Participation Ladder

Still missing the factor time. I think the following catches that one better: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070111&mode=classic

Everyone posting around here is thus at least a critic? Or a creator? What is a non-tagging commentator?

Joachim, yes, I guess according that scheme we are all grumpy critics. Are those of us who tag our vocab at least "collectors"? Sigh, maybe old guys like me are standing beside the ladder anyway. ;) Oh, BTW, and nice new avatar!

I'm surprised by the numbers, I would have expected a different distribution. On Chinesepod, I guess inactives don't really mean anything, spectators (mostly non-paying probably) would be in the 80-90%, joiners in the 10% and the rest bundled in the last 1%. Even if this is aggregate data we should have the same sort of curve.

Joachim, that segmentation does not quite match this audience, which I think consists of the (anonymous) mass of people who onyly download/subscribe/reuse the content [inactives?], registered users who also read the blogs[spectators], those who occasionaly post and mainly ask questions [joiners?], the more active ones who regularly contribute [critics] and those managing the forum(s) who often are on the MAU list [creators]. I was probably optimistic yesterday, the distribution is more likely to be on a 10000 [spectators] / 100 [joiners] /10 [critics] / 1 [creators], but only CPod can confirm.

That seems to be implying that people start at the bottom and add on activities as they work up. I don't care much for all that kind of stuff. It's much more interesting to me to create something I can share, than to spend hours looking at what others are saying, and all of the clerical work that goes with it. So in general, in online circles, I tend to spend 90% of my time doing only the things on the top rung, yet my total participation (time, effort) would be lower than a lot of other people who don't get that rank, or don't even get seen. I facilitated mailing lists throughout the 90s, which was what online social and discussion groups were in those days. My own observations were echoed in a couple of studies, that if 8-10% of the group participated while the others just watched, it was a very successful group, and participation was unlikely to ever exceed 10%, or 5% for very large groups. There was good indication that the other 90%+ were quite committed in their silent way, because when something big happened to threaten the group or to change it in some unpleasant way, hundreds of unknown people all stood up and shouted. Stats like these are helpful to get a feeling for how much personal involvement is really going on behind the few familiar faces in a group, but be careful not to take them too far, and especially not to assume any of the behaviours must be cumulative or not cumulative. It takes all kinds to make a successful community.

AuntySue: This behaviour of mailing list subscribers reminds me of smart mobs (or rather the discussions on that subject) - at least the standing up and shouting part ;-) Maybe, participation in online groups is pretty much like participation in "real life" groups, clubs, political parties etc.