2 ms·

> you accepting losing the large majority of your quietly passive userbase. Sure, but they are a sunk cost and not the group that we should be worrying to conv

> you accepting losing the large majority of your quietly passive userbase. Sure, but they are a sunk cost and not the group that we should be worrying to convert. If you want to migrate your community, you should not be focusing on 90% of lurkers, but the 9% of participants and 1% of prolific posters. > It's hard in general these days to build a genuine community. Reddit is a ghost town, and the only reason that it doesn't feel this way is because of the bots and astroturfers. There is nothing "genuine" about it. The sooner mods realize this, rip of the bandaids and move on, the better for everyone.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>but they are a sunk cost and not the group that we should be worrying to convert It's tough. You don't need them but you do. If you go by the 90-9-1 rule, you'll want to aim for a number about at least 10x your real goal if you an actively discussing user base (and you yourself is the "1" for a while), and 100x minimum if you are hoping for a self-sustaining community (unless you're willing to pay for power users. At which point we question if it's a truly "organic" community). These days I wouldn't be surprised if it's more like 900-99-1 either. Posters don't want to post to an audience of zero, commenter's can't comment on nothing. So we want lurkers if only so we beat the statistics. The issue with 99.9% of competing communities always seems to come down to a literally "dead community", a community lucky to get one genuine new post a week. I wish for a slower community myself, but going at a post a week feels more like a blog than a hub. And I haven't seen any consistently high quality aggregators hit that quality bar. >Reddit is a ghost town, and the only reason that it doesn't feel this way is because of the bots and astroturfers. The biggest parts of Reddit is probably bots and other paid actors. But if you stick to smaller communities you can still find some genuine community (for better or worse. Remember that Reddit and civility don't really go hand-in-hand). As long as it can do that, moderators will choose Reddit. Though given the real time enshittification, who knows for how long?

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>but they are a sunk cost and not the group that we should be worrying to convert It's tough. You don't need them but you do. If you go by the 90-9-1 rule, you'll want to aim for a number about at least 10x your real goal if you an actively discussing user base (and you yourself is the "1" for a while), and 100x minimum if you are hoping for a self-sustaining community (unless you're willing to pay for power users. At which point we question if it's a truly "organic" community). These days I wouldn't be surprised if it's more like 900-99-1 either. Posters don't want to post to an audience of zero, commenter's can't comment on nothing. So we want lurkers if only so we beat the statistics. The issue with 99.9% of competing communities always seems to come down to a literally "dead community", a community lucky to get one genuine new post a week. I wish for a slower community myself, but going at a post a week feels more like a blog than a hub. And I haven't seen any consistently high quality aggregators hit that quality bar. >Reddit is a ghost town, and the only reason that it doesn't feel this way is because of the bots and astroturfers. The biggest parts of Reddit is probably bots and other paid actors. But if you stick to smaller communities you can still find some genuine community (for better or worse. Remember that Reddit and civility don't really go hand-in-hand). As long as it can do that, moderators will choose Reddit. Though given the real time enshittification, who knows for how long?