Unfortunately, for the time being we just don't have enough really active users. We get a lot of unique visitors some day, but the same users are still generating the vast majority of the content sitewide (not just in your feed). It's a mystery how to get these other, invisible folks to participate. I wish I had a good answer, but sadly, it remains elusive. They must like reading, since they keep coming back, but maybe many people just think their opinion isn't wanted. Fear of being wrong keeps people silent. This is a well known phenomenon the world over, not just online. The question is how to encourage people to get over that.
I'm a huge lurker on many, many sites, but I probably lurk the hardest on HN, Reddit and Hubski. Fear of being wrong, and a lack of respect for one's own opinion I'll admit are big factors, but I think there's also an issue of being late to the party. I see threads on Reddit's 'Hot' feed, that have been weeded out by the Reddit hive-mind as being full of good discussion and content. But as soon as I get to the comments I suddenly get extremely disappointed because there's been a discussion raging for the past day or so. I, personally, feel that often a lot of what needs to be said, has been said. On the flip-side, when I do have something to say, often I feel that there will be very little audience to see it and to respond to it. It's a bit like, 'what's the point' (I don't feel this applies to Hubski, which puts new comments up the top) Hubski really solves a lot of this problem by allowing people with a large numbers of followers to share threads and links posted by an occasional lurker that comes out of the woodwork. However, I think it's intimidating for some new users to see people with a huge amount of followers and make huge contributions to the Hubski community. Maybe a way to search and subscribe to new users that have certain interests? To join a new website and be quickly greeted by a "### has started following you" would really really encourage new people to feel like they have an audience that they feel like they can connect with. Just my two cents.
Interesting. We'll talk about it. In the mean time, there is always the "global" feeds, which are found in the upper right next to the submit button. There, anyone can explore everything that has been submitted, organized by number of shares, and by time of submission within each section.Maybe a way to search and subscribe to new users that have certain interests? To join a new website and be quickly greeted by a "### has started following you" would really really encourage new people to feel like they have an audience that they feel like they can connect with.
I'm someone who doesn't post much. I comment much more than I post links/topics, and I don't comment that much either. Yet, I still come up under "active poster" and "active commenter". Honestly, I was the same way on reddit as well. But for a different reason. On reddit, I wouldn't post because everything I wanted to post had been posted already. Which made it pointless. On hubski, I don't post because I don't find things that I feel are up to the quality standards of hubski. I'm used to seeing long in-depth articles usually discussing some deep topic that many users can post tons of long comments about. A trailer for a new game, for example, doesn't quite achieve that same goal. I'm guessing other's who lurk probably feel the same way.
What I'm gathering from b_b's comment is that hubski more or less follows the 90 percent rule or whatever it's called. I can't believe this, honestly -- in fact I've never believed in that rule, but I've never owned a domain either so what do I know. Are we sure they aren't all bots? I just can't believe anyone who intentionally puts hubski in their rss and keeps up with it doesn't ever have anything to say, or never even bothers to make an account.
I can attest to this being true of Hubski, as it is with most any other aggregator. As you can imagine, when we started Hubski we invited all of our friends to use the site. That's really who the first batch of users were. I have a number of friends that I never see on the site that will tell me in person that they visit Hubski regularly. They treat it like they would any online magazine and just consume content. I'm always shocked when people IRL reference a story or conversation on Hubski that they didn't participate in. Some people just aren't interested in participating but they still enjoy consuming new information. I don't think there is much that can be done to change this. It's only a factor because we have a small (but growing) community. If we had 100k people instead of 10k no one would even notice. But, if you are able to solve the problem of how to get lurkers to feel comfortable in actively engaging, well... you should patent that snake-oil and make a fortune.
Look, I comment rather infrequently and I'd classify myself in the lurker/passive consumer cohort, but seeing all the meta-talk going on recently I figured my thoughts might be useful. Or maybe not. Because that's the crux for me at least. Ninety-nine percent of the time I really don't consider my own opinions interesting enough to present to you lot. Is it an acceptance thing? Maybe. Perhaps it's the idea that my hubski presence needs to be curated in some way, throttled but then distilled. That seems to be the ideal, but if it makes you think that my comment history is going to be an intellectual goldmine or whatever don't even bother looking, because honestly my recent comments have been quite mediocre. It could be just me, in which case I'll get and take what's coming to me, but hubski incubates a fucked up kind of performance anxiety in me. Right now I'm having a bit of an internal conflict about whether or not to just erase everything I wrote and remain silent. Don't get me wrong though, I really like hubski and I really like the conversations and debates and whatnot which take place. If hubski command thinks lurkers are counter to the mission statement, then I hope this kind of info is helpful to you. I think I've said everything that I wanted to (not) say, so two final things: a. If you think this is complete bullshit, does that validate what I was trying to get across? b. Here's some weirdly relevant poetry which may or may not lose its meaning in translation: ...[O you] Controller of Conversations
Sir...
My Lord
No!
guess I'll try again...
later
I don't think lurkers are counter to the mission statement. I think its fine. I lurk many other sites and never comment. You owe us nothing, so don't feel obligated to comment, but also don't be afraid to comment. I follow you, I'd be glad to hear what you have to say. For instance... I dig the poem.It could be just me, in which case I'll get and take what's coming to me, but hubski incubates a fucked up kind of performance anxiety in me. Right now I'm having a bit of an internal conflict about whether or not to just erase everything I wrote and remain silent.
It's not just you. I have friends that I consider very smart and capable people. They post prolifically on FB but are afraid to post on Hubski because they don't think it will be "good enough". It's a mixed bag, part of me thinks this is good and part of me thinks it's too much of a barrier to entry. But unlike you, most of these guys haven't spent time lurking and don't have a feel for the site.
It would be interesting to see if sites where anonymity is prevalent (Like 4chan) also fell under this 90% rule. It wouldn't surprise me if it were different. I'm not trying to argue that Hubski should be more anonymous, it would pretty much counteract most of what Hubski is. But rather I think that this "Snake-oil" isn't that elusive, it's just that the snake oil is more of a double-edged sword. Anonymity - and per extension more content - isn't always what you want. Sure you get more engaging participants in a discussion, and it would probably help creating a more diversely opinionated userbase. But at what cost? I've frequented some of the non-/b/ boards of 4chan for a long while, and while discussion is everywhere, it rarely meets any quality standards except proper spelling and grammar. There are a lot of places on the internet to have that kind of free-for-all debate, of which most remind me more of a gladiatorial arena than of a conversation between differing opinions. I personally don't think that Hubski should strive to be another one of those. I like Hubski quite a lot the way it is, not saying it shouldn't change at all, but I think one of the areas that shouldn't be compromised on are these quality standards.
Glad you like it here, thanks for the feedback.
It would be interesting to see if sites where anonymity is prevalent (Like 4chan) also fell under this 90% rule. It wouldn't surprise me if it were different.
-I actually would be surprised if it were different. I don't think it's that people are afraid to comment, I just think some people don't feel that need or desire. I would guess that close to 9/10 people that visit 4chan do it to read what others are saying etc. If it is a higher ratio, my guess is that it isn't by much. -Just a guess though.
Thanks for responding, I've been here for a year soon enough, but as you might guess I'm just lurking.
Glad to finally meet you! Don't be a stranger, I'm following you now and expect great things...no pressure though ;-)
I know it's certainly the case with other sites (Twitter, Reddit, etc). Tons of people use those sites without an account. I'm guessing hubski is probably similar. I have 39 people following me right now, and last I checked, the majority haven't done anything on the site. Maybe a single comment or two, but pretty much no shares and no posts. Yet, they follow me, and I assume use the site. Also, looking over at the TMI page, there seems to be constantly new users. Yet, the major tags still only have content by the "big players" of hubski.
I think the reason that most users don't "participate" is actually a simple issue, and not necessarily one that can be "fixed." At least in my own case, I don't participate because I don't have much free time and the time I do have is prioritized to reading rather than posting. I often find discussions to which I believe I could make a quality contribution, but I decide against participating because (in my own estimation) the time it would take for me to say what I would want to say is not enough to justify the quality of the contribution I would make. Another way of looking at this situation is that I simply don't invest as much time in using Hubski as other, more "active" users. That is, I am simply a more "casual" user. In this paradigm there isn't really a problem to fix; users are coming to the site from a diversity of life situations, so it is simply impossible that everyone will be participating at a high level. Just my $0.02.