Participation Inequality in Social Networks and Ponzu

It’s an old post but still as relevant as ever. A great post by Jakob Nielsen on encouraging more users to contribute to a social network.

Some excerpts with my comments;

User participation often more or less follows a 90-9-1 rule:

  • 90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don’t contribute).
  • 9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
  • 1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions: it can seem as if they don’t have lives because they often post just minutes after whatever event they’re commenting on occurs.

At the MBSJ2012, we had better results. In the analysis of “likes”, we found that 45% of the participants used the “like” button more than once. That is many times more than the 1% + 9% = 10% you would except from the 90-9-1 rule.

Jakob Nielsen also gives some recommendations to increase participation.

Although participation will always be somewhat unequal, there are ways to better equalize it, including:

  • Make it easier to contribute. The lower the overhead, the more people will jump through the hoop. For example, Netflix lets users rate movies by clicking a star rating, which is much easier than writing a natural-language review.
  • Make participation a side effect. Even better, let users participate with zero effort by making their contributions a side effect of something else they’re doing. For example, Amazon’s “people who bought this book, bought these other books” recommendations are a side effect of people buying books. You don’t have to do anything special to have your book preferences entered into the system. Will Hill coined the term read wear for this type of effect: the simple activity of reading (or using) something will “wear” it down and thus leave its marks — just like a cookbook will automatically fall open to the recipe you prepare the most.

Our “like” system falls within the category of “make it easier to contribute”. It also incorporates “make participation a side effect”, because you need to “like” a presentation to put it into “my schedule”. These likely contributed strongly to the better participation ratios at MBSJ2012.

Thoughts

In scientific conferences, participation inequality is a very important issue. This is because the online community is not the end-product, but it only serves as a means to enhance the scientific community, the vast majority of which is not very active on social networks. More importantly, the more important members of the scientific community, i.e. the professors, are less inclined to participate in these activities compared to young researchers.

Hence we should restrain ourselves from going overboard with social features which will tend to make the whole system unfriendly towards less social active participants. The social features should be there, but not necessarily prominent. They should help participants subtly and not be intrusive. We should also measure the success by the ratio of participants and the median activity, rather than the total number of activities. Most importantly, I believe that we should refrain from using social network features as a “voting” system for awards, unless we augment that with more traditional methods.

I believe social networks are important for scientific networks, but it is only a tool that has to be used very carefully. Ponzu (A Japanese sauce) is great for some food, but not so for others. Even when it goes well with your dish, too much will spoil it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *