fri, August 20, 2010 3:30:45 PM
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Participation Inequality (Was:
> Participation in the NGC4LIB 
> list)
> 
> In June we were discussing how the vast majority of NGC4LIB
> posts come from a 
> small number of list members. I mentioned that this was a
> fairly common 
> phenomenon in my experience. 
> 
> 
> Now I find out that it has a name: "participation
> inequality". Jakob Nielsen 
> discusses it in this posting from 2006:
> 
> Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to
> Contribute (see: 
> http://bit.ly/cI9T11).
> 
> Among other things, Nielsen cites a 90-9-1 rule for
> participation in large 
> online groups: 
> 
> 
> * 90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but
> don't contribute). 
> * 9% of users contribute from time to time, but other
> priorities dominate their 
> time. 
> 
> * 1% of users participate a lot and account for most
> contributions: it can seem 
> as if they don't have lives because they often post just
> minutes after whatever 
> event they're commenting on occurs.
> 
> I'm not trying to re-open the discussion. Just thought this
> might be of interest 
> to some...
> 
> Bernie Sloan
> 
> 
>       
>