Andy on Twitter

  • At least Dan recognises he's running a dictatorship with little interest in other voices. Ironic quote given he's… ,
  • Imagine what Voice AI can add to this. ,
  • Great read... ,
  • Love the new bike ... how about launching in Australia! Soon. No, actually, now. Please.,
  • I'm not sure is lying. He's just terribly confused about everything. Needs a break. And we need a… ,
  • Probably a good idea to leave family out of it... but perhaps it might give him cause to reflect t… ,
  • 100% Same old patter. Same old policies. And maybe even that would give the Premiers some time together - at which… ,
  • It's incredible how many Premiers are content to use Twitter to spew their punitive policies and big help messages… ,
  • Is a common theme... just look at the Political response to Covid. One expert to inform all vs collective views and… ,
  • Spot on. Just look at what is going on in Melbourne. There is a vast difference between authotarian rule and managi… ,
  • Exactly... Professors’ message for Daniel Andrews: redo the coronavirus modelling ,
  • Spot on... Victoria's roadmap out of lockdown is the wrong approach. Here's what good public policy looks like ,
  • Connect

Peerage Production

There has been plenty of talk in the blogosphere about the power of peer (or, community) production. The notion being that by virtue of us all coming together and creating/contributing the product is defined and created.

I’ve often wondered the extent to which this is actually happening. There might be plenty of participants but few contributors. Richard has some sats on Digg that seem to reinforce this notion:

  • Of Digg’s 445,000 registered users, only 2,287 contributed any stories to the site during the last six weeks.
  • The top 100 users contributed fully 55% of the stories that appeared on the site’s front page, and the top 10 users contributed a whopping 30% of the front page stories.

Nick chimes in with a great descriptor: “Peer production? I think a better term for it would be peerage production.” Digg’s stats are here.

All of this points to one of the core questions we ask in building any community – “to pay or not to pay for participation – that is the question”.

Answer – it all depends on the nature of participation. In the realm of those participatory ‘platforms’ that depend on light contribution and content aggregation (ranking things for instance), incentivized networks will ultimately win over those that depend on the enthusiasm of the community to contribute – a group which while sparking the initial flame of enthusiasm often shrinks back to the core over time. Compare that to communities and networks that depend on hardcore participation and engagement – think Java or Wikipedia. Much more stickiness, less incentive required.

Anyway, that’s a theory I’m developing and testing and this set of data seems to point to it. If you want to build a community and keep them engaged, make it sticky and get them engaged.

Speak Up — Add Your Thoughts


  • Connect
How did you connect?   [?]