Re: [Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data (wasparticpationSkills for Library 2.0 Leaders)

[Dan Lester]

   ----- Original message ----------------------------------------
   From: "Walt Crawford" <waltcrawford at gmail.com>
   >> > 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...

As one who has managed a bunch of lists (and more recently also a few yahoogroups) for almost twenty years, I used to always use the Pareto Principle in such discussions as this one.  In fact, on every one of them I'm sure I've covered it several times as people complained about too much from a few, or too little from most.

But the above is one I'd not heard/read before (the 90 9 1 or extension of it to 990 9 1).   Is there a name for it?  Is it the Walt Crawford Principle?  Or???

Serious question.

dan  

Show Up, Suit Up, Shut Up, and Follow Directions
dan at riverofdata.com
Dan Lester, Boise, Idaho, USA