Live data from Hacker News

1% rule

en.wikipedia.org

41–50 of 158 posts

Re: 1% rule

#41
post #27
post #2

On top of that, some percentage of users who do contribute content are just recycling/reiterating content they've seen have success in that community before. Reposts, memes, predictable opinions, etc. The number of people who actively create the culture of an online community (and, I suspect, offline communities) is pretty small.

Where does the novelty element start, though? Someone could come and argue that your comment is also predictable, as is my reply below it.

Thats what is most interesting about human innovation and creativity in general. There are very very very few original ideas out there. Almost any idea anyone has had, a large number of people have had it. And most innovation is just tiny tweaks to existing formulas, over time. In fact, if you understand the backstory behind most innovations, you realize it really wasn't all that impressive. There were many proposed models for flight before the wright brothers. They stumbled upon the right mixture. Modern day car fuel engines have essentially evolved over centuries of perfecting "torches" (fire and gas to create heat) The people who make history are simply the first ones to act upon these thoughts. So, you become a content creator/culture setter, by simply being the first one to vocalize your thoughts.

Re: 1% rule

#42

I would be very interested in understanding the psychology of the 1%. I would bet they (we? I mostly lurk, but am still probably at least in the top 10%) are a very weird bunch.

I think it moreso has to do with that we ourselves only put time into so many things. For example, I myself probably read 99 or more articles on HN for every 1 I actually comment on. Take that to a general level, there are a lot of platfoms were I lurk, and very few were I actually participate. Putting your words on the screen takes mental effort that we selectively choose where to focus such efforts

Re: 1% rule

#43
post #23

I once ran the numbers for HN and was surprised at how closely they matched this rule. Maybe I'll do it again. Edit: here are some estimates. We don't track enough to know about distinct users, so all we can do is guess. The number of accounts that have posted to HN this year, divided by the number of IP addresses that have accessed HN, is 0.008. How close that is to the '1% rule' depends on which is the bigger facto…

To add to that, I was wondering earlier today if HN has seen an increase in traffic, this "1% activity", and / or longer visit times now that many of us are WFHing until further notice... I suspect so, but would love to know!

Re: 1% rule

#45
post #23

I once ran the numbers for HN and was surprised at how closely they matched this rule. Maybe I'll do it again. Edit: here are some estimates. We don't track enough to know about distinct users, so all we can do is guess. The number of accounts that have posted to HN this year, divided by the number of IP addresses that have accessed HN, is 0.008. How close that is to the '1% rule' depends on which is the bigger facto…

Is there a post you made when you ran the numbers before? I'd be very interested to see that.

Nope, and I don't remember how I did it.

Edit: I've added something above though.

Re: 1% rule

#46
post #23

I once ran the numbers for HN and was surprised at how closely they matched this rule. Maybe I'll do it again. Edit: here are some estimates. We don't track enough to know about distinct users, so all we can do is guess. The number of accounts that have posted to HN this year, divided by the number of IP addresses that have accessed HN, is 0.008. How close that is to the '1% rule' depends on which is the bigger facto…

To add to that, I was wondering earlier today if HN has seen an increase in traffic, this "1% activity", and / or longer visit times now that many of us are WFHing until further notice... I suspect so, but would love to know!

Someone asked me that today. There seems to be a slight increase in traffic, but there's so much fluctuation normally that it's impossible to say, and it ticked down a bit today relative to last Wednesday.

I suspect it's just noise. Perhaps our users are particularly honest and don't goof off on HN while working at home any more than they do while working at the office.

Re: 1% rule

#47

I think this is a key to understanding online discourse. A lot of the stuff you see is generated by a very small percentage of the users (probably much less than 1% if you look at the numbers[1]), and this small percentage likely consists of the more problematic users. Consider that: - The amount of output someone can put out is inversely proportional to the time and effort someone spends on it. If it takes about 30…

This was a really interesting comment to read that I feel accurately summarizes most of the points being made here. Thanks!

Re: 1% rule

#48

I hope many of us internalized this early. It's not very accurate, but I try to think of this as meaning that on average, everything I post online is being read by a minimum of 99 people, multiplied by either the upvote count on the thread (for HN) or the number of active followers I have (for Twitter). It has helped me to always think this to myself before posting something. I probably am biased from the culture on…

But is all that thinking really worth it? I mean surely you don't want to say too much bullshit, or mislead people... But take this comment; would I really post it if I thought it would waste the time of some hundreds of people reading it? Also... then there's the problem of feedback, which is how you make progress in a conversation... but I fear I begin to digress.

I wish downvotes had a text field feedback option. I often downvote comments for reasons that may not be obvious to the author. That could be ripe for abusive messages, but still think it's a noteworthy idea.

Re: 1% rule

#50
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to that, I was wondering earlier today if HN has seen an increase in traffic, this "1% activity", and / or longer visit times now that many of us are WFHing until further notice... I suspect so, but would love to know!

Someone asked me that today. There seems to be a slight increase in traffic, but there's so much fluctuation normally that it's impossible to say, and it ticked down a bit today relative to last Wednesday. I suspect it's just noise. Perhaps our users are particularly honest and don't goof off on HN while working at home any more than they do while working at the office.

Thanks for answering!

> Perhaps our users are particularly honest

Or particularly dishonest and have historically goofed off on HN at the office everyday until they ran out of content to read!

Post reply on HN