I've been looking into social media influence from two perspectives: as the 'owner' of a employer-specific Google Group; and as part of my interest in social media research. I've contacted members about inappropriate postings on those occasions where I've received negative feedback to pass on. Mostly the group works well through self-regulation, probably because I work for a government agency with all the culture that goes with that. As to participation and influence, my findings are consistent with other research. Over June - August 2008:
- 30 members posted a combined total of 158 contributions - total membership averaged about 155 over the three months - the percentage of members contributing was about 19% of the total membership - the top six contributors (representing 20% of contributors) posted 108 times, or 68% of total contributions - the top six contributors were just 4% of the total membership - the gap between the largest single contributor (46 contributions) and the second largest (19) is greater than the gap between the second the third contributor (16) What can we learn from this? The activity is consistent with Shirky's Power Law Distribution< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law>: where the majority of contributions are made by comparatively few (20% of the members posted contributions; 4% of the membership accounted for 68% of contributions). The results are close to being consistent with the Pareto Principle< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle>(the 80/20 rule where 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes): around 20% of the members contributed. What's more, the most active contributor posted over twice as much as the second largest. The 10th largest contributor posted 10% as much as the most active contributor - again, consistent with the Pareto Principle. The performance level seems to be a little better than what Jakob Nielsen refers to as participation inequality (90% are lurkers; 9% contribute from time to time; 1% contribute a lot (source: User-led Innovation)<http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:q9JOVsoxHRIJ:www.smartinternet.com.au/ArticleDocuments/121/User_Led_Innovation_A_New_Framework_for_Co-creating_Business_and_Social_Value.pdf.aspx+swinburne+user-led+innovation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4> Social media seems to be more or less consistent with distributions of other social systems - including face-to-face for that matter. See Mark Elliott's<http://mark-elliott.net/blog>blog for more information about these matters following the conclusion of The Future of Melbourne consultation wiki. cheers Paul Roberts On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Howard Rheingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hi Bill -- > You raise a good point. Another aspect of good facilitation is provoking > response. Robert has had some success at that. I haven't worked at it. One > good question can set off a cascade of responses. > > Howard Rheingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://twitter.com/hrheingold > http://www.rheingold.com http://www.smartmobs.com > http://vlog.rheingold.com > what it is ---> is --->up to us > > > > On Sep 15, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Bill Anderson wrote: > > Howard et al., > > I do read almost everything. > > I've been silent on this thread because I have nothing to add. > > Some recent topics have been thick and detailed (e.g., Axelrod) and right > now I don't have time to participate intelligently without digging out and > re-reading Axelrod. If we were sitting around over coffee I might feel > differently. > > -Bill > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Howard Rheingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> [ ... ] >> >> We're not doing well at all on the population-to-participation ratio >> in this list. A relatively small number have asked to be removed. >> Maybe the other silent people simply don't read the list, or it is >> filtered to a folder? >> >> >> Howard Rheingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://twitter.com/hrheingold >> http://www.rheingold.com http://www.smartmobs.com >> http://vlog.rheingold.com >> what it is ---> is --->up to us >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > -- Paul Roberts Mob: +61 438 553 562 Wk: +613 9963 6897 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CooperationCommons" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CooperationCommons?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
