Comments on: The 1% Rule http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/ Everyone needs a hug. Tue, 13 May 2008 22:10:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: AdamD http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2257 AdamD Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:34:25 +0000 http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2257 <p>Don't make the mistake that only 1% of the population will ever contribute <b>any</b> content. Remember that most Web sites don't have a complete overlap in users, so 1% of my site plus 1% of your site should get us something greater than 1%.</p> Don’t make the mistake that only 1% of the population will ever contribute any content. Remember that most Web sites don’t have a complete overlap in users, so 1% of my site plus 1% of your site should get us something greater than 1%.

]]> By: Rob Grady http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2256 Rob Grady Sat, 22 Jul 2006 04:24:17 +0000 http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2256 <p>It would be interesting to see how these numbers have changed over time. While I have no data points, given the growth the social web over the last 18 months (i.e. myspace.com), it would appear that more users are willing to participate.</p> It would be interesting to see how these numbers have changed over time. While I have no data points, given the growth the social web over the last 18 months (i.e. myspace.com), it would appear that more users are willing to participate.

]]> By: Leo http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2255 Leo Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:05:05 +0000 http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2255 <p>What the 1% rule says is right:</p> <p>...if you get a group of 100 people online then one will create content, 10 will "interact" with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it.</p> <p>But the conclusion, is wrong:</p> <p>...Only that you shouldn't expect too much online....The trouble, as in real life, is finding the builders.</p> <p>The trouble is not "finding the builders". Quite the contrary, with all the Web 2.0 stuff, people are more willing to try new things than before. You can see the proof, YouTube can live, without big budget marketing; Digg can, Flickr can, too. There's no problem to attract "builders" if your service is good.</p> <p>The 1% rule only concludes that, like in the fire scene, most people just like to watch.</p> What the 1% rule says is right:

…if you get a group of 100 people online then one will create content, 10 will “interact” with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it.

But the conclusion, is wrong:

…Only that you shouldn’t expect too much online….The trouble, as in real life, is finding the builders.

The trouble is not “finding the builders”. Quite the contrary, with all the Web 2.0 stuff, people are more willing to try new things than before. You can see the proof, YouTube can live, without big budget marketing; Digg can, Flickr can, too. There’s no problem to attract “builders” if your service is good.

The 1% rule only concludes that, like in the fire scene, most people just like to watch.

]]> By: Jeff http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2254 Jeff Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:24:43 +0000 http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2254 <p>This isn't at all surprising to me. I've thought about it before at depth. Time is valuable. Incentive must exist. Om Malik wrote a good piece on this a bit back but I can't seem to find the link. Or maybe I can't be bothered to :)</p> This isn’t at all surprising to me. I’ve thought about it before at depth. Time is valuable. Incentive must exist. Om Malik wrote a good piece on this a bit back but I can’t seem to find the link. Or maybe I can’t be bothered to :)

]]> By: Michael Luu http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2253 Michael Luu Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:21:55 +0000 http://particletree.com/notebook/the-1-rule/#comment-2253 <p>Interesting data... IMHO, I think the low number of participants can be contributed to two factors. First: how much they care about the subject itself, second: the barrier to entry/learning curve. I think flickr is a good example for lowering the learning curve. Granted, their model is fairly simple (upload a photo) but through their API, there are now workflows for almost any user to easily post images to their flickr account. Wikipedia on the other hand is quite daunting for the average user. Learning custom wiki markup of how to use their visual editor takes a time investment that our attention deficit populus can't muster.</p> Interesting data… IMHO, I think the low number of participants can be contributed to two factors. First: how much they care about the subject itself, second: the barrier to entry/learning curve. I think flickr is a good example for lowering the learning curve. Granted, their model is fairly simple (upload a photo) but through their API, there are now workflows for almost any user to easily post images to their flickr account. Wikipedia on the other hand is quite daunting for the average user. Learning custom wiki markup of how to use their visual editor takes a time investment that our attention deficit populus can’t muster.

]]>