7 ms·

Not all user generated content need be treated the same. As the article points out, a very small portion of consumers on a particular site turn around and crea

Not all user generated content need be treated the same. As the article points out, a very small portion of consumers on a particular site turn around and create their own content. But, I think this mostly applies to general interest content sites. What if your site provides content as a result of providing a useful, provocative tool? We have about 21k users on ridewithgps.com. The focal point of the site is the mapping functionalities for planning and logging bike rides. Users create this content by either drawing a prospective ride on a map, or, by uploading a log file from a trip they took. There are very few accounts that have no routes or recorded activities on them, because the site exists to provide utility to a user. With 134,000 maps, that's 6.4 maps per user. By creating an account, users are compelled to start creating maps because it is directly useful to them to do so! However, users can also add less important content: a mini-profile for their bike, photos, comments etc. The amount of this less utilitarian content that users create is significantly smaller. Photos, for example, are 0.3 per user. Comments are 0.1 per user. What does this mean? Make sure your site provides a strong utilitarian aspect for your users! Provide them with value, not just another place register and store generic content.

akgerber 16y ago
And these guys had well-established competitors! But one competitor was a lot less functional, and another had a business model of "provide a free version with incredibly aggravating ads so that users buy a premium version." Instead I immediately moved to RideWithGPS when I heard about it & tell everyone else about it. But I don't think they're making money off of me. I should probably donate now that I have a real job, since I'm a pretty heavy user. Another cool way they could make money off of me would be selling ads tailored to the kind of riding I do and the kind of bikes I ride, since I've given them that information. That'd actually be pretty cool.
- cullenking 16y ago
  We are exploring non-ad based revenue models primarily, but, are open to tastefully done ads like you have described. We have plans on greatly enhancing our gear section (can you tell it hasn't been touched in two years?) to encourage more detailed inputs. This will let us do more relevant targeting. If we do ads, I want to attempt to only show ads that are beneficial to a user. Since we are location based, that means maybe only allowing local ads for users, or maybe any ad as long as it is a sweet deal. Users might not be turned off on ads if they are for 25% off stuff the want anyway. As far as donating, I am working out how I want to handle early donors considering we are nearing the launch of paid accounts. We will be treating our early donors well, they will receive much more than they might otherwise for a normal paid account, but we haven't put any actual "policies" in place. I am constantly surprised by the levels of donations. We received a $200 donation at the end of last week from a single user! The average has been around $22.50 - I have intended on writing a blog piece on it, but haven't managed yet :)
  - dustrider 16y ago
    Dude, the user has just asked for advertising :) why are you even mentioning donations? Giving the user access to stuff they want to buy, when they want to buy it and where they want to buy it, without giving them anything they don't want, when they don't want it, etc is a great value offering for both user and advertiser, it's great that you've got the attitude that advertising has to be beneficial for the user, but remember that it's also beneficial for the advertiser as they don't have to waste money or time on people that wouldn't buy. If you've got access to your users bike choices, mileage and location, just contact all the bike servicing shops you can manage and offer them a deal, I will bet money the majority will take you up on it.
    - cullenking 16y ago
      I still believe that advertising will be a small source of revenue in comparison to paid accounts. But, within the context of advertising, I am pulled towards local, value added advertisements like you mention. It also helps that we have maps on which we can show markers of nearby bikeshops while someone plots their route! And, I mentioned donations because he directly referred to donating money to our site! I was just giving him the headsup on what we are thinking in terms of donors and our premium accounts, since we should be at that point within a month.
Elepsis 16y ago
All the way back in 2006, Joshua Porter wrote a really good article illustrating this principle using the example of Delicious: http://bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/ http://bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/ The gist of it: The one major idea behind the Del.icio.us Lesson is that personal value precedes network value. What this means is that if we are to build networks of value, then each person on the network needs to find value for themselves before they can contribute value to the network. In the case of Del.icio.us, people find value saving their personal bookmarks first and foremost. All other usage is secondary.
- Perceval 16y ago
  That's a nice restatement of Smith's 'Invisible Hand' concept.
  - Kliment 16y ago
    No, it isn't. While widely quoted, out of context, Smith did not believe that a market was guided by an "invisible hand". In his book, he only mentions it once, and in a fairly limited context. His text does point out a number of situations where regulation is interfering with the optimal market state, but the bulk of the book is a description of the kind of market that would self-adjust to an optimum, and the form of regulation that would be best for creating that kind of market. So yes, organizing a community so that personal gain leads to community gain is very much in line with Smith's beliefs, but keep the "invisible hand" out of it. (If you are curious, the full text, long out of copyright, is available at several locations online, with various forms of commentary. I highly recommend the book.)
    - Perceval 16y ago
      Your comment is unnecessarily condescending. I have the unabridged text of The Wealth of Nations on my shelf, next to books by virtually ever other major political economist: Locke, Malthus, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Engels, Keynes, Veblen, Polanyi, Hayek, Friedman, Schumpeter, and a collection of institutionalists, rational choice theorists, post-Keynesians, neo/post-Marxists and so on. The very simple fact is that Elepsis's post is quite literally a restatement of the 'invisible hand.' Here is the one passage from The Wealth of Nations where Smith uses the term: "He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. …[H]e intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never know much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good… "…[E]very individual, it is evident, can in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." Elepsis's comment highlights a quote from an article about del.icio.us saying that personal benefit comes first and without personal benefit del.icio.us not only would not work, but there would be no substantial public benefit produced. If anything, this is an even stronger statement than Smith's statement of the 'invisible hand.' Your comment is somewhat of a non-sequitur. You seem to be attacking the thesis that the market should exist entirely free from the activities of the state. This has nothing to do with my original comment. It's irrelevant if the 'invisible hand' metaphor was only used once—the fact remains that Elepsis's quote is a very straightforward restatement of the 'invisible hand' metaphor. Trying to turn that into some ideological flamewar about free-marketers is unnecessary and unhelpful.
dkarl 16y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. Users will contribute content if they have or already create content that you will help them do something with -- present it, organize it, get feedback on it, analyze it, whatever. I signed up for Goodreads thinking I would use it for social networking, maybe find cute girls who read the same books I do, and show off my writing skills to them, but I never actually used it that way. I use it as a place to put my thoughts down about the books I've read. It turns out I don't want anybody to read my embarrassingly shallow and rushed notes, nor do I want to read the embarrassingly shallow and trite ramblings of other normal people like me. I just like the way the site lets me organize my notes and records about what I've read.

akgerber 16y ago

And these guys had well-established competitors! But one competitor was a lot less functional, and another had a business model of "provide a free version with incredibly aggravating ads so that users buy a premium version." Instead I immediately moved to RideWithGPS when I heard about it & tell everyone else about it. But I don't think they're making money off of me. I should probably donate now that I have a real job, since I'm a pretty heavy user. Another cool way they could make money off of me would be selling ads tailored to the kind of riding I do and the kind of bikes I ride, since I've given them that information. That'd actually be pretty cool.

cullenking 16y ago
We are exploring non-ad based revenue models primarily, but, are open to tastefully done ads like you have described. We have plans on greatly enhancing our gear section (can you tell it hasn't been touched in two years?) to encourage more detailed inputs. This will let us do more relevant targeting. If we do ads, I want to attempt to only show ads that are beneficial to a user. Since we are location based, that means maybe only allowing local ads for users, or maybe any ad as long as it is a sweet deal. Users might not be turned off on ads if they are for 25% off stuff the want anyway. As far as donating, I am working out how I want to handle early donors considering we are nearing the launch of paid accounts. We will be treating our early donors well, they will receive much more than they might otherwise for a normal paid account, but we haven't put any actual "policies" in place. I am constantly surprised by the levels of donations. We received a $200 donation at the end of last week from a single user! The average has been around $22.50 - I have intended on writing a blog piece on it, but haven't managed yet :)
- dustrider 16y ago
  Dude, the user has just asked for advertising :) why are you even mentioning donations? Giving the user access to stuff they want to buy, when they want to buy it and where they want to buy it, without giving them anything they don't want, when they don't want it, etc is a great value offering for both user and advertiser, it's great that you've got the attitude that advertising has to be beneficial for the user, but remember that it's also beneficial for the advertiser as they don't have to waste money or time on people that wouldn't buy. If you've got access to your users bike choices, mileage and location, just contact all the bike servicing shops you can manage and offer them a deal, I will bet money the majority will take you up on it.
  - cullenking 16y ago
    I still believe that advertising will be a small source of revenue in comparison to paid accounts. But, within the context of advertising, I am pulled towards local, value added advertisements like you mention. It also helps that we have maps on which we can show markers of nearby bikeshops while someone plots their route! And, I mentioned donations because he directly referred to donating money to our site! I was just giving him the headsup on what we are thinking in terms of donors and our premium accounts, since we should be at that point within a month.

Elepsis 16y ago

All the way back in 2006, Joshua Porter wrote a really good article illustrating this principle using the example of Delicious: http://bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/ http://bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/ The gist of it: The one major idea behind the Del.icio.us Lesson is that personal value precedes network value. What this means is that if we are to build networks of value, then each person on the network needs to find value for themselves before they can contribute value to the network. In the case of Del.icio.us, people find value saving their personal bookmarks first and foremost. All other usage is secondary.

Perceval 16y ago
That's a nice restatement of Smith's 'Invisible Hand' concept.
- Kliment 16y ago
  No, it isn't. While widely quoted, out of context, Smith did not believe that a market was guided by an "invisible hand". In his book, he only mentions it once, and in a fairly limited context. His text does point out a number of situations where regulation is interfering with the optimal market state, but the bulk of the book is a description of the kind of market that would self-adjust to an optimum, and the form of regulation that would be best for creating that kind of market. So yes, organizing a community so that personal gain leads to community gain is very much in line with Smith's beliefs, but keep the "invisible hand" out of it. (If you are curious, the full text, long out of copyright, is available at several locations online, with various forms of commentary. I highly recommend the book.)
  - Perceval 16y ago
    Your comment is unnecessarily condescending. I have the unabridged text of The Wealth of Nations on my shelf, next to books by virtually ever other major political economist: Locke, Malthus, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Engels, Keynes, Veblen, Polanyi, Hayek, Friedman, Schumpeter, and a collection of institutionalists, rational choice theorists, post-Keynesians, neo/post-Marxists and so on. The very simple fact is that Elepsis's post is quite literally a restatement of the 'invisible hand.' Here is the one passage from The Wealth of Nations where Smith uses the term: "He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. …[H]e intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never know much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good… "…[E]very individual, it is evident, can in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." Elepsis's comment highlights a quote from an article about del.icio.us saying that personal benefit comes first and without personal benefit del.icio.us not only would not work, but there would be no substantial public benefit produced. If anything, this is an even stronger statement than Smith's statement of the 'invisible hand.' Your comment is somewhat of a non-sequitur. You seem to be attacking the thesis that the market should exist entirely free from the activities of the state. This has nothing to do with my original comment. It's irrelevant if the 'invisible hand' metaphor was only used once—the fact remains that Elepsis's quote is a very straightforward restatement of the 'invisible hand' metaphor. Trying to turn that into some ideological flamewar about free-marketers is unnecessary and unhelpful.

dkarl 16y ago

I agree wholeheartedly. Users will contribute content if they have or already create content that you will help them do something with -- present it, organize it, get feedback on it, analyze it, whatever. I signed up for Goodreads thinking I would use it for social networking, maybe find cute girls who read the same books I do, and show off my writing skills to them, but I never actually used it that way. I use it as a place to put my thoughts down about the books I've read. It turns out I don't want anybody to read my embarrassingly shallow and rushed notes, nor do I want to read the embarrassingly shallow and trite ramblings of other normal people like me. I just like the way the site lets me organize my notes and records about what I've read.