[Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data (was particpationSkills for Library 2.0 Leaders)

[Mark Costa]

All of these throwing around of numbers make me think, what is a measurement
of success for a web site? You mentioned that different sites have different
use/contribtion rates. Is there any type of site that library web sites are
comparable to?

What I am trying to get at is, what percentage can we expect of the overall
population that a given library serves to a) visit the site, and b)
use/contribute to the site? I hope you will bear with me while I give an
example. For a university whose population is 10000, the ideal scenario is
to get 10000 people to use the library's site for their research 100% of the
time; that is, we meet all of our community's research needs. I am going to
go out on a limb here and say this never happens. Instead of 100%, what is a
realistic goal for libraries? What can we say that we are comparable to, so
that we have a benchmark to measure ourselves by?




On 5/3/07, Walt Crawford <waltcrawford at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not qualified to comment on the second paragraph--or at least I choose
> not to.
>
> As for the first: Sites become sustainable for a variety of reasons, and
> traffic can either sustain or overwhelm a site. The 90:9:1 (and 990:9:1)
> observations are, of course, no more universal than the Pareto Principle or
> any other ratio. There are certainly smaller communities with a much higher
> active-participation ratio, and sometimes those communities thrive because
> they are smaller.
>
> And, of course, there are probably complete exceptions to that
> observation...but it's a good one to consider when you observe a relatively
> low rate of active participation on a site given its overall numbers. (The
> Pareto Principle could also come into play: 80% of the *use* of a site might
> come from 20% of its users--but that's different than contribution/active
> participation ratios.)
>
> walt crawford
>
> On 5/3/07, Mark Costa <markrcosta at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. So these sites become sustainable because of the sheer
> > volume of traffic? Does the 90:9:1 rule hold true for sites that cater to a
> > smaller community? Right now I'm thinking of bulletin boards/wikis for games
> > or other hobbies. Obviously they don't draw the traffic that Wikipedia does,
> > yet they still survive, and do quite well.
> >
> > What if librarians stopped focusing on developing their own site, but
> > instead found ways to contribute content to other people's sites in their
> > respective communities? We could develop a modular site, say using xml, and
> > then work with others to incorporate what we have into their sites. Course
> > sites come to mind. Instead of trying to get people to constantly link to
> > our site, focus more on to getting in to theirs. I know some libraries do
> > this to some extent, but it never seems to be the main push. Am I correct in
> > this assumption?
> >
> >
> >  On 5/3/07, Walt Crawford <waltcrawford at gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Really commenting on an earlier post: From what I've read and
> > > observed, the Pareto Principle is the wrong one to use for contribution
> > > ratios in social/web services. The applicable ratio is the 90:9:1
> > > ratio--that is, of every 100 users, roughly 9 will be occasional
> > > contributors or commenters and roughly one will be a "real" contributor.
> > >
> > > I think that's true for Wikipedia, although there it may be more like
> > > the alternate 990:9:1 ratio since there are so many "driveby users." It
> > > seems to be true for a range of other "social" sites, including blogs and
> > > blog reading. (Are 10% of blogs actively maintained, i.e., with posts
> > > at least once a month?) I'd guess the 90:9:1 ratio is even true of a fair
> > > number of lists...
> > >
> > > One consequence of this is that the audience is still, *mostly*, the
> > > audience--but "mostly" isn't as overwhelming now as it used to be.
> > >
> > > Walt Crawford
> > >
> > >  On 5/3/07, Mark Costa < markrcosta at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, so now we know why Google bought Youtube, because there are many
> > > > ways to
> > > > drive traffic to the site.
> > > >
> > > > I think of it this way, just because I drive through a rich
> > > > neighborhood, it
> > > > doesn't make me a member of the community. I'm just another guy
> > > > passing
> > > > through admiring the houses. It's the same thing with Youtube, there
> > > > are
> > > > just a bunch of people passing through; very few of them are
> > > > community
> > > > members. Youtube gives people a good reason to drive through, and
> > > > Google
> > > > knows how to sell to the gawkers.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia throws me off a bit. You can't imbed the site's content,
> > > > so its
> > > > not as easy to drive traffic to the site. But, they have to get a
> > > > large
> > > > number of drive throughs because you can pick up one of its entries
> > > > for
> > > > almost any Google search on a topic or famous person. Do more people
> > > > contribute because it is easier to add a line or two of text, rather
> > > > than
> > > > contribute a video? Or is it because a larger percentage of the
> > > > population
> > > > has an idea that they want to share, while only a small percentage
> > > > of the
> > > > population has a video they want to share. Everyone's an amateur
> > > > philosopher
> > > > and historian, very few of us are amateur directors.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/3/07, K.G. Schneider <kgs at bluehighways.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would have to say that for Youtube and Flickr, they generate a
> > > > > > tremendous
> > > > > > number of visits because people can imbed the image/video on
> > > > another
> > > > > site.
> > > > > > That's a good way to drive non-contributory traffic to a site
> > > > and skew
> > > > > the
> > > > > > ratio.
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't "non-contributory traffic" that "skew[s] the ratio,"
> > > > since a
> > > > > major component of Web 2.0 theory/practice is the idea that
> > > > content is
> > > > > portable/remixable. If I post a YouTube video to my site and
> > > > people watch
> > > > > it, they are participating in YouTube (and likely to visit the
> > > > site
> > > > > themselves).
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea that the site is the destination is very 1.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > K.G. Schneider
> > > > > kgs at bluehighways.com
> > > > > http://freerangelibrarian.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > > > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > > > > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mark R. Costa, MLS
> > > >
> > > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> > > > man
> > > > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
> > > > progress
> > > > depends on the unreasonable man."
> > > > --- George Bernard Shaw
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > > > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark R. Costa, MLS
> >
> > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
> > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
> > depends on the unreasonable man."
> > --- George Bernard Shaw
> >
>
>


-- 
Mark R. Costa, MLS

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
--- George Bernard Shaw