Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Popularity on WP: A question

Page 1 of 11 [ 173 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

30 Apr 2011, 12:05 am

I suppose I'm having a massively Aspergian moment....

I've come across a few posts on occasion...the most recent one probably being right under this one on the main page, that talk, or rant, or complain about "in crowds" or popular people here on WP and, forgive me for being a bit blind to this matter, but I don't see it. Where are these claims coming from?

Who is determining who is popular and how?

How are people being excluded? Isn't everyone entitled to reply to a post? Isn't it permissible to respond to a post in a public forum whether one was involved from the beginning or not?

This notion of popularity is lost on me and I'm blind to whatever popularity aura people are perceiving. Could it be that there is no "in crowd" or people who actually popular and this is just an illusion?

I think that sometimes our minds can trick us due to our inability of those on the spectrum to gauge social situations for one reason or another.

I once went away on a class trip and was put in the same condo with two other girls in my class. They seemed to be rather good friends and seemed to talk about experiences outside of class so I assumed they had known each other for a while. When I finally came by the idea to ask them how long they had known each other, I was surprised to learn that they had only known each other since the start of the class, which was two weeks.

My point is, my perception was wrong, and it was wrong because as a person with AS, I did not understand how people socialize well enough to be able to gauge one person's social proximity to another accurately.



Last edited by Chronos on 30 Apr 2011, 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

30 Apr 2011, 12:10 am

I think someone confused "prolific" with "popular."

I was just reading about this the other day, too:

Pareto Principle.

Quote:
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.


So perhaps 80% of the posts here come from 20% of the posters.

Or:

1% Rule

Quote:
The 1% rule states that the number of people who create content on the internet represents approximately 1% (or less) of the people actually viewing that content (e.g., For every one person who posts on a forum, there are at least ninety-nine other people viewing that forum but not posting). The term was coined by authors and bloggers Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba although there are earlier references to the same concept that did not use this name. For example, a large 2005 study of radical Jihadist forums by Akil N Awan found that 87% of users had never posted on the forums, 13% had posted only once, 5% had posted 50 or more times, and only 1% had posted 500 or more times.

The "90-9-1" version of this rule states that 1% of people create content, 9% edit or modify that content, and 90% view the content without contributing.

The actual percentage is likely to vary depending upon the subject matter. For example, if a forum requires content submissions as a condition of entry, the percentage of people who participate will probably mostly be significantly higher than one percent but the content producers will still be a minority of users. This is validated in a study conducted by Michael Wu, who uses economics techniques to analyze the participation inequality across hundreds of communities segmented by industry, audience type, and community focus.


And of course one of the side effects of a minority of posters producing the majority of content is that they're going to interact with each other a lot. To an observer, this could very well appear to be a "clique" or a "matter of popularity," but I think it's just that some people post more than others.



tenzinsmom
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 7 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 273
Location: Seattle

30 Apr 2011, 12:12 am

I agree with Verdandi completely.


_________________
"Every day is a journey, and the journey itself is home." -Basho


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

30 Apr 2011, 12:18 am

Verdandi wrote:

Quote:
The 1% rule states that the number of people who create content on the internet represents approximately 1% (or less) of the people actually viewing that content (e.g., For every one person who posts on a forum, there are at least ninety-nine other people viewing that forum but not posting). The term was coined by authors and bloggers Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba although there are earlier references to the same concept that did not use this name. For example, a large 2005 study of radical Jihadist forums by Akil N Awan found that 87% of users had never posted on the forums, 13% had posted only once, 5% had posted 50 or more times, and only 1% had posted 500 or more times.

The "90-9-1" version of this rule states that 1% of people create content, 9% edit or modify that content, and 90% view the content without contributing.

The actual percentage is likely to vary depending upon the subject matter. For example, if a forum requires content submissions as a condition of entry, the percentage of people who participate will probably mostly be significantly higher than one percent but the content producers will still be a minority of users. This is validated in a study conducted by Michael Wu, who uses economics techniques to analyze the participation inequality across hundreds of communities segmented by industry, audience type, and community focus.



The discussion wasn't about content-creators versus viewers...at all. We're all contributors here, so this rule doesn't apply, especially if we are not speaking under the unfounded presumption that those who complain about exclusivity and popularity are somehow referring to a VOLUME of posts by certain individuals, as opposed to cliquish behaviors BETWEEN them.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 30 Apr 2011, 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,280
Location: Pacific Northwest

30 Apr 2011, 12:20 am

It sounds like there has been something going on in the L&D section and the adult autism issues section and people got pissed when they were told to stop flooding up the forum with their "spam" because they were derailing the threads by making them go off topic with their chit chats. So I'd say "go get a room" get it?



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

30 Apr 2011, 12:22 am

I stay out of L&D and the Adult section anymore- I get in too much trouble,
and feeling like I'm all by myself in trying to face down that level of bitter sexism upsets me before too long. :?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

30 Apr 2011, 12:25 am

Bethie wrote:
The discussion wasn't about content-creators versus viewers...at all. We're all contributors here, so this rule doesn't apply, especially if we are not speaking under the unfounded presumption that those who complain about exclusivity and popularity are somehow referring to a VOLUME of posts by certain individuals, as opposed to cliquish behaviors BETWEEN them.


There was a post here in General last week or the week before about how there's supposedly a clique of popular bullies who targeted the OP, and that they could be identified because they were so prolific. There may be multiple conversations about these things going on, and I have no idea which discussion you're talking about.

Anyway, the 1% rule says that 90% of the people lurk and don't participate at all, and it's not even controversial that some who do post are much more prolific about it than others, even though all posters contribute.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,280
Location: Pacific Northwest

30 Apr 2011, 12:42 am

What thread was that? Did it get moved or put in the mod sections no members can see?



bee33
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,862

30 Apr 2011, 12:47 am

League_Girl wrote:
What thread was that? Did it get moved or put in the mod sections no members can see?

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt158654.html

And I agree with Verdandi's assessment.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,280
Location: Pacific Northwest

30 Apr 2011, 12:49 am

Oh that one. I remember it.



AllieKat
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 294

30 Apr 2011, 1:50 am

Popularity? On an online forum? I wasn't even aware such a concept existed on WP. How totally "Aspie" of me!



IdahoRose
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 19,801
Location: The Gem State

30 Apr 2011, 1:55 am

tenzinsmom wrote:
I agree with Verdandi completely.

So do I.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

30 Apr 2011, 2:01 am

IdahoRose wrote:
tenzinsmom wrote:
I agree with Verdandi completely.

So do I.


^^ I'm with them as far as the General Autism sub-forum goes.

The issue in the adult forum has been brought up, and I have to admit there definitely was a 'popular' crowd. Came as a shock to me that I was considered part of it.

Dynamics are rather intriguing.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

30 Apr 2011, 2:15 am

Yeah, I have no idea about the adult or L&D fora, as I avoid both of them. I have enough trouble remembering to check the subfora that actually interest me.

I have seen several people bring up the apparently high level of flirting in there, though.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

30 Apr 2011, 2:19 am

Verdandi wrote:
Yeah, I have no idea about the adult or L&D fora, as I avoid both of them. I have enough trouble remembering to check the subfora that actually interest me.

I have seen several people bring up the apparently high level of flirting in there, though.


I don't know much about the L&D, either. I go there, but I haven't noticed much of a clique or anything of that nature.

Not unless you count all the guys that pat themselves on the back for being sexist.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

30 Apr 2011, 2:21 am

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
Yeah, I have no idea about the adult or L&D fora, as I avoid both of them. I have enough trouble remembering to check the subfora that actually interest me.

I have seen several people bring up the apparently high level of flirting in there, though.


I don't know much about the L&D, either. I go there, but I haven't noticed much of a clique or anything of that nature.

Not unless you count all the guys that pat themselves on the back for being sexist.


L&D came up earlier in the thread.

And that would be one reason I don't go into L&D.