In Internet culture, the 1 percent rule or the 90-9-1 principle reflects a theory that more people will lurk in a virtual community than will participate. This term is often used as a euphemism for participation inequality in the context of the Internet.

Contents 1 1% rule 2 Participation inequality 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

[edit] 1% rule

The 1% rule is a theoretical internet concept which states that the number of people who create content on the internet represent 1% (or less) of the people actually viewing that content (e.g., For every one person that posts on a forum, there are at least ninety-nine other people viewing that forum but not posting). The term was coined by authors and bloggers Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba^[1] although there are earlier references to the same concept^[2] that did not use this name.

The actual percentage is likely to vary depending upon the subject matter. For example, if the forum requires content submissions as a condition of entry, the 1% rule may be higher than one percent.

This can be compared with the similar rules known to information science, such as the 80/20 rule known as the Pareto principle, that 20% of a group will produce 80% of the activity, however the activity may be defined.

[edit] Participation inequality

A similar concept was introduced by Will Hill of AT&T Laboratories and later cited by Jakob Nielsen; this was the earliest known reference to the term "participation inequality" in an online context^[3] The concept was described as follows:

A major reason why user-contributed content rarely turns into a true community is that all aspects of Internet use are characterized by severe participation inequality (a term I have from Will Hill of AT&T Laboratories). A few users contribute the overwhelming majority of the content, while most users either post very rarely or not at all. Unfortunately, those people who have nothing better to do than post on the Internet all day long are rarely the ones who have the most insights. In other words, it is inherent in the nature of the Internet that any unedited stream of user-contributed content will be dominated by uninteresting material.

The key problem is the unedited nature of most user-contributed content. Any useful postings drown in the mass of "me too" and flame wars. The obvious solution is to introduce editing, filtering, or other ways of prioritizing user-contributed content. One idea is to pick a few of the best reader comments and make them prominent by posting them directly on the primary page, while other reader comments languish on a secondary page. It is also possible to promote the most interesting postings based on a vote by other readers who could click "good stuff" or "bozo" buttons.

This concept is often euphemized as the "1% rule", which does not explicitly refer to the quality of participation, just the quantity. The term participation inequality regained public attention in 2006 when it was used in a strictly quantitative context within a blog entry on the topic of marketing.^[4]

[edit] See also

• Lurker
• Online participation
• Pareto principle

[edit] References

1. ^ "The 1% Rule: Charting citizen participation", Ben McConnell and Church of the Customer blog, May 3, 2006
2. ^ "Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers", Elatable : Bradley Horowitz blog, February 16, 2006
3. ^ "Community is Dead; Long Live Mega-Collaboration", Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox for August 15, 1997
4. ^ "The 1% Rule: Charting citizen participation", Ben McConnell

[edit] External links

• 90-9-1.com
• The 1% Rule: Charting citizen participation by Ben McConnell in Church of the Customer, May 3, 2006
• Participation Inequality: Lurkers vs. Contributors in Internet Communities by Jakob Nielsen, October 9, 2006.
• What is the 1% rule? by Charles Arthur in The Guardian, July 20, 2006.
• The 1% Rule by Heather Green in BusinessWeek, May 10, 2006
• Institutions vs. Collaboration by Clay Shirky, July 2005, Video at 06:00 and 12:42