http://disqus.com/by/scottd/enThu, 20 Nov 2008 12:31:05 -0000http://www.communityguy.com/2008/11/20/new-site-launched-90-9-1com/#comment-3916144<p>Very good idea, and very consumable reference. I hope it spreads.</p><p>Though I wonder if the 'editor' label is the best choice for the 9% section. In my experience the 90-9-1 rule applies to the degree of contributions, not the type. While it seems kind of like a good idea to try to marry the current participation models (Forrester's Social Technographics, Gartner's Four Levels, etc.) with the 1% rule, I'm not sure it really works that way. A key point to note is that participation types in those models usually overlap (the numbers add up to more than a 100%). And in some of those models 'Creators' etc. can be significantly more than 1%.</p><p>I guess any label you choose here is going to have difficulties, but I wonder if trying to classify participation at the same time could be misleading. But still a very useful reference for those new to the topic. Thanks for putting this together!</p>scottdThu, 20 Nov 2008 12:31:05 -0000http://www.communityguy.com/2008/05/29/ocrn-online-moderation-best-practices-interview/#comment-558855<p>Great interviews, Jake, well conducted! I've been reading your blog for a short while, but I'm going to have to go back now and look at all the other interviews you have done.</p><p>What struck me again is how the perception of the moderation role needs to be shifted away from that of just policing users; the need for enforcement is really just a byproduct of the true goal of helping both members and the organization be successful on the forums, a theme I've heard echoed in your blog before. Great stuff!</p><p>I must admit, I was surprised to be reading your bog and suddenly see Joe's face pop-up at me! As a disclosure, I work at Lithium with Joe.</p>scottdFri, 30 May 2008 14:24:16 -0000