5 ms·

These Quora answers give a good hint: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Reddit-get-initial-traction https://www.quora.com/How-did-Reddit-get-initial-traction In pa

These Quora answers give a good hint: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Reddit-get-initial-traction https://www.quora.com/How-did-Reddit-get-initial-traction In particular, it seems like two big factors were: - Having influencers (e.g., Paul Graham) onboard, which gets their followers - Auto-populating content (fake users) and generating the illusion of activity so that it doesn't feel like one is entering an empty forum Getting friends to use a service also makes a lot of sense for social networks that incubate in small communities (e.g., Facebook), but are a bit harder to pull off for these diffuse communities like Hacker News.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
egeozcan 9y ago
> Auto-populating content (fake users) and generating the illusion of activity The other owner of a project of ours once suggested doing this. I rejected that because of ethical reasons. I also told that could mean legal trouble. Was I completely naive/wrong?
- bpicolo 9y ago
  It's certainly not illegal, at least in terms of social media. There's no contract/obligation/whatnot that a username be mappable to a single distinct human. I wouldn't really consider it unethical in the reddit case either, but I could imagine opinions vary.
- philipov 9y ago
  I think there's a difference between providing your own seed content and fake users. In the case of a forum, I see nothing ethically wrong with having a user role marked "Staff Writer" or some-such.
- chatmasta 9y ago
  How’d the project go? Did you get any users? I’m going to go ahead and guess the answer is “no.” So yes, you were naive. Very few social apps (or marketplace apps even) overcome the chicken/egg problem without some form of faked content. After all, who’s going to post to an empty forum? I’ve growth hacked an app to 600k users across 200 communities (colleges). What worked for us was seeding each new community with enough fake content for the first few days. After that the real users took over. The most interesting aspect of that growth hack was that users would post content similar to what we seeded it with. So we could create the “vibe” of the community with fake posts, and soon it turned very real.
  - tieTYT 9y ago
    I'm interested in hearing more details. You ever write blog articles that go into more depth?
    - chatmasta 9y ago
      At some point I will (the story is pretty crazy) but for now I’d like to keep certain details of my life private, so I avoid blogging. I used to think I’d need a blog to attract consulting clients, but I’ve had no problem without one so far, and thus I haven’t gotten around to it. My personal website is basically Lorem Ipsum lol. If you’re really interested, shoot me an email. I’m happy to talk one on one.
  - bowlich 9y ago
    But that doesn't answer the ethical question. Success and imminent failure are not a justifications for unethical actions. If success cannot be achieved without unethical action, then perhaps it is best to fail. Misrepresenting the nature of the content would certainly fail Kant's deontological tests.
    - chatmasta 9y ago
      I’d like to hear an example of a chicken/egg social app that did not fake content at the beginning. If you can’t think of one, or there’s few examples, then there’s also the ethical consideration to your stakeholders (eg investors). Is it ethical to forego a legal opportunity to grow your user base? Do you have an obligation to your investors to do all you can to build a successful product? My personal ethics revolve around the question of “am I hurting anyone?” I really can’t imagine how posting fake content to your own forum is hurting anyone. By I can see how neglecting to take steps to grow your user base could hurt people (yourself included, if the business fails). Would you rather that Reddit had never faked content? More likely than not, if they hadn’t done that, Reddit would not exist today. So isn’t that a net positive from an ethical perspective?
      - bowlich 9y ago
- btgeekboy 9y ago
  I think there's a bit of a difference between priming the pump so that your forum looks active, vs. having sockpuppets included in your active user numbers that you use to try to get funding. The former's a bit murky, but I'm okay with it at the start of something new and being phased out. The latter's straight up unethical and (IANAL) potentially illegal.
- paulcole 9y ago
  >I also told that could mean legal trouble. I would've certainly asked for a clear explanation of this as it's hard for me to believe it's remotely true.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

egeozcan 9y ago

> Auto-populating content (fake users) and generating the illusion of activity The other owner of a project of ours once suggested doing this. I rejected that because of ethical reasons. I also told that could mean legal trouble. Was I completely naive/wrong?

bpicolo 9y ago
It's certainly not illegal, at least in terms of social media. There's no contract/obligation/whatnot that a username be mappable to a single distinct human. I wouldn't really consider it unethical in the reddit case either, but I could imagine opinions vary.
philipov 9y ago
I think there's a difference between providing your own seed content and fake users. In the case of a forum, I see nothing ethically wrong with having a user role marked "Staff Writer" or some-such.
chatmasta 9y ago
How’d the project go? Did you get any users? I’m going to go ahead and guess the answer is “no.” So yes, you were naive. Very few social apps (or marketplace apps even) overcome the chicken/egg problem without some form of faked content. After all, who’s going to post to an empty forum? I’ve growth hacked an app to 600k users across 200 communities (colleges). What worked for us was seeding each new community with enough fake content for the first few days. After that the real users took over. The most interesting aspect of that growth hack was that users would post content similar to what we seeded it with. So we could create the “vibe” of the community with fake posts, and soon it turned very real.
- tieTYT 9y ago
  I'm interested in hearing more details. You ever write blog articles that go into more depth?
  - chatmasta 9y ago
    At some point I will (the story is pretty crazy) but for now I’d like to keep certain details of my life private, so I avoid blogging. I used to think I’d need a blog to attract consulting clients, but I’ve had no problem without one so far, and thus I haven’t gotten around to it. My personal website is basically Lorem Ipsum lol. If you’re really interested, shoot me an email. I’m happy to talk one on one.
- bowlich 9y ago
  But that doesn't answer the ethical question. Success and imminent failure are not a justifications for unethical actions. If success cannot be achieved without unethical action, then perhaps it is best to fail. Misrepresenting the nature of the content would certainly fail Kant's deontological tests.
  - chatmasta 9y ago
    I’d like to hear an example of a chicken/egg social app that did not fake content at the beginning. If you can’t think of one, or there’s few examples, then there’s also the ethical consideration to your stakeholders (eg investors). Is it ethical to forego a legal opportunity to grow your user base? Do you have an obligation to your investors to do all you can to build a successful product? My personal ethics revolve around the question of “am I hurting anyone?” I really can’t imagine how posting fake content to your own forum is hurting anyone. By I can see how neglecting to take steps to grow your user base could hurt people (yourself included, if the business fails). Would you rather that Reddit had never faked content? More likely than not, if they hadn’t done that, Reddit would not exist today. So isn’t that a net positive from an ethical perspective?
    - bowlich 9y ago
btgeekboy 9y ago
I think there's a bit of a difference between priming the pump so that your forum looks active, vs. having sockpuppets included in your active user numbers that you use to try to get funding. The former's a bit murky, but I'm okay with it at the start of something new and being phased out. The latter's straight up unethical and (IANAL) potentially illegal.
paulcole 9y ago
>I also told that could mean legal trouble. I would've certainly asked for a clear explanation of this as it's hard for me to believe it's remotely true.