[Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad

[Christopher Fahey]

> "Research suggests that users of a site split into three 
> groups. One that regularly contributes (about 1%); a second 
> that occasionally contributes (about 9%); and a majority who 
> almost never contribute (90%).
> 
> By definition, said Mr Nielsen, ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF USERS 
> ARE LIKELY TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT USE OF ALL THE TOOLS A SITE PROVIDES."
> 
> "Most people just want to get in, get it and get out," said 
> Mr Nielsen. "For them the web is not a goal in itself. It is a tool."
> 
> I haven't seen any credible research that proves the above. 


There's tons and tons of evidence to back up this observation. 
http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=157
http://blogs.forrester.com/charleneli/2007/04/forresters_new_.html
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/04/a
re_most_web_20.html

Compare unique visitors to registered users of any social media site for
similar numbers. Look at the number of people who lurk vs. contribute on
mailing lists, including this one. Look at your own surfing habits and
those of the people around you for anecdotal evidence of this. When was
the last time anyone you know contributed to Wikipedia?

> But assuming for a millisecond that it could be true, what 
> does it say?

It simply means that although you might build 20 cool features into your
site, 99% of your users may only use one feature while the other 1% uses
the other 19 features. This does not mean that you should only build 1
feature, it simply means that you should not assume that everyone will
want to use the other 19. This is important for strategists, marketers
and designers to understand. 

Just look at the strategy angle: Wikipedia is positioned as "a place for
you to get information" not as "a place for you to contribute content".
The design of the site reflects this positioning.

-Cf

Christopher Fahey
____________________________
Behavior
http://www.behaviordesign.com
me: http://www.graphpaper.com