I estimated that about 1 out of 100 would review and or rate my apps. Except for paid then it was more like 1 out of 25 but that might be an exception.
1% rule
131–140 of 158 posts
Re: 1% rule
#132I 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…
This thinking actually causes me to post more , and get into more flamewars, because it bothers me when something obviously wrong is going to be seen by hundreds of people.
I feel that too. If the bad guys are the only ones talking, they will be pretty convincing.
Re: 1% rule
#133I 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…
FWIW, I'm not logged in on every device. For example generally I'm not logged in on my mobile because I don't like typing on it. On a work computer I'm not logged in either.
Though I don't know how widespread such usage is.
Re: 1% rule
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
That was pretty awesome. Thanks for the link!
Re: 1% rule
#135Long 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.
I mostly focus on finding people with the answers. One person here I invited to another place specifically because they asked exceptionally, good questions. Most of the time, their questions led to more good answers or just perspectives. I'd like to see more of that.
Re: 1% rule
#136I 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…
I used to submit more years ago, but it got ridiculous to get votes. I suspect there must be a LOT of brigading to get posts out of the /newest cesspool.
I have posted three Healthcare IT related posts, none of which received more than 2 points. So yeah. I'm done.
Re: 1% rule
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thinking actually causes me to post more , and get into more flamewars, because it bothers me when something obviously wrong is going to be seen by hundreds of people.
I feel that too. If the bad guys are the only ones talking, they will be pretty convincing.
That's not just a feel, mon ami: that's explicitly the point of online marketing & propaganda. Their methods aren't new at this point and are fairly well documented.
Re: 1% rule
#138I 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…
Maybe this will echo out into the empty universe, but I thought I would mention a point that I think skews your data and conclusion. My hypothesis is that the reason you are seeing what seems to confirm the stated rule, is that it is the "1%" (edit: it is likely actually some subsection of the 1%) that controls access and creates immense barriers and a hostile environment for participation. I theorize too that the reason you are seeing an even lower (0.8%) creator rate, is that this forum even more than some of the bigger forums, polices and controls access even more than common.
If you wanted to test that theory the way you did, you would need to find communities of free speech, low barrier to participation, low "ruling class" control and abuse, while still also somehow controlling spam noise … and then compare those numbers.
In essence, what you are confirming and in my mind what the 1% rule describes is really more the effects of abuse of power and control than anything else; hence why we also have a nepotistic, corrupt, kleptocratic, incenstuous 1% in general society that helps itself and it's own in a self-contained and reinforcing manner of abuse and corruption.
I doubt it could ever be 100% contributors, but I theorize and would be large sums of money that the ratio of contributors could be significantly larger if the gatekeeping "ruling class" abusers of their power were able to abuse their power and control.
I am not sure I can identify the best community to test your theory on, but a good start to investigate would maybe be one of the boards of 4chan, likely not /pol, because it has clearly drawn too much attention.
Re: 1% rule
#139> The 1% rule is often misunderstood to apply to the Internet in general, but it applies more specifically to any given Internet community. ... only 23% of the population (rather than 90 percent) could properly be classified as lurkers, while 17% of the population could be classified as intense contributors of content. This is something important to take into account. I can be a lurker in Hacker News but a top contri…
Really good points. Anecdotally; this also seems to correlate roughly to my personal lurk : contribute ratio. I consume far more than I put out.
Unless you're a paid online marketer / shillbot, or maybe some sort of journalist / blogger, I suspect this is true for everyone on the intrawebs.
Re: 1% rule
#140Same goes for bugs. 90 pct of your users doesn't even report downtime. A report on something non major is rare. I learned to listen to reported problems carefully, however weird.
Depends on the user. Some report every blip in their wifi.
Funny you say that. We had someone in a remote office complaining of neverending WIFI problems, but never reproducable. None of the coworkers mentioned any problems. All network statistics said everything fine. One day I happen to be in the neighbourhood so let's take a look.
Turns out the line was upgraded by the phone company, but the old modem never removed. So there was a new phone line connected to a new modem connected to nothing. Next to it a literally crumbling phone line, an old modem thrown on the ground and buried under a mess of boxes and overheating, connected to their core router. Monitoring was a mess of statistics from the old and new system thrown together, so nobody noticed for over 2 years.
Why she was the only complainer at that office, I will never understand. But she stopped complaining that very day.