Lurkers got more power than you may think. Yes, Kossacks have built a great community within this space provided by Kos. In fact, we have a vibrant & dynamic web of communities here. We Kossacks can write diaries, comment, tip & rec them. Some will get on the rec list or be rescued.
Then Lurkers come in. They read diaries here. Thankfully. After all, obviously we would all want our concerns spread out from here to the great world at large.
Lurkers can't rec, tip, or comment. Only registered Kossacks can.
Lurkers, however, can click the tweet & FB like buttons on the top of diaries. And they do. And that is most excellent.
So what then?
Here's the what. They make their own "rec list." And that has consequences for us.
While Kossacks will decide which diaries make it to the DKOS rec list, lurkers get to decide this -
(From Steveningen's great diary with 477 recs that as Chris said, "made the threshold, and passed all tests")
That's 2,800 FB likes from lurkers (minus approximately the 477 Kossacks who rec'ced the diary). Steve's written many fine rec-listed diaries, & some without any FB likes at all (as Steve pointed out in comments). The point is that lurkers predominantly made the call on the FB button, & not Kossacks. In this case I like that most definitely.
Here's another great diary of Steve's (with 265 recs) that didn't make the lurkers "rec list"-
That's only 36 likes. Both diaries made the rec list here, but only 1 made the
lurkers rec list. I don't like that so much.
Lurkers take our rec list, & from it choose which diaries make their own "rec list" composed of Facebook likes. Then DKOS staff looks at looks at the result of that in terms of their own decision making process.
True, some registered kossacks often peruse the site without logging in first. Well, at least I've seen a few comments to that effect over they years. However, I see no basis to assume that most lurkers who read here are registered Kossacks. Therein lies the rub.
Lurkers are deciding what actions DKOS takes. Where do I get that from?
Well, yesterday, Kos wrote an excellent diary (The Daily Kos community is in charge, whether I (or you) like it or not). Not only did he provide new info (to most of us), but he stayed around to respond to many comments. I loved that. There was much discussion, pro & con, but the diary itself never mentioned "lurkers."
But the issue is there nonethelss.
Kos referenced Chris Bower's diary (You are much better than I am at figuring out what actions we should take).
Lurkers weren't mentioned anywhere in Chris's diary or in the comments to it either. Comments in Kos's diary mentioned the word twice, but neither one in reference to lurkers deciding which diaries get their tweet & FB like buttons hit the most. After reading both diaries it seems though that lurkers now do play a key role in what actions DKOS undertakes.
The word "you" appears in both the title diary by Chris & by Kos. That "you" seems to refer to a large group, most of which aren't Kossacks - and within which lurkers play a gatekeeper role in which they decide whether to hit that FB like button or that tweet button & whether it makes it to the lurkers own "rec list."
Chris wrote (emphasis added by myself)-
Since the beginning of 2012, I implemented a new strategy of choosing what we take action on that cedes significant editorial control to the Daily Kos community. Specifically, looking at recommends and Facebook likes / shares for every single diary posted on Daily Kos (and on our Facebook page), the campaigns and activism team here at Daily Kos tries to 1) find the topics that are trending within the Daily Kos community at any given moment and 2) work to generate actions on those topics.
"cedes significant editorial control to the Daily Kos community" ...in which Lurkers are the predominant gatekeepers of those "Facebook likes." How do we interpret that other than "editorial control" is ceded, at least in part (10%, 50%, 90%?), to Facebook likes that originate predominantly from lurkers?
The diary from Kos yesterday said -
We've learned that certain topics, like anything having to do with Texas, Walmart or Michele Bachmann are big winners,
So if you're not happy that we don't focus enough on certain issues, understand that we take our cues from you.
From you. "You" being Kossacks? In part, but more from "you" being the lurkers who decide to hit those two little buttons & send the diary out into social media...or not.
But if you're going to complain that we don't take actions on your issue, or we don't cover it enough, or that we don't ask it on the candidate questionnaire, or whatever—first check to see if you've built the requisite level of community support.
How do we build the "requisite level of community support" among lurkers? We can't read comments by lurkers. We can't read their minds. Should we consult polls?
Ultimately, the bulk of our efforts are going to focus on where the community wants us to go. So if you want to make the case that your cause has built that effort, be prepared to show us the multitude of diaries with tons of comments, tons of recommends, tons of Facebook and Twitter shares. And if you can't do that, understand that you still have work to do selling your cause to the broader community.
"Broader community" in this case being non-kossacks.
For better or for worse, we are most successful when you guys are in charge.
And by "you guys", I mean the collective you.
The collective you, while including kossacks (who must first write the diaries), seems predominated numerically by non-Kossacks who lurk & decide whether to punch on those buttons on the top.
That may be good or bad. Depends on who the lurkers are. Opinions vary. But it is what it is.
So there are people lurking over our shoulders. We definitely want them to. We want them to read what we write. We want them to tweet about it. We want them to push that FB like button.
The question is, do we want them to ultimately decide what actions DKOS takes?
Or are we about trying to influence what actions they take?
Or is it both?
I'm not sure one way or the other. I've got to think about that a bit.
That's all I got. That's all I know. No sé nada mas.