<?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: Forrester Research: Social Technographics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics</link>
	<description>Moritz Stefaner / Visualization</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:14:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: 13% skapar innehåll på webben&#160;&#124;&#160;axbom</title>
		<link>http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics/comment-page-1#comment-4778</link>
		<dc:creator>13% skapar innehåll på webben&#160;&#124;&#160;axbom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics#comment-4778</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] Well-formed data &#8211; Forrester Research: Social Technographics    Share           Beteendevetenskap, Statistik, Webbtrender forrester     Sommarlöften Google på [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Well-formed data &#8211; Forrester Research: Social Technographics    Share           Beteendevetenskap, Statistik, Webbtrender forrester     Sommarlöften Google på [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Teens, tweens en de tsunami van social media - Frankwatching</title>
		<link>http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics/comment-page-1#comment-1333</link>
		<dc:creator>Teens, tweens en de tsunami van social media - Frankwatching</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics#comment-1333</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] informatie over het rapport vind je onder meer op Vue Royale, Well-formed data en uiteraard op Forrester&#8217;s Groundswell (Charlene [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] informatie over het rapport vind je onder meer op Vue Royale, Well-formed data en uiteraard op Forrester&#8217;s Groundswell (Charlene [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larissa Pschetz</title>
		<link>http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics/comment-page-1#comment-466</link>
		<dc:creator>Larissa Pschetz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 07:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics#comment-466</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Really interesting, but I didn&#039;t understand if &quot;consulting wikipedia&quot; was just not considered in the study (maybe because it&#039;s too popular) or if it&#039;s included in the topic &quot;using a wiki&quot; - and in this case it&#039;s funny that the number of adults that consult wikipedia is considered insignificant...  &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;humm...&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really interesting, but I didn&#8217;t understand if &#8220;consulting wikipedia&#8221; was just not considered in the study (maybe because it&#8217;s too popular) or if it&#8217;s included in the topic &#8220;using a wiki&#8221; &#8211; and in this case it&#8217;s funny that the number of adults that consult wikipedia is considered insignificant&#8230;  </p>

<p>humm&#8230;</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Who Is Really Using Web 2.0? &#171; techada</title>
		<link>http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics/comment-page-1#comment-455</link>
		<dc:creator>Who Is Really Using Web 2.0? &#171; techada</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 00:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics#comment-455</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] Is Really Using Web&#160;2.0?   Published May 7th, 2007   Society and Culture , Web 2.0      Well-Formed Data and SmartMobs recently reported on the state of Web 2.0 and who is really using it. Based on data [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Is Really Using Web&nbsp;2.0?   Published May 7th, 2007   Society and Culture , Web 2.0      Well-Formed Data and SmartMobs recently reported on the state of Web 2.0 and who is really using it. Based on data [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moritz Stefaner</title>
		<link>http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics/comment-page-1#comment-448</link>
		<dc:creator>Moritz Stefaner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 09:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics#comment-448</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;More good discussion at:
http://www.micropersuasion.com/2007/04/forresters_part.html#comments&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More good discussion at:
<a href="http://www.micropersuasion.com/2007/04/forresters_part.html#comments" rel="nofollow">http://www.micropersuasion.com/2007/04/forresters_part.html#comments</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mo</title>
		<link>http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics/comment-page-1#comment-447</link>
		<dc:creator>Mo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 09:26:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics#comment-447</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;For the sake of completeness and to point you to ongoing discussions:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;At Smart Mobs, there is an interesting discussion going on about the difference between contributing &lt;b&gt;users&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt;page visits&lt;/b&gt; with the intention of contribution:
http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2007/04/27/whos&lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt;par....html&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It got started by a post about a Time article stating that 
&quot; According to Hitwise, only 0.2% of visits to YouTube are users uploading a video, 0.05% visits to Google Video include uploaded videos and 0.16% of Flickr visits are people posting photos. Only the social encyclopedia Wikipedia shows a significant amount of participation, with 4.56% of visits to the site resulting in content editing.&quot;
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1614751,00.html?xid=rss-business&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you read the article, you will see that the argument seems at least incomplete or possibly flawed, since the authors constantly mix up &quot;users&quot; and &quot;visits&quot;, and never make clear, what a healthy relation of contribution and consumption should be like and for what reasons. If you think about the effort going into creating a video, I think the ratio of 500 visits to 1 created content is pretty high. Also, what would a ratio of 1:1 mean? One visit on average per created content! Would that be a better sign?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And thanks to KonzeptioNerd for pointing out Nielsen&#039;s view:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html
which points in the same direction as the Forrester study, but I prefer the latter one due to its more differentiated view on &quot;participation&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the sake of completeness and to point you to ongoing discussions:</p>

<p>At Smart Mobs, there is an interesting discussion going on about the difference between contributing <b>users</b> and <b>page visits</b> with the intention of contribution:
<a href="http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2007/04/27/whos" rel="nofollow">http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2007/04/27/whos</a><em>really</em>par&#8230;.html</p>

<p>It got started by a post about a Time article stating that 
&#8221; According to Hitwise, only 0.2% of visits to YouTube are users uploading a video, 0.05% visits to Google Video include uploaded videos and 0.16% of Flickr visits are people posting photos. Only the social encyclopedia Wikipedia shows a significant amount of participation, with 4.56% of visits to the site resulting in content editing.&#8221;
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1614751,00.html?xid=rss-business" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1614751,00.html?xid=rss-business</a></p>

<p>If you read the article, you will see that the argument seems at least incomplete or possibly flawed, since the authors constantly mix up &#8220;users&#8221; and &#8220;visits&#8221;, and never make clear, what a healthy relation of contribution and consumption should be like and for what reasons. If you think about the effort going into creating a video, I think the ratio of 500 visits to 1 created content is pretty high. Also, what would a ratio of 1:1 mean? One visit on average per created content! Would that be a better sign?</p>

<p>And thanks to KonzeptioNerd for pointing out Nielsen&#8217;s view:
<a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html</a>
which points in the same direction as the Forrester study, but I prefer the latter one due to its more differentiated view on &#8220;participation&#8221;.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KonzeptioNerd &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Web 2.0 usage figures</title>
		<link>http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics/comment-page-1#comment-441</link>
		<dc:creator>KonzeptioNerd &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Web 2.0 usage figures</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:04:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics#comment-441</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] Moritz Stefaner of Well-formed data shares figures from a Forrester study on Social Technographics: Mapping Participation In Activities Forms The Foundation Of A Social Strategy (link to the Forrester study - link to Stefaner&#8217;s digest). [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Moritz Stefaner of Well-formed data shares figures from a Forrester study on Social Technographics: Mapping Participation In Activities Forms The Foundation Of A Social Strategy (link to the Forrester study &#8211; link to Stefaner&#8217;s digest). [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moritz Stefaner</title>
		<link>http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics/comment-page-1#comment-436</link>
		<dc:creator>Moritz Stefaner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://well-formed-data.net/archives/65/forrester-research-social-technographics#comment-436</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Second thoughts: RSS usage is still pretty low (around 10%). And I would like to see the overlap relationships between the segments more clearly. The authors give some numbers, but not a complete overview of how activities are correlated.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Second thoughts: RSS usage is still pretty low (around 10%). And I would like to see the overlap relationships between the segments more clearly. The authors give some numbers, but not a complete overview of how activities are correlated.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
