Summary: In most online communities, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all the action.
So whatever number you’re looking for, it’s 1% of that. Not that subscriber count means much, especially for older communities that have 10’s of thousands of subscribers who aren’t even using the platform any more.
Not that subscriber count means much, especially for older communities that have 10’s of thousands of subscribers who aren’t even using the platform any more.
I expect the numbers have probably gotten worse over time, but it is a decent rule of thumb.
It also requires making sure the community will accept content from new members. It is fine to enforce rules, but overzealous enforcement can push out other active members.
Well, there’s the The 90-9-1 Rule for Participation Inequality in Social Media and Online Communities, which suggests:
So whatever number you’re looking for, it’s 1% of that. Not that subscriber count means much, especially for older communities that have 10’s of thousands of subscribers who aren’t even using the platform any more.
My god it’s a power law! Like damn near everything in biology, sociology, history, politics, and economics.
Agreed, active users are a better metric.
I expect the numbers have probably gotten worse over time, but it is a decent rule of thumb.
It also requires making sure the community will accept content from new members. It is fine to enforce rules, but overzealous enforcement can push out other active members.