iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising
| Advertisement |
-
What Makes a Quality URL?
In setting up a website, the URL is one of the most important... -
Getting Noticed with Google Maps
Are you utilizing Google Maps? If not, you could be hurting your... -
Gray Areas of FTC Guidelines
Although the FTC's new advertising guidelines are scheduled to go...
     |
4 Comments
The problem I see with
The problem I see with Goldman's thesis is that it doesn't seem to account for the obsessive-compulsive hobbyist. What does that mean? Mr. Miller alluded to it - it's the enthusiast, but he/she is only an enthusiast until the next hobby comes along. I share this trait with many friends. We might really be into vintage Parker 51 fountain pens for a year, learning everything about them, racking up 1,000 posts on fountain pen message boards, etc. Then, we tire of fountain pens and move on to mechanical watches - same deal. Our fountain pen message board accounts go stale, we no longer contribute to wiki entries, etc.
Even with our cyclical enthusiasm, there is always someone new to fill the void. Just because seniority isn't retained doesn't mean that the site will fail. Of course, the quality of the content is another issue.
Apples and Oranges
I would guess that those watching, adding to, and monitoring Wikipedia entries probably have a passion for the topic. They don't get paid. They simply care about a given topic or topics. That might or might not keep them watching.
Epinions lost some of those early on members, because the pay dropped drastically. One member who caught the gravy train said he made $10K the first year. Of course, he was not going to be happy with $50 or $100 a month and more work involved. And, that is talking power members and income.
In addition, there's no common thread for many EP members. Sure. Some groups get tight and write in a certain category or meet at off site boards and become buddies. Others simply write and write and write and about all sorts of products for a few dollars per month. Without passion and direction and friends, it becomes just another job - would you like fries with that? But, it's pennies on the hour rather than dollars.
1999
I have been a contributing member of I don't know how many web forums of various kinds since 1999. I joined MySpace and later quit and they are not decaying as far as I can see. People come and go and that does not say much about decay. The conclusion obviously does not follow from the data.
More accurate data necessary
I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Goldman didn't delve further into his research. He should, perhaps, consider interviewing members of the epinions site before finalizing his paper.
In 1999, epinions was a fledgling site, much different than the site as it appears and works today. Some of those early "power members" left for various reasons. Many others have stayed and withstood the test of time. The latter members should be the ones to take into consideration when determining the "decay rate" of the site. The top 20 reviewers in a brand-new site is not the best or most accurate data to use.
I have not myself looked into this (but will now, out of curiosity). However, the year 2000 may be a better one to use as it was the first full year epinions existed.
As for the members being "paid" for their reviews, that's a relative term. Members receive IS (income share) each month. Some reviews never earn a penny, some earn a few. Every once in a while one gets lucky and may make a few dollars. Hard work is also helpful as there are small bonuses given to members who have earned the titles of Category Lead, Advisor, or Top Reviewer.
Just some things to think about. I wish Mr. Goldman luck in his research and on his academic paper. I hope he keeps in mind that no research is complete until all avenues available are exhausted.
~*~Danielle~*~
Post new comment