<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>mathewingram.com/work &#187; pew</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/tag/pew/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work</link>
	<description>... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:34:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Is the Web half full or half empty&#063;</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/05/07/is-the-web-half-full-or-half-empty/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/05/07/is-the-web-half-full-or-half-empty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 01:27:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mathew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pew]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[survey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/05/07/is-the-web-half-full-or-half-empty/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lots of chat out there about the latest Pew study into how people use the Interweb. These studies are useful in part because the Pew Internet &#038; American Life Project does such a thorough job with them &#8212; you know they weren&#8217;t cooked up by marketing types to sell more banner ads. The latest one [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px;">
			<a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mathewingram.com%2Fwork%2F2007%2F05%2F07%2Fis-the-web-half-full-or-half-empty%2F"><br />
				<img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mathewingram.com%2Fwork%2F2007%2F05%2F07%2Fis-the-web-half-full-or-half-empty%2F&amp;source=mathewi&amp;style=normal&amp;b=2" height="61" width="50" /><br />
			</a>
		</div>
<p>Lots of <a href="http://www.techmeme.com/070507/p54#a070507p54">chat out there</a> about the latest Pew study into how people use the Interweb. These studies are useful in part because the Pew Internet &#038; American Life Project does such a thorough job with them &#8212; you know they weren&#8217;t cooked up by marketing types to sell more banner ads. The latest one (<a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_ICT_Typology.pdf">PDF is here</a>) looks at how many people engage in &#8220;Web 2.0&#8243; activities such as blogging, commenting, posting photos, etc.</p>
<p><img class="left" src='http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/social.jpg' alt='social.jpg' />Greg Sterling has <a href="http://searchengineland.com/070507-095250.php">a good breakdown</a> of the results at Search Engine Land, and <a href="http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/05/if-youre-reading-this-youre-above-average.html">so does</a> Jordan McCollum at Marketing Pilgrim. But what&#8217;s interesting about a lot of the reaction to the study is how pessimistic it is &#8212; some speculate that Web 2.0&#8242;s upside <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4995">&#8220;is capped&#8221;</a>, or <a href="http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/07/web-2-0-nearly-half-just-say-no">point out</a> that &#8220;nearly half say no&#8221; to Web 2.0, or gloat that geeks are <a href="http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2007/05/sorry_geeks_but_youre_definitely_in_the_minor.html">&#8220;in the minority.&#8221;</a> John Paczkowski of All Things D says that <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20070507/web-2eh/">it&#8217;s clear</a> from the study that Web 2.0 &#8220;has far fewer participants than its architects would have us believe.&#8221; But is that really clear? I don&#8217;t think so. Did I miss the part where Tim O&#8217;Reilly or the other &#8220;architects&#8221; of Web 2.0 said everyone would be blogging and posting content within a year or two? I must have.</p>
<p>And while most seem to be somewhat depressed by the results of the study, I was pleasantly surprised to find how *many* people engage in &#8220;Web 2.0&#8243;-type activities. <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_ICT_Typology.pdf">The study says that</a> when asked about things that include blogging, posting comments to a blog, uploading photos or video, creating webpages or mixing and mashing content from other sites, 37 per cent of those surveyed said they had done at least one of those things. </p>
<p>What&#8217;s not to like about a number like that? I was expecting the proportion to be much smaller &#8212; along the lines of the emerging 1-9-90 <a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html">rule of thumb</a> for social media, where about one per cent of people create content, 9 or 10 per cent consume it and about 90 per cent couldn&#8217;t care less about it. I find the fact that almost 40 per cent of people blog, upload photos, post comments and so on cause for considerable optimism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/05/07/is-the-web-half-full-or-half-empty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

