4 ms·
I've always liked the reversed interpretation: The web has a multiplying function. For everything created, there are 10 people expressing an opinion and 100 peo
by cstuder 13y ago
I've always liked the reversed interpretation: The web has a multiplying function. For everything created, there are 10 people expressing an opinion and 100 people reading it.
- cell303 13y agoI like that thought, but I think its wrong. or at least it's only true on average. But the average is not really interesting when you are in a domain that's heavily dominated by exceptions. See this distribution of youtube views for reference http://socialblade.com/blog/2012/05/10/youtube-view-distribution-april-may-2012/ http://socialblade.com/blog/2012/05/10/youtube-view-distribu... so i'd rather say: for everything created, there are either 100 people expressing an opinion and 1000 people reading it / or none.
- zerohm 13y agoI also look at it the other way: 1% of people have the required atributes (talent, motivation) to produce something that 99% of the population want to consume. It's probably lower in other endevours, e.g., less than 1% of people can play basketball at a level that the average person would actively choose to watch on a regular basis.
- dredmorbius 13y agoSturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crud. Morbius's Law: At Internet scale Sturgeon's law is six-sigma compliant: 99.99966% of everything is crud. Your filtering / content surfacing algorithms had best take this into consideration.
- wiredfool 13y agoSturgeon's law is here, it's just not evenly distributed.
- dredmorbius 13y agoWell played, sir, well played.
- nhaehnle 13y agoOn the other hand, the vast majority of the population produces something that somebody else is interested in. It's just that not everybody contributes everywhere. Specialization is useful.