Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm not goofing off, I'm networking!
1% rule
91–100 of 158 posts
Re: 1% rule
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they have more IP addresses.
I would make a basic assumption that most users have either at minimum two IP addresses or three they use for HN. One would be work, another home and at the minimum one would be mobile although I think mobile IP changes as you travel if I am not mistaken and not guaranteed to be static. So potentially more than three but these could be shared among HN users so maybe 2 at a minimum at the very least.
They do change, and quite a lot, which means users often have many mobile IP addresses. However, those same IP addresses often show up for many users, so it's hard to know how the counts shake out.
Re: 1% rule
#93I 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…
That's why I left Quora. I'm a really gullible person, and I was going to respond to somebody who posted something inflammatory, then I realized I had the option to just walk away. So I did. I remember something similar about companies too. When you have product market fit, customers will sear you when your product doesn't work. If you don't, you'll never hear from them again.
Good guide to avoiding trolls. Golden rule: "A conversation is not a contest"
https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Avoiding_Tr...
Re: 1% rule
#94Long time lurker here.I often feel I have nothing useful to contribute.So I don't. You're welcome.
What I discovered, decades ago, was that posting questions, or even better, answers, even wrong ones (unintentionally) is a phenomenal way to learn things.
That still holds true. Though it helps profoundly to not insist on being wrong.
Which I try to do. Not always successfully.
Re: 1% rule
#95I 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…
> I probably am biased from the culture on these sites but it still seems all to easy for people to still get dragged into fruitless discussions, overly emotional flamewars and trollbait that they will regret later.
Life is about emotions and regret. If you don't have any emotions or regrets, you haven't lived. I hope people internalize that as well. Also, my top peeve on social media these days are virtue signaling goody-two-shoes. The paternalistic moralizing and talking down to isn't my cup of tea. If people wanted that, they could go read Aesop's Fables.
Re: 1% rule
#96For Google+, by one measure (all registered profiles), the "1%" were actually the 0.16%
When considered against all profiles which had posted at least once, which gets around the forced-account dynamic, the comparison of 0.16% vs. 5.09%, is ... approximately π%: 3.1434185% Much closer to the 1% rule, and probably more accurately reflecting actual lurkers, which should bring it even closer in line.
https://blogs.perficient.com/2015/04/14/real-numbers-for-the...
NB: The research above was based on methods I'd developed, and reached results quite similar to my own, though it was done independently and I had no idea it was performed until Eric Enge published it.
Communicating just how thin active G+ usership was, to many of those active I=users, proved surprisingly hard. People have little innate grasp of statistics or very large numbers -- 2.2 billion+ profiles at the time.
Also, MAU (monthly active users) is a far better measure than regisration counts.
Especially for mandatory accounts.
Re: 1% rule
#97What percent get banned? There are plenty of percents who would happily edit pages on wikipedia about politics, but those pages tend to be locked.
From G+, in the final months of the service, daily creation and deletion of Communities (not Profiles, though a related proxy measure) was in the 1,000s per day.
For Profiles, odds of being deleted (usually a banning consequence AFAICT) was far higher for those which had posted than those which hadn't.
Given churn in troll and spam accounts, percentages can be quite high, even multiples of legitimate accounts.
Both observations based on outside measurements -- I am not and have never been a Google employee.
Re: 1% rule
#98Long time lurker here.I often feel I have nothing useful to contribute.So I don't. You're welcome.
I'm as well a long time lurker. Whenever I contribute something, I feel that it should be helpful for many other people out there. This comment probably isn't...
Ha! Well you made this lurker laugh, and reply! Also, it is not uncommon for me to write out a reply and then delete it before submitting because I second guess that the comment has value.
Re: 1% rule
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> on average, everything I post online is being read by a minimum of 99 people... There are also big differences within this 1%. Even among the people who write regularly , there is probably a tiny minority that generates most of the text. Imagine people with no life, spending each day at least 10 hours online, typing without thinking too much, which allows them to post at least one comment each minute... doing this…
On Twitter that still seems to be a bad problem but it's less so here. Those types tend to say the same things over and over again and get dismissed or downvoted. Unless there are posters on HN that just happen to be 100x more interesting than everyone else... are there? :)
The Leaders list notes high-karma HN contributors.
There are many notable accounts, from leaders and experts in the community, who don't make that list.
Popularity and prolificity are not measures of quality.
Re: 1% rule
#100I 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.
Writing for money and reservation of copyright are, at bottom, the ruin of literature. No one writes anything that is worth writing, unless he writes entirely for the sake of his subject. What an inestimable boon it would be, if in every branch of literature there were only a few books, but those excellent! This can never happen, as long as money is to be made by writing. It seems as though the money lay under a curse; for every author degenerates as soon as he begins to put pen to paper in any way for the sake of gain. The best works of the greatest men all come from the time when they had to write for nothing or for very little.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer, "On Authorship"
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Authorship
Writing for online credit, audience, influence, and/or "imaginary internet points" may not be money, but they are all extrinsic motivators in the sense Schopenhauer references.