« WoW 60 | Main | Web 2.0 Nimcompoop »

April 27, 2006

Power Law of Participation

Social software brings groups together to discover and create value.  The problem is, users only have so much time for social software.  The vast majority of users with not have a high level of engagement with a given group, and most tend to be free riders upon community value.  But patterns have emerged where low threshold participation amounts to collective intelligence and high engagement provides a different form of collaborative intelligence. To illustrate this, lets explore the Power Law of Participation:

Power Law of Participation

Most of Chris Anderson's Long Tail examples have focused on models of consumption, not production, where intelligence is largely artificial.  Amazonian algorythms guide users down the long tail from Britney Spears to Nobodys, made available without the constraints of shelf space.  But the interesting question is will the tail wag? Can users discover their own power together to either discover something great, or even create it?

As we engage with the web, we leave behind breadcrumbs of attention.  Even when we Read, our patterns are picked up in referral logs (especially with expressly designed tools, like Measure Map), creating a feedback loop.  But reading alone isn't enough to fulfill our innate desire to remix our media, consumption is active for consumers turned users.

Digg is the archetype for low threshold participation.  Simply Favorite something you find of interest, a one click action.  You don't even have to log in to contribute value, you have Permission to Participate.  Del.icio.us taps both personal and social incentives for participation through the low threshold activity of tagging.  Remembering the URL is the hardest part, and you have to establish an identity in the system.  Commenting requires such identity for sake of spam these days and is an under-developed area.  Subscribing requires a commitement of sustained attention which greatly surpasses reading alone.  Sharing is the principal activity in these communities, but much of it occurs out of band (email still lives).  We Network not only to connect, but leverage the social network as a filter to fend off information overload.  Some of us Write, as in blog, and some of us even have conversations.  But these are all activities that can remain peripheral to community.  To Refactor, Collaborate, Moderate and Lead requires a different level of engagement -- which makes up the core of a community.

The byproduct of use is a Conucopia of the Commons -- the act of using the database adds value to it.  As users engage in low threshold participation (read, favorite, tag and link) we gain a form of collective intelligence.  But it is important to distinguish the value of collective intelligence and collaborative intelligence, as first pointed out by Mitch Kapor:

...Tons of interesting types of collaborative filtering, like Digg, is TiVo like, indicating individual preferences, with some algorythm logic.  Valid and interesting, but people are not connecting.  Different from a bunch of people focusing on creating something.  That is higher value than collaborative filtering, my thesis, if you can get people to work together.  Look at health information, broadly speaking, why are doctors not collaborating to build such a resource -- the lack of information, locked up in a database that Harvard publishes, kills people.  I can feel the opportunity... 

When users participate in high enagement activities, connecting with one another, a different kind of value is being created.  But my core point isn't just the difference between these forms of group intelligence -- but actually how the co-exist in the best communities.

In Wikipedia, 500 people, or 0.5% of users, account for 50% of the edits.  This core community is actively dedicated to maintaining an open periphery.  Part of what makes Flickr work isn't just excellence at low threshold engagement, but the ability to form groups.  Participation in communities plots along a power law with a solid core/periphery model -- provided social software supports both low threshold participation and high engagement. 

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1805/4757312

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Power Law of Participation:

» Deconstructing participation from Between the Lines
Worth reading: Ross Mayfield has come up with a way to deconstruct the concept of participation, peeling it back so that is has some granularity. Not all participants participate with an equal level of engagement, as illustrated in the Power Law of Par... [Read More]

» The Participation Spectrum from Phil Windley's Technometria
Ross Mayfield has an excellent essay on the spectrum of participation, the choices we have about how much of ourselves to put into any given activity on the Web. He points out that high engagement activities like leading, moderating... [Read More]

» Spectrum of Participation from chris@eParticipation
Just found this great post from Ross Mayfield, drawing the spectrum of online participation. At a point, where the whole blogging discussion becomes repetitive, this is great work of putting the different elements of online participation into perspectiv [Read More]

» The Incentive to Participate in Social Networks and Enterprise 2.0 from JasonKolb.com
John Sviokla wrote a fascinating post recently about the reasons why people participate in social networks. He argues that people participate in social networks for the social aspect of them, not for any monetary rewards. In fact, it seems that [Read More]

» Healthy Lurking from The Cooperation Blog
This post by Ross Mayfield shows graphically how lurkers and free riders may be an indication of a healthy cooperative system. ... [Read More]

» The Power Law of Participation from Media Guerrilla
This is very cool, Ross Mayfield posts his Power Law of Participation: This is particularly interesting when you think about how a communications program might map to different levels of community engagement. According to this power law, content consu... [Read More]

» How We Learn from J. LeRoy's Evolving Web
The other day I was having conversations with Ed Vielmetti and Jay Fienberg on IM. Simultaneously, both conversations came around to Web 2.0 and how it's managed to eat itself.Oddly enough, Web 2.0 has been a term that means everything, [Read More]

» Roland's Sunday Smart Trends #108 from Smart Mobs
Here is my weekly selection of articles that were not mentioned here -- except if I missed them. Cyber Sleuths Call For New 'Smart Swarms' "The key to robust security is network thinking," said W. David Stephenson, principal at Stephenson... [Read More]

» How to tap into the global brain from Nigel Burke
Add the new generation of consummers to the millions of lead users, early adopters, brilliant business professionals dying to give you a piece of their mind, and you’ll end up with THE GLOBAL BRAIN, waiting for you to tap into [Read More]

» Notes on Designing for Participation from O Danny Boy
I participated on a panel at Webvisions about encouraging companies to engage customers online. I wanted to put down what I said i... [Read More]

» Is Enterprise Anonymity an Oxymoron? from Kalivo
As I've discussed here a few times, individual enterprises have a couple big advantages over the Internet as a whole as they work to encourage the use of new platforms for communication and collaboration. [Read More]

» Participation from Ecademy - A way of living
My previous article highlighted the impact of aparent non participation on the conclusions that others might draw from a discussion, particularly around the level of support for an idea or issue. Russ Mayfield's excellent blog discusses a power law of [Read More]

» Collaboration on line starts to make sense from Mopsos
Ross's Power Law of Participation is brilliant, because it explains how valuable metadata can be fed into any collaboration tool. It can be combined with Janet Salmons Collaborative Taxonomy of e-Learning , which is more on the right-hand side of... [Read More]

» Notes from the Enterprise 2.0 Summit 2008 from padawan.info
Brief notes from the Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Hannover. Warning: those notes are very partial, I tend to forget about... [Read More]

» Marzo 8, 2008. Alternativas a las redes sociales de Internet. El futuro del Web 2.0 from luisdans WebLog
Estoy presente en diversas redes sociales de Internet. luego de analizar los agregadores de redes sociales [Read More]

Comments

Again, another excellent post. I love the framework you've put together on collaboration as I was just trying to have this conversation with a co-worker! You did a much better job than I did...keep up the great work.

Encouraging participation is the critical factor in the success of social software - especially online communities. As you’ve pointed out there is a natural progression of behaviors, and that as those behaviors reflect increased active participation the value rises – both to the individual and the community.

Designers need to encourage participation by recognizing and taking advantage of this progression and by ensuring their applications have multiple steps that are easy to use and inherently rewarding. Encouraging ranking and rating, which generally requires a single click and results in an anonymous aggregated result is a training behavior for contribution. Tagging can be similarly anonymous but requires a formal and unique contribution raising the level of engagement.

Using these techniques allow a designer to provide multiple contribution points – each of which builds the habit of contribution while not stretching users to far from their comfort zone.

A very interesting move, inverting the long tail from consumption to production.
Not sure it's still "the long tail" but the power law you describe makes sense.
However, i think there's one aspect of your model that is slightly misleading, which is that nice curve it shows, while from my experience with online communities, the consumption/production scale tend to be more dichotomous for most users, i.e. a "all or nothing" issue, with reader-participant relation between 1-10 1-8 in high participation communities and a lot worst in most.

Very good. I'd like to draw the honorable gentleman's attention to "my" (no doubt drawn from many sources) laws of connectedness:

http://www.joncollins.net/wordpress/?p=161

Feedback welcome. All the best!

P.S. Isn't that a long head?

Ross, you're missing a whole huge piece of this picture. Where in this diagram is people talking to each other face to face in person about things they see on the net? Perhaps you don't see it because you don't measure it, but not all of these interactions around ideas are out in online space.

It strikes me that Ross has painted a picture that reflects what really happens in life. We form hierarchies. Which is validated in the notion of the A...Z-list blogger and by the number estimated to be truly ative in Wikipedia's development. So what exactly have we achieved that provides a benefit to the business?

Is it enough that a reader should take something away, think it through for their own situation, implement but never return to the hive and tell anyone? But there's the rub, with a flipside:

I've recently seen sites pop up that are talking about ideas that vaqguely resemble my own. Great. But they fail because you cannot replicate my thinking any more than I can yours.

If you accept that as a valid consrtuct then it is only a small step to saying that collaboration and active contribution make sense for low impact users because they need to learn just as much as others.

If you add in the 'traditional' long tail diag you end up with a pyramid - just like we have now in management structures.

Ross, I think that some of the theme of what you are describing here shows that successful peer production systems tend to be hybrids of hierarchical (top-down) and decentralized (bottom-up) social organization. A large group of decentalized contributors coupled with a smaller core community who are generally organized around some form of hierarchy. This core group tends to refine the work of larger decentralized masses. Yet, there seems to be a sustainable tension balance that emerges between the decentralized and centralized in these successful systems. There seems to emerge a general recognition of the need for the small core hierarchy. And, a general understanding seems to usually emerge that the small core hierarchy is only a tool for time saving and efficiency.

This reminded me of a number of studies on open source that support this idea. For example, a case study of the Apache project published in 2000 found that 80% to 90% of the submissions came from a set of 15 core developers in a community of more than 3000 people. A study of the GNOME project had similar results with 11 people contributing most of the output. Relating this back to the Power Law of Participation, the small number of core community members leads to collaborative intelligence, while the larger community provides an important collective intelligence by contributing bug reports, ideas, and comments. These two types of contributors and the resulting intelligence generated both feed off of each other and allow the community to prosper. I would be interested to see how this applies to other communities.

Sources:
A case study of open source software development: The Apache server (Mockus, Fielding, & Herbsleb, 2000).

Effort, co-operation and co-ordination in an open source software project: GNOME (Koch & Schneider, 2002).

FWIW: The curve on English Wikipedia does in fact seem to be a smooth curve from the occasional readers all the way up to the editors with 100,000 edits.

Ross,

I love the power law graph and could like to use it in presentations. Any chance you have a large size, suitable for PowerPoint?

Thanks.

Mike Ellsworth
Program Manager
CareerOneStop

Try this one, Mike
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ross/171420476/

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Feeds


Flickr


  • www.flickr.com

Dandelife


Ligit

About


  • Ross Mayfield is the Chairman, President & Co-founder of Socialtext, the first wiki company and leading provider of Enterprise 2.0 solutions,
My Photo

The 150



  • View Ross Mayfield's profile on LinkedIn
Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 08/2003