Wondering why your posts get no responses?

[Ping898]

I stumbled upon this paper in the course of my work and thought some might find it interesting.


http://www.thoughtcrumbs.com/publications/Burke_RhetoricalStrategies.pdf

Introductions and Requests: Rhetorical Strategies That Elicit Response in Online Communities

Unlike conversation in face-to-face groups, messages in online communities can be ignored or dismissed as illegitimate. There is a cost to reading and replying to messages, so posters must prove they deserve community effort. Thus, legitimacy is a critical issue in computer-mediated communication, where posters struggle not only to be heard, but also to appear worthy of the group’s attention. Some messages are more likely than others to get a reply, and the difference is often in the wording.

....

Two prevalent strategies that affect reply are self-disclosing introductions and making requests. Introductions serve two key purposes: signaling legitimacy and signaling commitment. Introductions use appropriate in-group vocabulary, demonstrate personal expertise, and indirectly show the author’s relationship to the group by showing his or her legitimate relationship to the topic around which the group organizes.

....

First person singular pronouns (i.e. I, me, my) increased the likelihood of reply: Every doubling of these pronouns in the message body increased likelihood by 8%.
...
Question marks in the message body and subject line each increased the likelihood of reply. Every doubling of question marks in the subject line increased reply rates by 3%, and every doubling of sentences ending in question marks in the message body increased reply rates by 5%.

 

[Carol]

Excellent study, but dang. Whoever did it has a lot of time on their hands.

Something I learned early on in sales training: all conversation is stimulated. What stimulates a person in to having a conversation? Many times it involves the factors that are touched upon in the attachment. Specifically: open ended questions combined with personal experience.

A key factor in generating responses is controversy. As a broadcaster, I saw controversy drive ratings and audience response. As a poster in the study, I find that I often get more response from fellow MT'ers if I voice a hardline stance or a polarizing opinion than I do if I try to present both sides of an argument for discussion and feedback.

But are responses always good? As someone with a Kenpo background, I've learned more from the one or two page discussions of "Well, this is how I see it" than I have from the lineage arguments that go on and on for days and solve nothing. The study is a good analysis of improving your chances of getting a response and getting some valuable information without resorting to controversy. Good stuff. :asian:

 

[MA-Caver]

Not all my threads/posts get the replies that I would like for them to have, particularly the ones I think that are important. But once in a while I'll post a thread that just generates a lot of discussion.
It's okay... I think the only thing that is getting hurt is the size of the ego of the poster when it's not getting any replies.
Sometimes I'll post a reply and it seems that everyone's eyes goes right by it... :idunno: oh well... at least I said what I wanted to say on the topic.
It would be nice to get the feedback on whatever I said/replied or whatever... but if it doesn't generate traffic ... oh well. :idunno:
I just move on... I've received a lot of Thanks for a lot of posts I've made and the reps have all been good so I'm not sweating the petty stuff.

nor petting the sweaty stuff either

 

[Ping898]

I think the only thing that is getting hurt is the size of the ego of the poster when it's not getting any replies.

Not always, from this paper and others:

Previous research has shown that a simple measure of community responsiveness—whether a poster gets a reply—is associated with an increased likelihood of posting again and increased speed in posting again. The effect is stronger for newcomers. A reply to a newcomer signals acceptance in the group and leads to more committed behavior by the newcomer. Posters interpret silence, on the other hand, as rudeness or unfriendliness. Replies signal that the community believes the author is a valuable member worth its attention, and the author reciprocates by writing more and replying to others.

 

[MA-Caver]

Not always, from this paper and o

Previous research has shown that a simple measure of community responsiveness—whether a poster gets a reply—is associated with an increased likelihood of posting again and increased speed in posting again. The effect is stronger for newcomers. A reply to a newcomer signals acceptance in the group and leads to more committed behavior by the newcomer. Posters interpret silence, on the other hand, as rudeness or unfriendliness. Replies signal that the community believes the author is a valuable member worth its attention, and the author reciprocates by writing more and replying to others.

Yeah well silence can also be interpreted as non-acceptance and the poster's ego can be bruised because they thought they made a pretty nifty, intelligent, witty, sharp, or intuitive reply. The researcher is probably going on their own rather the umpteen million daily posters on the net on umpteenthousand discussion boards.
I'm not saying I'm 100% right and I'm not saying they're 100% wrong... more likely we're both right and both wrong. It's all a matter of a point of view.

 

[Marginal]

As a poster in the study, I find that I often get more response from fellow MT'ers if I voice a hardline stance or a polarizing opinion than I do if I try to present both sides of an argument for discussion and feedback.

I've found that can go one of two ways. You either get a response, or people find it so off putting the elect not to respond to a thought they might have otherwise discussed.

For example; Cars driven by drunk drivers can kill people so therefore, they're just as dangerous and efficient a weapon as an assault rifle when misused. (They're not really comparable. Drunk driving's already illegal and highly stigmatized.)

Stuff like that is not really worth discussing. The ship's already sailed.

 

[Big Don]

Wouldn't not replying to this thread have been apropos?

 

[K-man]

Worse still are the posters who don't commit to an opinion, but just snipe. Because there are so many posts, I don't have time to read them all. I will look at the title and if it looks interesting I will read further. I also look at who posted the OP. If, to my mind he/she has demonstrated credibility in the past I will check it out. If I then post I will generally check out the thread periodically, even if I don't post on it again. :asian:

 

[geezer]

Not all my threads/posts get the replies that I would like for them to have, particularly the ones I think that are important.

Well Caver, sometimes you post and make a very thoroughly thought-out point. Perhaps, those are the times you are saying something you consider "important". Anyway, when I read a post that covers the subject pretty well, I don't necessarily see the point in responding.

On the other hand, if your goal is not to make a point, but rather to elicit a big response, the best approach is, as Carol pointed out, to make a strongly worded statement that is somewhat controversial. Then hang back and let everyone else chime in. Later, you can jump back in and elaborate on your position more thoughtfully. It's a tactic that has worked for me, but then I start feeling all guilty and troll-ish.

 

[Tez3]

Wouldn't not replying to this thread have been apropos?

damn you beat me to it! I was waiting to see if anyone posted anything!

 

[still learning]

Hello, Maybe we should use a "forum" instead? ....?

Got answers....?

PS: Too reply or NOT to reply ....is this the question?

Aloha, ...going fishing..see ya!