Comments on: Web 2.0 has its ups and downs http://www.patcoyle.net/2007/04/18/web-20-has-its-ups-and-downs/ "The things we think and do not say," J.M. Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:13:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Pat Coyle http://www.patcoyle.net/2007/04/18/web-20-has-its-ups-and-downs/#comment-3415 Pat Coyle Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:55:21 +0000 http://www.patcoyle.net/2007/04/18/web-20-has-its-ups-and-downs/#comment-3415 Good points, Kevin. I especially like the phrase "beneficial lurking behaviors". I know what you mean, but it sounds funny :-) Good points, Kevin.

I especially like the phrase “beneficial lurking behaviors”. I know what you mean, but it sounds funny :-)

]]> By: Kevin Makice http://www.patcoyle.net/2007/04/18/web-20-has-its-ups-and-downs/#comment-3414 Kevin Makice Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:21:12 +0000 http://www.patcoyle.net/2007/04/18/web-20-has-its-ups-and-downs/#comment-3414 If the only valued measure of contribution is publishing content, then these numbers might be distressing. However - without seeing these studies - my guess is that there was no attempt to value other key parts of a Web 2.0 site, such as dissemination of information. Those aren't just "visitors" passively consuming content. They are also ambassadors of the site, who recruit new members, refer friends to new content, and use other Web 2.0 tools (like blogs) to let people know about it. Beneficial lurking behaviors, though, can't easily be extracted from a database or web log. If the only valued measure of contribution is publishing content, then these numbers might be distressing. However - without seeing these studies - my guess is that there was no attempt to value other key parts of a Web 2.0 site, such as dissemination of information. Those aren’t just “visitors” passively consuming content. They are also ambassadors of the site, who recruit new members, refer friends to new content, and use other Web 2.0 tools (like blogs) to let people know about it. Beneficial lurking behaviors, though, can’t easily be extracted from a database or web log.

]]> By: Pat Coyle http://www.patcoyle.net/2007/04/18/web-20-has-its-ups-and-downs/#comment-3412 Pat Coyle Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:17:09 +0000 http://www.patcoyle.net/2007/04/18/web-20-has-its-ups-and-downs/#comment-3412 Brian - Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. I share you curiosity...how indeed can we attract participants in enough volume to matter? Speaking for myself, we're hoping to convert the regular audience that's already on our dot com site and in our current forum, and (hopefully) engage a few of the less frequent visitors. As for your second question, the "1% rule seems to be pervasive". Perhaps it's human nature that only a smal % of people will speak up? If so, you can't fight it, right? Brian - Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. I share you curiosity…how indeed can we attract participants in enough volume to matter? Speaking for myself, we’re hoping to convert the regular audience that’s already on our dot com site and in our current forum, and (hopefully) engage a few of the less frequent visitors. As for your second question, the “1% rule seems to be pervasive”. Perhaps it’s human nature that only a smal % of people will speak up? If so, you can’t fight it, right?

]]> By: Brian http://www.patcoyle.net/2007/04/18/web-20-has-its-ups-and-downs/#comment-3390 Brian Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:05:41 +0000 http://www.patcoyle.net/2007/04/18/web-20-has-its-ups-and-downs/#comment-3390 I had the opportunity to attend this session at the conference and when I first saw the slide with these numbers I (believe it or not) thought about your previous 1% Rule post. Two questions jump out at me from this: 1) as a social startup, how do you build a large enough system to attract participants when so few of your audience will be active? and 2) once you reach a tipping point in the number of participants, do you really care that only 1% are active? Reid Hoffman, during a different session at the conference, responded to question #1 by simply saying that when you can answer that question you will be ready for VC funding. It's the question that all social sites need to be able to answer, but there doesn't seem to be a clear path. I'd be curious to hear how others have approached this in the past. As for #2, I think it's very easy to go with the simple answer of "yes, of course it matters - you always want more active participants." But, I think that if you start to delve deeper into this question and weigh the pros and cons surrounding the amount of time, effort and money that would need to go into incenting the participants to contribute more versus the profit you would reap, you might find a model that shows it's not worth it. Just a thought... I had the opportunity to attend this session at the conference and when I first saw the slide with these numbers I (believe it or not) thought about your previous 1% Rule post. Two questions jump out at me from this: 1) as a social startup, how do you build a large enough system to attract participants when so few of your audience will be active? and 2) once you reach a tipping point in the number of participants, do you really care that only 1% are active?

Reid Hoffman, during a different session at the conference, responded to question #1 by simply saying that when you can answer that question you will be ready for VC funding. It’s the question that all social sites need to be able to answer, but there doesn’t seem to be a clear path. I’d be curious to hear how others have approached this in the past.

As for #2, I think it’s very easy to go with the simple answer of “yes, of course it matters - you always want more active participants.” But, I think that if you start to delve deeper into this question and weigh the pros and cons surrounding the amount of time, effort and money that would need to go into incenting the participants to contribute more versus the profit you would reap, you might find a model that shows it’s not worth it. Just a thought…

]]>