4 ms·
Correct. For content sites like Wikipedia or Digg, it's a small percentage of the users creating an overwhelming majority of the content (probably more extreme
by jonathanjaeger 16y ago
Correct. For content sites like Wikipedia or Digg, it's a small percentage of the users creating an overwhelming majority of the content (probably more extreme than the 80/20 rule). Adding social features and gaming mechanics is one way to incentivize those that are going to be putting in the work.
- IgorPartola 16y agoI wonder what the actual split is. What is the number of front page stories contributed by the top X users on HN?
- jonathanjaeger 16y agoI'm not sure about HN, but I heard people say that the main editors/volunteers on Wikipedia that do the bulk of the work are somewhere in the 1000+ range (somewhere in the low four-digits).
- onwardly 16y agoThere's a rule similar to 80/20 which is 90-9-1. 90% are just observers, 9% react/respond (think upvote), and 1% contribute. I wouldn't be surprised if the HN/Reddit/etc. is close to this or some normalized and skewed version of it.
- TooSmugToFail 16y agoI don't think that it's that extreme. The difference between Wikipedia and Reddit/HN is what I would venture calling 'contribution barrier.' Think how hard is it to contribute to a Wikipedia article vs. Posting or commenting on Reddit/HN. Let alone voting. I'd imagine that most of the registered users have voted, and a majority have commented. I don't imagine quite a lot of people have posted links. If I'd have to guess a ratio of lurkers:voters:commenters:posters, I'd say it's 40:30:25:5.