There is also the concept of partial consumption. Often you might click on something you think might be interesting, peruse or preview it, then decide it wasn't as interesting as you thought and move on. Did you actually consume that content or did you preview it? There is no way to know if someone is lurking, actually fully consuming the content or simply previewing it. There is probably no way to prove this but my guess is that 90% of the consumers are actually previewers.
1% rule
111–120 of 158 posts
Re: 1% rule
#112I 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…
One thing I would like to see is #upvotes/story and #comments/story, both over time. Those might say something about the ‘liveliness’ of the community.
Re: 1% rule
#113I wonder how having the amount of posts you made (like forums do) influences this number. And subsequently how others on the platform respond (since it's in their best interest to be as kind as possible to new posters to make the community grow?)
Re: 1% rule
#114Re: 1% rule
#115This applies to real life as well.
I'd replace "lurker" with passive, "contributor" with active, and "creator" with changer.
Re: 1% rule
#116> A 2005 study of radical Jihadist forums found 87% of users had never posted on the forums, 13% had posted at least once, 5% had posted 50 or more times, and only 1% had posted 500 or more times.[5]
This struck me as a bit funny. I can imagine the 87% being the NSA, BND and other law enforcement watching the activity on the forum.
Re: 1% rule
#117Earlier 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.
Well it can't really get much higher than 95% of the time!
Re: 1% rule
#118Earlier 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!
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/303/
Re: 1% rule
#119My prediction: this will be the one post where the 1% rule doesn't apply, as a much larger number will be spurred into action by the topic in question - and end up actually saying something.
Re: 1% rule
#120Wikipedia is confusing. Which is it?
> The 1% rule states that the number of people who create content on the Internet represents approximately 99% of the people who view that content.
or
> 1% rule is a rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community , stating that only 1% of the users of a website add content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk .