5 ms·

So my theory is, you can tailor content based around 3 things: 1. The submissions that a user views (and adding greater weight to those they vote for) 2. Comm

So my theory is, you can tailor content based around 3 things: 1. The submissions that a user views (and adding greater weight to those they vote for) 2. Comments that they respond to (again incrementing the weight if they vote), and 3. Users who's content (in the form of comments/submissions) they react to So if I consistently view content submitted by a user, and respond to their comments a lot, I'd be shown more of their content. Also, if I always click on titles containing HTML, CSS, PHP and jQuery, I'd see more links with those sorts of things in them. Conversely, as a result of not clicking on things, over time I'll see less of them. By having say, a six month drop-off period, this has the dual effects of increasing the likelihood of me seeing content relevant to me, and this content staying current as my interests change. Also, by showing the user similar users (based on engagement habits) over time, it makes it more likely that they'll: 1. Engage more frequently, and 2. Have better discussions, as they get to better know the members of the community that they regularly see

Mz 16y ago
Old data (and I can't really tell you the source exactly -- possibly internal data from when I moderated something and the owner had done some measures combined with some external stats), FWIW: As I understand it, about 20% of members of a forum will be "active" posters and another 10% will be "occasional" posters. According to data in "The Tipping Point", the average/typical human mind can follow the interactions of about 150 people in a group setting. In my experience, the above combined stats results in a community of up to around 750 members will result in around 150 active members and works just fine. Above that and things begin breaking down socially. As far as I know, the only solution humans have come up with so far to counteract/cope with communities larger than 150 is formality of social interaction. I think the transition from warm cozy community of about 150 active members to the need for something more formal to keep coping as it gets bigger is the growing pain that most communities seem to trip over the worst. Maybe you can incorporate some of that info into your thinking. Peace.
- petewailes 16y ago
  Cheers! Have a great day!

Mz 16y ago

Old data (and I can't really tell you the source exactly -- possibly internal data from when I moderated something and the owner had done some measures combined with some external stats), FWIW: As I understand it, about 20% of members of a forum will be "active" posters and another 10% will be "occasional" posters. According to data in "The Tipping Point", the average/typical human mind can follow the interactions of about 150 people in a group setting. In my experience, the above combined stats results in a community of up to around 750 members will result in around 150 active members and works just fine. Above that and things begin breaking down socially. As far as I know, the only solution humans have come up with so far to counteract/cope with communities larger than 150 is formality of social interaction. I think the transition from warm cozy community of about 150 active members to the need for something more formal to keep coping as it gets bigger is the growing pain that most communities seem to trip over the worst. Maybe you can incorporate some of that info into your thinking. Peace.

petewailes 16y ago
Cheers! Have a great day!