Hutch Carpenter

"In most online communities, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all the action." - Hutch Carpenter via Bookmarklet

I've seen this a few times now and I wouldn't coin the 90% that matter most when it comes to having a community to speak to as "Lurkers" - it's a negative connotation that deserves a different name - Julian Baldwin

I think you could apply those same percentages to society at large. Question; what's the tipping point that moves a person from one level to the next, up or down? - Jack Carlson

Julian - "lurkers" speaks to the goals of a company running social media. You want participation. But as consumers of information, you're right. I'm learning, not lurking! - Hutch Carpenter

Jack, he defines what each level is right in the article. - Mark Trapp

actions carried out by lurkers (views, time spent per node, node entrance, node exit, etc) can be considered a form of positive participation if you're feeding the trending patterns back into your community. - [edit] - just saw it in the article, 'Make participation a side effect' aka 'read wear'. - Graham Garland

I saw that, Mark, but the examples were internet oriented. When applied to real life or society, there are other tipping points. Some people's lives could be defined by those statistics. They are actively contributing to their lives about 1% of the time and spending 90% of their lives more as spectators than participants. Life's lurkers. - Jack Carlson

Jack, it's not about "tipping points:" he's merely citing statistical data. In general 90% of users online don't participate at all, 9% participate but don't make it their main focus, and 1% seem to focus on nothing other than participating. Therefore, you're not getting a representative sample for user feedback when soliciting comments or methods that require participation. I think it's a stretch to take this data and attempt to discover life's lessons out of it. - Mark Trapp

Old media: TV,magazines,etc. probably 99% lurkers. 10% improvement not bad. - Mark Forman

We all lurk on most things, participate on some things. Last night, there was a good discussion about the safety and reliability of nuclear energy here. I have *nothing* to add to that, I was just as curious as anyone else. Lurking. - Hutch Carpenter

"Wikipedia is thus even more skewed than blogs, with a 99.8-0.2-0.003 rule" - Nicholas James

Wikipedia: "The encyclopedia anyone can edit, but you're really not going to, are you?" - Mark Trapp

Why should we-and put all those wikipediaists out of a job? - Mark Forman

@jbaldwinconnect: I like the term "audience," since it goes right to the heart of what they're there for. To observe, enjoy, and if they feel the urge they CAN interact but don't have to. Sometimes they applaud, sometimes they heckle, even if they don't get on stage. You can't have a theatre WITHOUT them. And why would you want to? Sometimes I think a lot of SocNet activists would like a masturbatory world where everyone's just acting for everyone else and no one's listening. - Alexander Williams via NoiseRiver

@alexander Clap, clap ,clap encore!!! - Mel.Buckpitt

Yep, +1 Alexander. The performer/audience relationship is just natural. Well said. - Colin Walker via fftogo

Isn't it true of the world in general? - Parth Awasthi

Personally, I think Ye Olde "Lurker" is perfectly apt. In online communities (as opposed to what passes for such in the Web 2.0 world), there is no performer/audience dynamic... there are people who define themselves and the community through participation, and then there are the those who prefer to observe the community without becoming a part of it. - Roger Benningfield

Hutch: I'm not subscribed to you, and yet your name pops up in my FF flow all the time. So that pretty much confirms you're not a lurker in this space... having nothing to say in a specific "thread" doesn't change the fact that you're generally active. - Roger Benningfield

Roger - there are times I lurk, times I jump in. And I just subscribed to you as well. I like the earlier comments regarding the need for people to just *listen*, not always *perform*. Nothing wrong with that. Lurking = learning. - Hutch Carpenter

That's very true. I learn so much here. And sometimes lurking is better than blurting out just anything in order to participate. (Though I've been guilty of that too.) - Abby Martin

Hutch: Oh, I don't mean to suggest that there's some sort of moral imperative to participate. And there can definitely be a learning aspect to lurking... bit it can also be voyeuristic and detached in some contexts. - Roger Benningfield

I'm lurking on this thread. Oh wait. - possible248

Someone who watches and observes is generally thought of as intelligent, open. But in online social communities they are "lurkers." - Alex Williams

Imagine the noise if there was 100% participation. - Morton Fox

Alex: Someone who sits in shadowed silence while observing the party is usually thought of as "creepy". :-D Again, context plays a big role here. I'm simply resistant to the recasting of lurkers as "contributors by other means" or the audience at a show. Lurkers all-too-often bring their own sense of entitlement to the table, and don't need anyone encouraging them to feel more important than they are. - Roger Benningfield

This is an important point for any community strategy: how can you encourage the lurkers to participate easily? The "like" button in FriendFeed was made for lurkers! - Erica Toelle via twhirl

I disagree that people who observe a public community are sitting in "shadowed silence" and are therefore "creepy." I agree that they are not contributors by other means. Now, some silent observers may be creepy but they are a smaller subset of the community. Same could be said about contributors. A subset of that community may be quite "creepy" in their own right, too. - Alex Williams

Erica: To me, the bigger question is, "do you really want to make it easy for people to participate?" I agree that the "like" link is a handy, non-destructive substitute for an endless stream of "+1", "first!!!", and other one-sentence contributions. But I'm not sure it would do much to forge the bonds of community. - Roger Benningfield

i was thinking of passing on this one, not wanting to be the only counter comment - but hey, why not - doesn't anyone else on this thread find it ironic that inside the most progressive participation tool to-date (friendfeed) a thread is occurring around an almost 2 year old "article" written by the ui dinosaur that is jakob nielsen - his way of looking at online interactions was dated back then and it is still dated - anyway, i just thought it was ironic, i'll go back to my lurking now ;) - mike "glemak" dunn

Alex: Again, I'm not saying lurkers are of any single character... I'm just pointing out that, depending on the structure and purpose of a community, lurking can have a very different feel. Honestly, I don't have anything against lurkers in general. I simply chafe at the emphasis that is often placed upon them when discussing community. - Roger Benningfield

sorry one more - alexander has a great line above "Sometimes I think a lot of SocNet activists would like a masturbatory world where everyone's just acting for everyone else and no one's listening." - awesome - mike "glemak" dunn

Mike: That only makes sense to me if we're talking about blogging or a service like FF, where it is entirely possible to approach participation as a fire-and-forget exercise. But in an actual community, you're usually talking *with* someone. Listening is kind of an important part of having a conversation. :) - Roger Benningfield

roger: are you referring to my "ironic" comment, in which case i don't understand or my quotation of alexander's funny statement in which case i still don't understand - can you pls say what you're trying to say a different way? - mike "glemak" dunn

Mike: Non-threaded discussion drives me ape-shit. (grumble grumble) I was referring to the latter... an "acting without listening" environment can really only take shape on a blog or a place like FF, where one can get by with one-way content production. Communities, meanwhile, host conversations, which by their very nature require that someone at least *pretend* to be listening. - Roger Benningfield

I've heard the 80-19-1 split... but many communities probably are closer to 90-9-1 - Eric Berlin

roger: I think you and i define online communities differently - alexander's line was humorous which is why I pointed it out - possibly the joke did not resonate with you but it worked for me - have a good one - mike "glemak" dunn

By the way, please see Forrester's Social Technographics data, this 90 9 1 rule isn't always the case, it depends on the demographics http://www.forrester.com/Groun... - Jeremiah Owyang

this is nothing new; it was true 20 years ago on USENET and mailing lists. Most people just don't have the motivation to be more than a passive watcher. not a bad thing. - Chuq Von Rospach

Come to think of it, The Smurfs community follows this same distribution: 90 are Crowd-Scenes only, 9 Have a Name/Brand, and 1 is Female -- BUT THEY'RE ALL TEMPRA PAINT BLUE. - Micah Wittman