11–20 of 24 posts
This is essentially how life works. Ever do a group project, volunteer, anything that involves a group of people? It almost always devolves into about 10% of said group doing all the work.
I'm not certain that I understand what the issue is here (if any); The only thing preventing the "lurking" 90% from also affecting what is seen is... their inaction?
Isn't there the danger of an echo chamber if a small number of superusers generates the majority of content?
If anything, modern "everyone is a content creator" platforms have already brought this too far even letting 1% of people create the content. On the one hand, this sort of democratization means you can find diamonds in the rough who'd have never had a chance otherwise, avoiding the whole "how many Einstein's died at age 8 while toiling for a family farm" problem. On the other hand, you get a combinatorial explosion of trash content not worth reading. For every Einstein, you get 999 George McCready Prices.
I hope this doesn't come off too elitist, but it relates to the other front page item right now about the guy who doesn't have a blog. Everyone in there is giving reasons he should go ahead and publish a blog. Well, what happens if every single person on the planet publishes a blog? How are you supposed to find the ones worth reading? Someone else mentioned HOAs. What is the point if your HOA board is just every person in the neighborhood? If you completely decentralize literally everything, we lose all of the economies of scale that come along with specialization and division of labor and suddenly everyone needs to be a writer and an editor in addition to everything else they already do.
I'm not certain that I understand what the issue is here (if any); The only thing preventing the "lurking" 90% from also affecting what is seen is... their inaction?
Isn't there the danger of an echo chamber if a small number of superusers generates the majority of content?
We simply don't have the time to be active in everything that is interesting to us at all times.
But hey, when you're pandering to your twitter following, I guess you gotta grasp at weird straws like this to generate "content". Yikes.
continue with the regularly scheduled programming
I'm not certain that I understand what the issue is here (if any); The only thing preventing the "lurking" 90% from also affecting what is seen is... their inaction?
Isn't there the danger of an echo chamber if a small number of superusers generates the majority of content?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there the danger of an echo chamber if a small number of superusers generates the majority of content?
There's nothing special about the "superusers" other than their decision to act. I can think of another parallel: Homeowner's Associations (setting aside my own issues with them for a moment). I would guess that a similarly disproportionate number of homeowners choose to attend HOA meetings, and thus have an outsized effect on the direction and rules of the neighborhood. As a "reward" for not just showing up, but bei…
It would be really interesting to see stats on unique user view to HN vs Unique posters and commenters, I suspect HN might violate to 10% rule, but without that for the headline to make that claim one way or another is just silly
I'm not certain that I understand what the issue is here (if any); The only thing preventing the "lurking" 90% from also affecting what is seen is... their inaction?
Isn't there the danger of an echo chamber if a small number of superusers generates the majority of content?