Hating the one percenters
The digg topic What motivates the top one percent of digg’s users? has stirred up a hornet’s nest. The top-rated answer right now is “The urge to fit into society by boosting a [sic] e-penis with 35% growth” by dshPls. I think you sort of know what he means.
The suggestion is that only one percent of the users of social media sites are actually significant contributors. (Thanks, Antony. Thanks, Ben). At the more trendy sites, like digg, the percentage is more like 0.1. The top users at digg have are thought to have more sway, being community leaders, than others. That introduces an odd dichotomy. Is this a social site (and therefore leaders develop) or a democracy (which appears to be digg’s ideal)?
All this criticism and flaming. It’s a really odd thing, though, isn’t it? The majority of digg’s community seem to be saying that contributing a lot is a really negative, unhealthy thing. A sample of some of the snarky comments: “50% Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; 50% Delusions of grandeur”; “Because they feel the need of love and friends, maybe because there is not enough in their “real” life.”; “Latent homosexuality”. Analyse that how you will. Jealousy? Frustration? Anger? Genuine bemusement? Whatever your conclusions turn out to be, contributions and votes are the site’s life blood.
Bloodjunkie, meanwhile, [the second most popular user on digg and the guy who started the thread in question] describes his motivation thus: “The community motivates me. Sharing interesting, useful or entertaining content with people who share my interests on a daily basis is why I contribute.” I can’t help but applaud that.