18 Oct 11
Its lonely at the top - when it is almost impossible to find an honest person to discuss.
If you spend any time at all talking about online communities, you’re bound to stumble across the 90-9-1 Principle. The idea is simple: In social groups, some people actively participate more than others. Researcher Jakob Nielsen calls this “Participation Inequality“.
These three groups make up an ecosystem, of sorts. Pulling on one group affects the distribution of the other. Of course, it’s typically not possible to change the distribution in significant ways, as the more people added into one group directly drives the growth of the other two groups, maintaining something close to a 90-9-1 split. Social participation tends to follow a 90-9-1 rule where:
•90% of users are the “audience”, or lurkers. The people tend to read or observe, but don’t actively contribute.
•9% of users are “editors”, sometimes modifying content or adding to an existing thread, but rarely create content from scratch.
•1% of users are “creators”, driving large amounts of the social group’s activity. More often than not, these people are driving a vast percentage of the site’s new content, threads, and activity. (source: Ants Eye View)
* I have constantly endeavoured to create spiritual dialogue in this Spirituality Forum (this is the 1 percent) - but when anything of a true spiritual nature is posted up in this forum - all run and hide - or simply attack with nonsensical responses in an attempt to defend atheism.
And we all know - atheism cannot be defended without embracing dishonesty.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaYour mistake is that you believe you are honest. 🙂
Its lonely at the top - when it is almost impossible to find an honest person to discuss.
If you spend any time at all talking about online communities, you’re bound to stumble across the 90-9-1 Principle. The idea is simple: In social groups, some people actively participate more than others. Researcher Jakob Nielsen calls this “Participation Inequality“.
...[text shortened]... to defend atheism.
And we all know - atheism cannot be defended without embracing dishonesty.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaI guess if you want to earn online friendship (such as it is) or respect then I guess you have a choice with couple of alternatives:
Its lonely at the top - when it is almost impossible to find an honest person to discuss.
1) Stop being a boring, conceited, arrogant troll.
2) Go somewhere else to find like minded individuals who share your extremist views, impervious persona and twisted definition of honesty.
You must by now realise that you have for the second time lost all credibility in this forum and have become a curiosity at best; forum entertainment at worst.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by divegeesterhe's quiet entertaining. i wait with baited breath to see what cliche ridden inanity he will post next so that hilarity may ensue.
I guess if you want to earn online friendship (such as it is) or respect then I guess you have a choice with couple of alternatives:
1) Stop being a boring, conceited, arrogant troll.
2) Go somewhere else to find like minded individuals who share your extremist views, impervious persona and twisted definition of honesty.
You must by now realis ...[text shortened]... all credibility in this forum and have become a curiosity at best; forum entertainment at worst.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaThe following entertaining IRC log is best read with a steak, hot dog, a roast beef sub, and 32 sliders from White Castle.
Its lonely at the top - when it is almost impossible to find an honest person to discuss.
If you spend any time at all talking about online communities, you’re bound to stumble across the 90-9-1 Principle. The idea is simple: In social groups, some people actively participate more than others. Researcher Jakob Nielsen calls this “Participation Inequality“.
...[text shortened]... to defend atheism.
And we all know - atheism cannot be defended without embracing dishonesty.
<JonJonB> Purely in the interests of science, I have replaced the word "wand" with "wang" in the first Harry Potter Book
<JonJonB> Let's see the results...
<JonJonB> "Why aren't you supposed to do magic?" asked Harry.
<JonJonB> "Oh, well -- I was at Hogwarts meself but I -- er -- got expelled, ter tell yeh the truth. In me third year. They snapped me wang in half an' everything
<JonJonB> A magic wang... this was what Harry had been really looking forward to.
<JonJonB> "Yes, yes. I thought I'd be seeing you soon. Harry Potter." It wasn't a question. "You have your mother's eyes. It seems only yesterday she was in here herself, buying her first wang. Ten and a quarter inches long, swishy, made of willow. Nice wang for charm work."
<JonJonB> "Your father, on the other hand, favored a mahogany wang. Eleven inches. "
<JonJonB> Harry took the wang. He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wang above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework, throwing dancing spots of light on to the walls
<JonJonB> "Oh, move over," Hermione snarled. She grabbed Harry's wang, tapped the lock, and whispered, 'Alohomora!"
<JonJonB> The troll couldn't feel Harry hanging there, but even a troll will notice if you stick a long bit of wood up its nose, and Harry's wang had still been in his hand when he'd jumped - it had gone straight up one of the troll's nostrils.
<JonJonB> He bent down and pulled his wang out of the troll's nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy gray glue.
<JonJonB> He ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wang, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground. Then he whirled his wang at the dementors. Shot silver stuff at them.
<JonJonB> Ok
<JonJonB> I have found, definitive proof
<JonJonB> that J.K Rowling is a dirty DIRTY woman, making a fool of us all
<JonJonB> "Yes," Harry said, gripping his wang very tightly, and moving into the middle of the deserted classroom. He tried to keep his mind on flying, but something else kept intruding.... Any second now, he might hear his mother again... but he shouldn't think that, or he would hear her again, and he didn't want to... or did he?
<melusine > O_______O
<JonJonB> Something silver-white, something enormous, erupted from the end of his wang
<JonJonJonB> Then, with a sigh, he raised his wang and prodded the silvery substance with its tip.
<JonJonJonB> 'Get - off - me!' Harry gasped. For a few seconds they struggled, Harry pulling at his uncles sausage-like fingers with his left hand, his right maintaining a firm grip on his raised wang.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by Dasahttp://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html
Its lonely at the top - when it is almost impossible to find an honest person to discuss.
If you spend any time at all talking about online communities, you’re bound to stumble across the 90-9-1 Principle. The idea is simple: In social groups, some people actively participate more than others. Researcher Jakob Nielsen calls this “Participation Inequality“.
...[text shortened]... to defend atheism.
And we all know - atheism cannot be defended without embracing dishonesty.
quote from that link, which is actually rather interesting for those who are interested in the subject of internet social groups:
90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don't contribute).
9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions: it can seem as if they don't have lives because they often post just minutes after whatever event they're commenting on occurs.
Unquote
One aspect of this is that if you are tempted to judge, say, the attendees of the Spirituality forum, their interests, views, etc., and I hypothesize, the extremeness of their views, from the posts on this forum, you are likely to get a distorted view.
Quoting further from the link:
Early Inequality Research
Before the Web, researchers documented participation inequality in media such as Usenet newsgroups, CompuServe bulletin boards, Internet mailing lists, and internal discussion boards in big companies. A study of more than 2 million messages on Usenet found that 27% of the postings were from people who posted only a single message. Conversely, the most active 3% of posters contributed 25% of the messages.
In Whittaker et al.'s Usenet study, a randomly selected posting was equally likely to come from one of the 580,000 low-frequency contributors or one of the 19,000 high-frequency contributors. Obviously, if you want to assess the "feelings of the community" it's highly unfair if one subgroup's 19,000 members have the same representation as another subgroup's 580,000 members. More importantly, such inequities would give you a biased understanding of the community, because many differences almost certainly exist between people who post a lot and those who post a little. And you would never hear from the silent majority of lurkers.
unquote.
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by divegeesterI am not interested in false on-line friendships based on political connectedness'.
I guess if you want to earn online friendship (such as it is) or respect then I guess you have a choice with couple of alternatives:
1) Stop being a boring, conceited, arrogant troll.
2) Go somewhere else to find like minded individuals who share your extremist views, impervious persona and twisted definition of honesty.
You must by now realis ...[text shortened]... all credibility in this forum and have become a curiosity at best; forum entertainment at worst.
The Vaisnava is the friend of God and therefore the true friend of all living beings.
He is not seeking mundane acquaintances - based on bodily identification.
His relationships are genuine based on spiritual truth.
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by JS357I am not interested in mundane statistics.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html
quote from that link, which is actually rather interesting for those who are interested in the subject of internet social groups:
90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don't contribute).
9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
...[text shortened]... st a little. And you would never hear from the silent majority of lurkers.
unquote.
The essence of my post you have missed.