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 ;-)