Don't call it lurking

If you read a web site and don't comment on it, some will mark that as "lurking". Mostly that's a wrong perspective. A lot of people are less comfortable with typing things into the net than they are talking about them, and since web log traffic tools have no way to measure all of the spoken word and face to face discussion that's going on, you have no real way to pigeonhole an infrequent contributor as "lurker" or "active offline participant" without knowing more.

Ross Mayfield recycles the powerlaw curve to illustrate where the lurkers are, and completely omits any hint that people might actually talk to each other and see each other offline.

Technorati Tags: lurking

Comments

[Scott T.]

So true so true. From my experience with ArborUpdate for every commenter there are at least 5-10 active readers, if not 20...

[Veronique Christensen]

I read Ross' post earlier today and had the exact same reaction. This makes me think of a number of online communities that I am a member of, but don't often post to. The fact that I don't post does not mean that I don't get value and don't give value back. I read, and learn; and I share that knowledge offline. I also give credit to the folks with the original thoughts.

[Murph]

But I feel as though ArborUpdate, and the A2 online community in general, can't be used as a standard, though. I see in person a much higher fraction of AU readers than of Slashdot readers. A much higher fraction of MLive readers than Salon.com readers.

I know there are other such pockets out there, but I feel as though net readership is still much more topic-oriented than locale-oriented - Putnam's complaint - is still the general rule. (Got evidence? Nope.)

[Jim Benson]

I thought pretty much the same thing. Even inverted Ross' curve to illustrate that the bottom feeders were actually the food source for the power curve.