User visits and time spent on the social media platform normalize after traffic to Reddit briefly dipped last week during the blackout, according to SimilarWeb.
No offence but I never understand this lurker hate.
Wasnt the hole idea of the web to have a website and be able to share your knowledge? Iam pretty sure that most people would just stop putting out content, if literally no one is reading it.
Just seems wrong to call those visitors of your publicly accessible site/blog/forum/whatever lurkers, or speak of them as if they would steal from your garden.
You’re assigning a connotation to the word that I don’t really agree with. There’s nothing wrong with being a lurker.
There’s encouragement to not be a lurker in the fediverse simply because engagement drives adoption and traffic, but I think the goal is ultimately to attract more lurkers
No offence but I never understand this lurker hate.
In no moment I said or even implied anything that could be even remotely interpreted as “lurker hate”. In fact, in another comment I even highlighted that the “lurker” and “contributor” aren’t different people, but different interactions with a platform.
It’s just a convenient abstraction.
What I’m highlighting is that Reddit pissed off specially bad the people who were contributing with it. It’s a rather small minority, and their contribution is still in the site, so the large majority of the people are simply back to the website. However, over time, as the content becomes stale, less relevant, harder to retrieve etc., those people will gradually go away too.
Wasnt the hole idea of the web to have a website and be able to share your knowledge? Iam pretty sure that most people would just stop putting out content, if literally no one is reading it.
That does not address anything that I said.
Just seems wrong to call those visitors of your publicly accessible site/blog/forum/whatever lurkers, or speak of them as if they would steal from your garden.
If you consider the word “lurker” a slur or a taboo word, feel free to call those people who interact passively with a platform by whatever name you want. The underlying reasoning (that in no moment you addressed - neither to agree nor to disagree) is still the same.
No offence but I never understand this lurker hate.
Wasnt the hole idea of the web to have a website and be able to share your knowledge? Iam pretty sure that most people would just stop putting out content, if literally no one is reading it.
Just seems wrong to call those visitors of your publicly accessible site/blog/forum/whatever lurkers, or speak of them as if they would steal from your garden.
You’re assigning a connotation to the word that I don’t really agree with. There’s nothing wrong with being a lurker.
There’s encouragement to not be a lurker in the fediverse simply because engagement drives adoption and traffic, but I think the goal is ultimately to attract more lurkers
In no moment I said or even implied anything that could be even remotely interpreted as “lurker hate”. In fact, in another comment I even highlighted that the “lurker” and “contributor” aren’t different people, but different interactions with a platform.
It’s just a convenient abstraction.
What I’m highlighting is that Reddit pissed off specially bad the people who were contributing with it. It’s a rather small minority, and their contribution is still in the site, so the large majority of the people are simply back to the website. However, over time, as the content becomes stale, less relevant, harder to retrieve etc., those people will gradually go away too.
That does not address anything that I said.
If you consider the word “lurker” a slur or a taboo word, feel free to call those people who interact passively with a platform by whatever name you want. The underlying reasoning (that in no moment you addressed - neither to agree nor to disagree) is still the same.