I believe that the 80/20 rule works differently with answers and could be any of a number:
- Only 20% of people who answer regularly will answer an individual question of interest after they have read it for a variety of reasons (having nothing else to add, looking to help someone who has not received answers yet, etc)
- Up to 20% prefer to reply privately upon occasion, so you'll never know whether their answer was the best.
- Up to 80% of people will respond to questions which trigger their own orientation - so "fighters" will argue, "debaters" will debate, etc, etc
- Up to 80% of people will ignore questions where the obvious answer has already been given - the How do I quit, change email address kinds of questions.
- Up to 20% of questions never receive an answer - whether that is SWOQ sheer weight of questions, no one understands the question is anyone's guess.
What I think Linked In can confirm is that
- Less than 20% of it's membership log in every day for say 2 hours at a time.
- Less than 5% of those who answer questions spend more than 1 hour per day doing so.
- Less than 20% have asked more than 3 questions.
You'll see from other answers the dislike of a qualitative answer scoring system - because just like some jury trials, the asker may not be qualified to judge the best answer.
Some people take it seriously - and I think it's seriously funny how I respond when someone rewards me with a "best" - even though I know the psychology says that the giving was it's own reward and recognition was not needed. My fear is that having a number of people who regularly answer 100-200 questions a week might put off others who would contribute more.
So yes, you can use the 80/20 like any other statistic, as long you know the problem you are trying to solve or point you want to prove. No doubt there's a bit of wit I've overlooked or a meaningful quote; I just haven't got the spare time right now to think of where to look for it. - so 20% of the time I could give will give 80% of the best answer I might construct... So many Answers to give away, so little time....
- Only 20% of people who answer regularly will answer an individual question of interest after they have read it for a variety of reasons (having nothing else to add, looking to help someone who has not received answers yet, etc)
- Up to 20% prefer to reply privately upon occasion, so you'll never know whether their answer was the best.
- Up to 80% of people will respond to questions which trigger their own orientation - so "fighters" will argue, "debaters" will debate, etc, etc
- Up to 80% of people will ignore questions where the obvious answer has already been given - the How do I quit, change email address kinds of questions.
- Up to 20% of questions never receive an answer - whether that is SWOQ sheer weight of questions, no one understands the question is anyone's guess.
What I think Linked In can confirm is that
- Less than 20% of it's membership log in every day for say 2 hours at a time.
- Less than 5% of those who answer questions spend more than 1 hour per day doing so.
- Less than 20% have asked more than 3 questions.
You'll see from other answers the dislike of a qualitative answer scoring system - because just like some jury trials, the asker may not be qualified to judge the best answer.
Some people take it seriously - and I think it's seriously funny how I respond when someone rewards me with a "best" - even though I know the psychology says that the giving was it's own reward and recognition was not needed. My fear is that having a number of people who regularly answer 100-200 questions a week might put off others who would contribute more.
So yes, you can use the 80/20 like any other statistic, as long you know the problem you are trying to solve or point you want to prove. No doubt there's a bit of wit I've overlooked or a meaningful quote; I just haven't got the spare time right now to think of where to look for it. - so 20% of the time I could give will give 80% of the best answer I might construct... So many Answers to give away, so little time....
No comments:
Post a Comment