4 ms·

1. Seed with high quality community members. Initially this might just be a small circle of friends or emigres from another online community. 2. Be really hand

1. Seed with high quality community members. Initially this might just be a small circle of friends or emigres from another online community. 2. Be really hands on with identifying, engaging with, and empowering the best community members. Typically, this would mean giving them some sort of moderation powers and/or giving them access to some sort of "backchannel" (ie, a mods-only chat or forum) in which they can be a part of the discussions where you discuss community direction. In general, treat your small (initial) size as an asset. Your community cannot represent a Stack Overflow-sized massive knowledge base. So, what can you offer that a large existing community cannot? Chiefly, this would be an ability for members to get in on the ground floor and shape the direction of the community while having a direct line of communication to the founder(s). Hands-on communication with a community founder can really reach people. Think about what it would mean for Paul Graham to reach out to you personally in response to an HN comment you made. In the early stages of your community, you can be the founder and make those connections.

wool_gather 7y ago
> Your community cannot represent a Stack Overflow-sized massive knowledge base. Worth noting I think that Stack Overflow started (relatively) small itself, and that it followed your two points. The membership "seeding" was the readers of Jeff and Joel's blogs. Both of them, Jeff and Joel, were very visible and active at least in the meta aspects of the site. Jeff in particular was happy to discuss how the site worked or should work with anyone who was interested. I think you're right that these are key elements.
- mattmanser 7y ago
  Joel also had a community going already with the "business of software" forum (imo the spiritual predecessor of HN, patio11 was very well know there) and the comments sections of Jeff's blog was a great place for discussion too. They also had a really good podcast going as they were developing it. And a good 'bad guy' too, the site with a dash (experts-exchange).
- JohnBooty 7y ago
  Well very true and well said. I think that instead of saying, Your community cannot represent a Stack Overflow-sized massive knowledge base. ...it would have been more accurate for me to say: Your community cannot IMMEDIATELY represent a Stack Overflow-sized, massive knowledge base. =)

wool_gather 7y ago

> Your community cannot represent a Stack Overflow-sized massive knowledge base. Worth noting I think that Stack Overflow started (relatively) small itself, and that it followed your two points. The membership "seeding" was the readers of Jeff and Joel's blogs. Both of them, Jeff and Joel, were very visible and active at least in the meta aspects of the site. Jeff in particular was happy to discuss how the site worked or should work with anyone who was interested. I think you're right that these are key elements.

mattmanser 7y ago
Joel also had a community going already with the "business of software" forum (imo the spiritual predecessor of HN, patio11 was very well know there) and the comments sections of Jeff's blog was a great place for discussion too. They also had a really good podcast going as they were developing it. And a good 'bad guy' too, the site with a dash (experts-exchange).
JohnBooty 7y ago
Well very true and well said. I think that instead of saying, Your community cannot represent a Stack Overflow-sized massive knowledge base. ...it would have been more accurate for me to say: Your community cannot IMMEDIATELY represent a Stack Overflow-sized, massive knowledge base. =)