A pergunta é: desigualdade de participação é o mesmo que desigualdade de interação?
Para responder essa pergunta vamos ver alguma coisa que foi escrita sobre a tal de "participation inequalilty" entre 2006 e 2008.
Vão começar as transcrições:
O site http://www.90-9-1.com/
, intitulado The 90-9-1 Principle: How Users Participate in Social Communities, é um folder eletrônico cujas quatro primeiras (e únicas) páginas apresentam as seguintes pranchas:
A principal referência do site acima é o Jakob Nielsen
. Seu trabalho de 2006 (emendado em 2009) é o Participation Inequality
, cujo sumário diz o seguinte:
Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute
In most online communities, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all the action.
All large-scale, multi-user communities and online social networks that rely on users to contribute content or build services share one property: most users don't participate very much. Often, they simply lurk in the background.
In contrast, a tiny minority of users usually accounts for a disproportionately large amount of the content and other system activity. This phenomenon of participation inequality was first studied in depth by Will Hill in the early '90s, when he worked down the hall from me at Bell Communications Research (see references below).
When you plot the amount of activity for each user, the result is a Zipf curve
, which shows as a straight line in a log-log diagram
User participation often more or less follows a 90-9-1 rule
of users are lurkers
(i.e., read or observe, but don't contribute).
of users contribute from time to time
, but other priorities dominate their time.
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.
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.
Inequality on the Web
There are about 1.1 billion Internet users
, yet only 55 million users (5%) have weblogs according to Technorati. Worse, there are only 1.6 million postings per day
; because some people post multiple times per day, only 0.1% of users post daily.
Blogs have even worse participation inequality than is evident in the 90-9-1 rule that characterizes most online communities. With blogs, the rule is more like 95-5-0.1.
Inequalities are also found on Wikipedia, where more than 99% of users are lurkers. According to Wikipedia's "about" page
, it has only 68,000 active contributors, which is 0.2% of the 32 million unique visitors it has in the U.S. alone.
Wikipedia's most active 1,000 people — 0.003% of its users — contribute about two-thirds of the site's edits. Wikipedia is thus even more skewed than blogs, with a 99.8-0.2-0.003 rule.
Participation inequality exists in many places on the Web. A quick glance at Amazon.com, for example, showed that the site had sold thousands of copies of a book that had only 12 reviews, meaning that less than 1% of customers contribute reviews.
Furthermore, at the time I wrote this, 167,113 of Amazon’s book reviews were contributed by just a few "top-100" reviewers
; the most prolific reviewer had written 12,423 reviews. How anybody can write that many reviews — let alone read that many books — is beyond me, but it's a classic example of participation inequality.
Downsides of Participation Inequality
Participation inequality is not necessarily unfair because "some users are more equal than others" to misquote Animal Farm. If lurkers want to contribute, they are usually allowed to do so.
The problem is that the overall system is not representative of average Web users. On any given user-participation site, you almost always hear from the same 1% of users, who almost certainly differ from the 90% you never hear from. This can cause trouble for several reasons:
If your company looks to Web postings for customer feedback on its products and services, you're getting an unrepresentative sample.
Similarly, if you're a consumer trying to find out which restaurant to patronize or what books to buy, online reviews represent only a tiny minority of the people who have experiences with those products and services.
If a party nominates a candidate supported by the "netroots," it will almost certainly lose because such candidates' positions will be too extreme to appeal to mainstream voters. Postings on political blogs come from less than 0.1% of voters, most of whom are hardcore leftists (for Democrats) or rightists (for Republicans).
Search engine results pages (SERP) are mainly sorted based on how many other sites link to each destination. When 0.1% of users do most of the linking, we risk having search relevance get ever more out of whack with what's useful for the remaining 99.9% of users. Search engines need to rely more on behavioral data gathered across samples that better represent users, which is why they are building Internet access services.
Signal-to-noise ratio. Discussion groups drown in flames
and low-quality postings, making it hard to identify the gems. Many users stop reading comments because they don't have time to wade through the swamp of postings from people with little to say.
Skewed Lurker–Contibutor Ratio for Non-Profit Social Network
The "Causes" application on Facebook had 25 million users in April 2009, but only 185,000 had given a donation, even though the application offers the ability to give to 179,000 different non-profit organizations. (This according to the Washington Post
Thus, social networking for charity fundraising has a 99.3% lurkers and 0.7% contributors rule — even more skewed than the other participation inequalities we have seen. The data doesn't say how many of the 0.7% of users who donated have been frequent contributors, but most likely it's less than 1/10, meaning that the full rule would look something like 99-1-0
This finding comes as no big surprise, for three reasons:
=> Despite the hype, Facebook is just another form of collaborative environment, meaning that long-established laws for online communities should hold. Maybe with small modifications, but the basics are due to human nature and don't change when moving to a new platform.
=> Donating money is a stronger form of action than simply writing user-contributed content, so it makes sense that this form of contribution would have extremely strong participation inequality. If we measured the amount of money donated and not just a binary give/not-give distinction, the skew would likely be even more extreme.
=> Our research on the user experience of donating to charities online
found that most non-profits don't provide the information users want before they're willing to be separated from their money. (Or the info isn't shown in a sufficiently Web-oriented manner.)
How to Overcome Participation Inequality
The first step to dealing with participation inequality is to recognize that it will always be with us. It's existed in every online community and multi-user service that has ever been studied.
Your only real choice here is in how you shape the inequality curve's angle. Are you going to have the "usual" 90-9-1 distribution, or the more radical 99-1-0.1 distribution common in some social websites? Can you achieve a more equitable distribution of, say, 80-16-4? (That is, only 80% lurkers, with 16% contributing some and 4% contributing the most.)
Although participation will always be somewhat unequal, there are ways to better equalize it, including:
Make it easier to contribute.
The lower the overhead, the more people will jump through the hoop. For example, Netflix lets users rate movies by clicking a star rating, which is much easier than writing a natural-language review.
Make participation a side effect.
Even better, let users participate with zero effort by making their contributions a side effect of something else they're doing. For example, Amazon's "people who bought this book, bought these other books" recommendations are a side effect of people buying books. You don't have to do anything special to have your book preferences entered into the system. Will Hill coined the term read wear for this type of effect: the simple activity of reading (or using) something will "wear" it down and thus leave its marks — just like a cookbook will automatically fall open to the recipe you prepare the most.
Edit, don't create.
Let users build their contributions by modifying existing templates rather than creating complete entities from scratch. Editing a template is more enticing and has a gentler learning curve than facing the horror of a blank page. In avatar-based systems like Second Life, for example, most users modify standard-issue avatars rather than create their own.
Reward — but don't over-reward — participants.
Rewarding people for contributing will help motivate users who have lives outside the Internet, and thus will broaden your participant base. Although money is always good, you can also give contributors preferential treatment (such as discounts or advance notice of new stuff), or even just put gold stars on their profiles. But don't give too much to the most active participants, or you'll simply encourage them to dominate the system even more.
Promote quality contributors.
If you display all contributions equally, then people who post only when they have something important to say will be drowned out by the torrent of material from the hyperactive 1%. Instead, give extra prominence to good contributions and to contributions from people who've proven their value, as indicated by their reputation ranking
Your website's design undoubtedly influences participation inequality for better or worse. Being aware of the problem is the first step to alleviating it, and finding ways to broaden participation will become even more important as the Web's social networking services continue to grow.
Full-day course on Integrating Social Features on Mainstream Websites
, with usability guidelines for user-generated content, social media, collaboration, and more at the annual Usability Week conference
Research on intranet social features
Laurence Brothers, Jim Hollan, Jakob Nielsen, Scott Stornetta, Steve Abney, George Furnas, and Michael Littman (1992): "Supporting informal communication via ephemeral interest groups," Proceedings of CSCW 92, the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Toronto, Ontario, November 1-4, 1992), pp. 84-90.
William C. Hill, James D. Hollan, Dave Wroblewski, and Tim McCandless (1992): "Edit wear and read wear," Proceedings of CHI'92, the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Monterey, CA, May 3-7, 1992), pp. 3-9.
Steve Whittaker, Loren Terveen, Will Hill, and Lynn Cherny (1998): "The dynamics of mass interaction," Proceedings of CSCW 98, the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Seattle, WA, November 14-18, 1998), pp. 257-264.
Tudo isso está na página: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html
Passemos às outras referências.
no site Wikipatterns.com
What is it?
The 90-9-1 theory explains the percentage of a wiki's participation, breaking it down as readers being the highest percent, with minor contributors composing the 9 percent and enthusiastic and active contributors composing 1 percent of the total participants in a wiki.
In his article
titled Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute, Jakob Nielsen explores a phenomenon which affects most online, multi-user communities that rely on users to contribute. Participation Inequality is the tendency for most users to participate very little (if at all) and a few members of the community to account for a disproportionately large amount of the content and activity.
When studied, it was found that user participation generally follows a 90-9-1 Rule
90% of users are "lurkers" (i.e. they read or browse but don't contribute)
9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time
1% of users participate very often and account for most of the contributions
This concept is very applicable to a wiki environment because contribution is fundamental to a wiki's success. While it is impossible to overcome this type of human behaviour, it is possible to change the participation distribution (i.e 80-16-4 where 80% are lurkers, 16% contribute a little and 4% contribute the most). Some ways to equalize participation in a wiki include:
=> Making it easier to contribute. Offering a wiki help centre, tutorial information and resources for users can help familiarize users with the environment and allow them to feel more comfortable contributing
=> Encouraging editing over creating. For most new users, the thought of a blank white page is frightening. Instead, offer templates and examples which users can reformat to fit their content without having to come up with everything themselves.
=> Reward participants. Identify your contributors and reward them using small incentives (i.e. gold stars on personal spaces, or Duke Stars on sun forums
Some wiki examples show variances in these percentages, but as described above, certain best practices can shift the participant percentages. Here are two examples with percentages.
. The Wikipedia article Who Writes Wikipedia
by Aaron Swartz discusses the claims made by Jimbo Wales that on Wikipedia, "over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users ... 524 people." However, Aaron Swartz describes the story he saw from his studies as this:
"When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site -- the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it's the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content."
MSDN Community Content
. While not precisely a wiki, the Microsoft Developer Network has Community Content features that are wiki-like. According to the sidebar on http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/default.aspx
as of December 20, 2007, 1866 edits out of 10851 total edits were made by the top five contributors (three of whom are Microsoft employees). That percentage is slightly above one percent at 1.72%.
Agora vem um blogpost de 2006 de Ben McConnell
Understanding the 1% Rule: Motivations
What motivates the people who make up the content contributors found in "The 1% Rule?" Perhaps the following story offers some clues. (This is an excerpt from our forthcoming book "Citizen Marketers.")
As a patch, it’s pretty simple: A diamond shape surrounded by a blue border, with "1%" embroidered in the middle. It's worn over the heart by members of motorcycle clubs that celebrate their outlaw status from mainstream motorcycle society. They call themselves the "One Percenters."
The inspiration for the patch and its meaning can be traced to 1947, when members of the Pissed Off Bastards of Bloomington motorcycle club and the Boozefighters Motorcycle Club, showed up in Hollister, California, for that town's annual motorcycle race. As parties involving beer in summer heat sometimes do, things got out of hand.
A photographer for Life magazine happened to be attending the race and snapped a picture of a drunken biker perched atop a Harley Davidson, surrounded by broken beer bottles. The photo was published in Life with a caption that read, "Cyclist's Holiday: He and Friends Terrorize Town." A brief story accompanying the photo said 4,000 members of a motorcycle club were responsible for destructive mayhem. The photo and story provoked the American Motorcyclists Association to denounce the boozed-up bikers. It assured worried citizens that 99 percent of its members were law-abiding citizens, thereby marginalizing the remaining "1 percent" as outlaws.
The story has been the inspiration and founding principle for outlaw motorcycle clubs around the world. One Percenters organize and wear their patches as the proverbial finger raised toward society’s expectations of them. For decades, the story of what happened in Hollister has been repeated by numerous writers in magazines and newspapers, codifying its legend.
William L. Dulaney, a visiting professor at Western Carolina University spent months researching the history of the One Percenters for the academic periodical, "The International Journal of Motorcycle Studies
." From months spent conducting field research around the United States, and having spent years as a member of an outlaw motorcycle club himself, he argues
that contemporary One Percenters in "outlaw" motorcycle gangs are not necessarily pro-criminal, they are anti-bureaucracy. They rebel against the commonality of mainstream expectations.
Furthermore, the One Percenter clubs are organized around the idea of a community, and their unconventional lives and motorcycle lifestyles are reinforced by the strong-as-steel bonds with other members. They revel, sometimes raucously in beer-soaked pandemonium, in a culture that conventional society frowns on. Forget seeking the approval of conventional governing bodies; the One Percenters revel in their minority status.
They are outlaws of culture.
Dulaney surprises us, though, by debunking parts of the Hollister legend. The photo of the drunken biker? The Life photographer staged it. There was rowdiness in Hollister on that fateful weekend, but police made only one arrest. And there’s no evidence the American Motorcyclists Association denounced the bikers, one percent or otherwise. The source of "1%" was likely due a letter to the editor that Life ran in a subsequent edition, taking the magazine to task for its coverage of Hollister. The letter writer wrote, "We regretfully acknowledge there was disorder in Hollister – not the acts of 4,000 motorcyclists, but rather of a small percentage of that number." Someone, somewhere, interpreted that to mean one percent and it stuck.
Even if the facts about Hollister were off, its premise still resonated with a slice of American culture. Today, earning a One Percenter patch is a badge of social status that continues on in a tiny number of American motorcyclist communities.
That's why their story seems to be an apt analogy to describe a good deal of citizen marketers and their motivations, like someone who spends years blogging about Netflix
, or campaigns
to bring back a discontinued soda, or takes over the marketing for an upcoming movie, or volunteers
to secret shop their favorite fast food chain, or anyone who contributes time and attention to a commercial cause. They, too, are outlaws of culture.
What they do is beyond the norm. Sometimes there is little recognition, but they are dedicated to and protective of their work and the community they're involved in. They excel on the edges of culture even if their percentage as content creators is little more than a rounding error to some companies. Numbers-wise, they are not huge, but the impact of their work can be.
(In a follow-up post, we'll look at the One Percenters and Netscape's desire to hire them.)
: This post showed up on the front page
yesterday (thanks Bloodjunkie
), and it sparked a -- let's say interesting -- round of 100+ comments within the Digg community. Ian Delaney
sorts through some of them.
: A big hat tip to Colin McKay
for the pointer
to a story
about the One Percenters who are going through a transition in Kansas City. It was his pointer that led us down the path toward this post. I'm a dope for not including a hat tip to him when this was first published.
++++ transcrição (no caso apenas um link):
E aí vem mais um post de Ben McConnell, intitulado The 1% Rule: Charting citizen participation
E agora um artigo de Charles Arthur
para The Guardian (20/07/06) intitulado:
What is the 1% rule?
It's an emerging rule of thumb that suggests that if you get a group of 100 people online then one will create content, 10 will "interact" with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it.
It's a meme that emerges strongly in statistics from YouTube, which in just 18 months has gone from zero to 60% of all online video viewing.
The numbers are revealing: each day there are 100 million downloads and 65,000 uploads - which as Antony Mayfield (at http://open.typepad.com/open
) points out, is 1,538 downloads per upload - and 20m unique users per month.
That puts the "creator to consumer" ratio at just 0.5%, but it's early days yet; not everyone has discovered YouTube (and it does make downloading much easier than uploading, because any web page can host a YouTube link).
Consider, too, some statistics from that other community content generation project, Wikipedia: 50% of all Wikipedia article edits are done by 0.7% of users, and more than 70% of all articles have been written by just 1.8% of all users, according to the Church of the Customer blog (http://customerevangelists.typepad.com/blog/
Earlier metrics garnered from community sites suggested that about 80% of content was produced by 20% of the users, but the growing number of data points is creating a clearer picture of how Web 2.0 groups need to think. For instance, a site that demands too much interaction and content generation from users will see nine out of 10 people just pass by.
Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo points out that much the same applies at Yahoo: in Yahoo Groups, the discussion lists, "1% of the user population might start a group; 10% of the user population might participate actively, and actually author content, whether starting a thread or responding to a thread-in-progress; 100% of the user population benefits from the activities of the above groups," he noted on his blog (www.elatable.com/blog/?p=5
) in February.
So what's the conclusion? Only that you shouldn't expect too much online. Certainly, to echo Field of Dreams, if you build it, they will come. The trouble, as in real life, is finding the builders.
++++++ transcrição (a última):
Finalmente, em Groundswell, um artigo de Josh Bernoff
Reconcilling Social Tecnographics and 90-9-1
Forrester’s Social Technographics surveys show
that when it comes to social content 21% of online US consumers are Creators, 37% are Critics (those who react to content created by others), and 69% are Spectators.
The 90-9-1 principle, recently publicized by Community Guy
Jake McKee at 90-9-1.com
, says that in a community, the rule of thumb is that 90% of visitors only view the content, 9% only comment or react to it, and 1% create it.
This confuses people, and I often get questions about who’s right. In fact, there is no contradiction between these two statements. Let’s examine why.
First of all, the 90-9-1 principle applies to a single site or community. Let’s suppose we are talking about tivocommunity.com
, for example. 90-9-1 says that 1% of its members create content. But our surveys might detect a TiVo community member who just reads the Tivo posts, but who is an enthusiastic Barack Obama supporter at myBO.com. Forrester's surveys would call her a Creator. But with regard to tivocommunity.com, Jake’s rule says she’s in the 90% or lurkers. No contradiction, it just depends on whether you're looking at a single site or across all sites. Since Creators (in the Forrester sense) include people who create content at any site, they add up to a lot more than 1%.
Second, our groups are designed to overlap. Since we also identify Collectors (who organize content) and Joiners (who join social networks), there’s no strict hierarchy. Some Joiners are Creators, some Creators are Joiners, but neither group is a subset of the other. (When creating Social Technographics I attempted to create a hierarchy of behaviors, but carefully examining the data convinced me that was a mistake.) So we allow our categories to overlap. 90-9-1, which examines fewer activities, can accommodate mutually exclusive categories.
Third, 90-9-1 is a rule of thumb. For example, according to 90-9-1.com, only 0.16% of YouTube visitors upload content, far less than 1%. A community of Webmasters will have a lot more contributors than a community of senior citizens. Our surveys are actual data independent of site-to-site variation. (So I don’t get to create a nice neat rule, while Jake can.)
What’s it mean? It means that 90-9-1 is a good rule of thumb for sites, while Social Technographics is a good way to look at populations. And it also means that you should check the Social Technographics Profile
of your customers first, to see how many of them are likely to contribute if you put them in a community.
Got it? Looking forward to your comments.
+... Não! Ufa! Acabou (ou quase). Agora podemos fazer alguns comentários.
DESIGUALDADE DE PARTICIPAÇÃO SERIA O MESMO QUE DESIGUALDADE DE INTERAÇÃO?
Continua... (ou melhor, aqui começa)