<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Social Media &#8211; Participation Rates Much Lower Than We Thought&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.allthingscahill.com/2008/07/social-media-participation-rates-much-lower-than-we-thought/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.allthingscahill.com/2008/07/social-media-participation-rates-much-lower-than-we-thought/</link>
	<description>The online home for Mark Cahill, and indeed, all things Cahill!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:48:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Cahill</title>
		<link>http://www.allthingscahill.com/2008/07/social-media-participation-rates-much-lower-than-we-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-520</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Cahill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:51:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.allthingscahill.com/?p=546#comment-520</guid>
		<description>Right - I really am just looking at the ratio of Creators/Critics to the other groups.  I see creators and critics as the active forces in the site, the &quot;answer people&quot; who provide the real benefit. 

The spectators, inactives, etc. in my experience vastly outnumber the creators and critics, as your numbers suggest, even among the younger users.

I&#039;m not tempted to start pulling my numbers apart.  The only issue is that most of my spectators aren&#039;t registered, so it&#039;s hard to separate them from the unqualified traffic of search engines, spambots, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right &#8211; I really am just looking at the ratio of Creators/Critics to the other groups.  I see creators and critics as the active forces in the site, the &#8220;answer people&#8221; who provide the real benefit. </p>
<p>The spectators, inactives, etc. in my experience vastly outnumber the creators and critics, as your numbers suggest, even among the younger users.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not tempted to start pulling my numbers apart.  The only issue is that most of my spectators aren&#8217;t registered, so it&#8217;s hard to separate them from the unqualified traffic of search engines, spambots, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremiah owyang</title>
		<link>http://www.allthingscahill.com/2008/07/social-media-participation-rates-much-lower-than-we-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-519</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremiah owyang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.allthingscahill.com/?p=546#comment-519</guid>
		<description>Actually Web Participation rates vary, some are VERY active it depends on the demographic market

Go check out the profile tool I linked to from my post, you&#039;ll see that people participate in many different ways:

Creators
Critics
Collectors
Joiners
Spectators
and Inactives</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually Web Participation rates vary, some are VERY active it depends on the demographic market</p>
<p>Go check out the profile tool I linked to from my post, you&#8217;ll see that people participate in many different ways:</p>
<p>Creators<br />
Critics<br />
Collectors<br />
Joiners<br />
Spectators<br />
and Inactives</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

