Niche Communities
January 20, 2021 4:21 AM Subscribe
A report finds that 76% of internet users participate in online communities. (Up from 72% in 2017.) The report also says that 90% of Gen Z and Millennials are part of at least one online community.
Examples of growing niche communities:
Examples of growing niche communities:
- guilded.gg for gaming
- Vivino for wine
- Sweat from Home for interactive workouts
- Letterboxd for films (Previously)
Ask Metafilter for whether or not you should eat things or break up.
posted by mhoye at 5:04 AM on January 20, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 5:04 AM on January 20, 2021 [14 favorites]
You should definitely eat the thing, break up, and shove someone else's cat in someone else's scanner.
Gen X doesn't care about your bloody community. Too busy wondering why no-one ever invites them to one.
posted by pompomtom at 5:18 AM on January 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
Gen X doesn't care about your bloody community. Too busy wondering why no-one ever invites them to one.
posted by pompomtom at 5:18 AM on January 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm just glad that most of the truly embarrassing things I posted on USENET are lost in the mists of history.
posted by rmd1023 at 5:34 AM on January 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 5:34 AM on January 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
Oh, c'mon, guys. The report is hosted on a marketing research site, so no shit it talks about brand engagement. Gen X occupies an obvious place on a continuum between boomers and millennials.
The actual content contains some interesting information; maybe we can dig into that before we roll around in our Hot Takes(tm).
posted by sciatrix at 5:36 AM on January 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
The actual content contains some interesting information; maybe we can dig into that before we roll around in our Hot Takes(tm).
posted by sciatrix at 5:36 AM on January 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
A report finds that 76% of internet users participate in online communities.
For some definition of 'communities'.
posted by Cardinal Fang at 5:42 AM on January 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
For some definition of 'communities'.
posted by Cardinal Fang at 5:42 AM on January 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
Surely a solid majority of these "community participants" are just racists on NextDoor, right?
posted by saladin at 5:46 AM on January 20, 2021
posted by saladin at 5:46 AM on January 20, 2021
It's often interesting to be in the position of being studied, peering back at the people trying to understand you and contemplating how much you actually want to be understood. I kind of like the sharing of this marketing research post, if only for the insight into what some of these marketing firms are thinking about.
One thing I would like to be more clear in the full article is their definitions of certain terms. For example, "anonymity" is not remotely the status quo on most of the Internet, pseudonymity is--and I think that's a really important distinction, given the difference in culture in the few places that practice true anonymity, like anon memes or the chans. Likewise, what on earth do they mean by the "social media" vs "online community* designation? Are we talking about social media and microblogging vs forum-style communications? The inclusion of "partnering with Reddit" in particular suggests it might be, but that's a really important distinction that is way too unclear in the methodology of the article. I wish they included the study questions more, because I want to know if they defined these terms for respondents or whether they're relying on whatever definitions respondents bring to the table. And I really want to know how they sampled, and whether Reddit is the only "community focused" platform they're thinking of or not. How do you categorize something like Pillowfort, for example?
posted by sciatrix at 5:48 AM on January 20, 2021 [12 favorites]
One thing I would like to be more clear in the full article is their definitions of certain terms. For example, "anonymity" is not remotely the status quo on most of the Internet, pseudonymity is--and I think that's a really important distinction, given the difference in culture in the few places that practice true anonymity, like anon memes or the chans. Likewise, what on earth do they mean by the "social media" vs "online community* designation? Are we talking about social media and microblogging vs forum-style communications? The inclusion of "partnering with Reddit" in particular suggests it might be, but that's a really important distinction that is way too unclear in the methodology of the article. I wish they included the study questions more, because I want to know if they defined these terms for respondents or whether they're relying on whatever definitions respondents bring to the table. And I really want to know how they sampled, and whether Reddit is the only "community focused" platform they're thinking of or not. How do you categorize something like Pillowfort, for example?
posted by sciatrix at 5:48 AM on January 20, 2021 [12 favorites]
(n.b.: my comments are being informed by the existing Meta on not making creating FPPs a completely shit experience for posters. It is entirely possible to discuss a topic from a dubious source without uncritically accepting every premise in it. For crying out loud.)
posted by sciatrix at 5:50 AM on January 20, 2021 [15 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 5:50 AM on January 20, 2021 [15 favorites]
Mod note: A couple deleted. Folks, hang out and discuss reasonably if you want to, or go check out something else that interests you if you don't, but please let the people who want to talk about this have a conversation. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:59 AM on January 20, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 5:59 AM on January 20, 2021 [8 favorites]
Metafilter: We Roll Around In Our Hot Takes.
That said, while I frequently wonder about the dark side of "encourage meaningful and respectful conversations" - that being the fact that you can find a support group for basically anything, whether it's benign, self-harm, or harmful to others - I cannot count the number of times I've seen or heard of the members of online microcommunities showing up for fellow community members who needed them when nobody else in their lives did or could.
I don't know about you, but having had some small number of these low-key, low-frequency group chats in my life for the better part of thirty years - some professional, some personal, some hobbies - they can absolutely be a lifesaver, and something worth paying forward.
posted by mhoye at 6:17 AM on January 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
That said, while I frequently wonder about the dark side of "encourage meaningful and respectful conversations" - that being the fact that you can find a support group for basically anything, whether it's benign, self-harm, or harmful to others - I cannot count the number of times I've seen or heard of the members of online microcommunities showing up for fellow community members who needed them when nobody else in their lives did or could.
I don't know about you, but having had some small number of these low-key, low-frequency group chats in my life for the better part of thirty years - some professional, some personal, some hobbies - they can absolutely be a lifesaver, and something worth paying forward.
posted by mhoye at 6:17 AM on January 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
It’s fascinating and unsettling (if unsurprising) to see this research being conducted through the lens of brand relationships. Yes, massive online communities seem to have their problems, if you consider “Facebook users” or the like a community. What they identify as currently longed-for by users sounds... suspiciously like what I was longing for in the late ‘90s when I started seeking out online community — similar interests, genuine connection, being one’s true self, etc.
Reading this article (and thank you for sharing, veggieboy) feels like I’m being punked or corporatesplained. Which is well deserved, given what I assume was my worst-ever case of anything in the same zip code as mansplaining. In 1999 I read a sociological study of online communities and excitedly recounted Deep Learnings from it to my then-girlfriend. She was both indulgent and kindly, as I learned later that she was a regular participant in a community that sounded... more than casually like one studied in the book.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:26 AM on January 20, 2021
Reading this article (and thank you for sharing, veggieboy) feels like I’m being punked or corporatesplained. Which is well deserved, given what I assume was my worst-ever case of anything in the same zip code as mansplaining. In 1999 I read a sociological study of online communities and excitedly recounted Deep Learnings from it to my then-girlfriend. She was both indulgent and kindly, as I learned later that she was a regular participant in a community that sounded... more than casually like one studied in the book.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:26 AM on January 20, 2021
Surely a solid majority of these "community participants" are just racists on NextDoor, right?
This kind of touches on something I've been wondering about for a while, namely how the sources of information and community that people use online intersect with their political orientation. For general-purpose news and communities it's pretty much a given that there will be different sites for different audiences. But when it comes to more niche topics, how often are there also parallel sites? Like, as a left-of-center/progressive/nonreligious reader, I'll happily look at Ars Technica, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc. for random tech news. But all of those sites also take positions on various political and social issues, sometimes in op-eds and sometimes just in passing or in their choices of what to cover. So do Trumpists just see that and let it pass, or do they have alternative tech sites for their alternative realities? Do trainspotting communities carefully weed out any political talk, or are there parallel trainspotting forums?
I'm curious about the extent to which niche sites still mostly serve as shared spaces where people can still interact and agree on some common reality, versus the extent to which the shared reality gets too strained and mutually exclusive communities spring up for that niche. Basically, how far the political schism is driving the creation of parallel internets.
posted by trig at 6:39 AM on January 20, 2021 [4 favorites]
This kind of touches on something I've been wondering about for a while, namely how the sources of information and community that people use online intersect with their political orientation. For general-purpose news and communities it's pretty much a given that there will be different sites for different audiences. But when it comes to more niche topics, how often are there also parallel sites? Like, as a left-of-center/progressive/nonreligious reader, I'll happily look at Ars Technica, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc. for random tech news. But all of those sites also take positions on various political and social issues, sometimes in op-eds and sometimes just in passing or in their choices of what to cover. So do Trumpists just see that and let it pass, or do they have alternative tech sites for their alternative realities? Do trainspotting communities carefully weed out any political talk, or are there parallel trainspotting forums?
I'm curious about the extent to which niche sites still mostly serve as shared spaces where people can still interact and agree on some common reality, versus the extent to which the shared reality gets too strained and mutually exclusive communities spring up for that niche. Basically, how far the political schism is driving the creation of parallel internets.
posted by trig at 6:39 AM on January 20, 2021 [4 favorites]
There's a white paper in regards to the Reddit research you can download which may answer some of the questions. I can't speak to the specific methodology but GWI is one of the bigger and more established market research companies in the world for what it's worth. So this isn't just some random person's blog based on a Twitter poll.
I work in community and market research and the community industry itself doesn't have a defined definition of "community". It can mean anything from online forum moderation to social media acquisition to offline event coordingation & management. And, honestly, in most places it's all that plus content creation and retention and engagement etc. across multiple platforms and channels. And that's not even getting into the purpose of the community itself which influences each of the above disciplines.
This message about the growth and importance of online communities is something that's been trending for several years and COVID is just a bump. While obviously biased towards the industry, the annual State of Community Management report (2020 white paper downloadable here) is worth a read - the interviews in that are from people running communities. Both branded and not. There's still a way to go and plenty of companies I've spoken to still struggle to define exactly "why" they want a community; it just sounds like a good idea and like something they should have.
In CM circles, there's been talk about this growth for years and it's clear just looking at the job market; quite a few startups are investing in community early on and at more senior levels. Also more and more businesses offering the community management services and various certifications.
For me these past few years have proven that social media platforms at the macro scale are not great places for what I'd consider "community": encouraging (positive & continued) interactions between members around a shared purpose and goal. They're too big, they're too open, they're not moderated enough and the platforms and how they choose to display content are too susceptible to whims of the platform holders and their stakeholders. The people who have their communities on these platforms also have little to no say about the platform itself. Maximising profit-generating behaviour doesn't translate to a good experience for all communities. Coca Cola will figure out how to talk to an audience no matter what. The 100 person knitting circle group will give up and go elsewhere rather than "pivot their brand strategy".
While the big social media sites are here to stay I think the real meaningful "communities" that people will actually feel a part of will be Slack channels and Discord servers and other microservices, like BBS/IRC was for some of us. Being a part of one of these will be ubiquitous and about as casual as being a part of a friend or family WhatsApp group. Facebook wanted to get in on this with Groups but they're absolutely incapable of understanding humans beyond datapoints to be sold.
posted by slimepuppy at 6:57 AM on January 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
I work in community and market research and the community industry itself doesn't have a defined definition of "community". It can mean anything from online forum moderation to social media acquisition to offline event coordingation & management. And, honestly, in most places it's all that plus content creation and retention and engagement etc. across multiple platforms and channels. And that's not even getting into the purpose of the community itself which influences each of the above disciplines.
This message about the growth and importance of online communities is something that's been trending for several years and COVID is just a bump. While obviously biased towards the industry, the annual State of Community Management report (2020 white paper downloadable here) is worth a read - the interviews in that are from people running communities. Both branded and not. There's still a way to go and plenty of companies I've spoken to still struggle to define exactly "why" they want a community; it just sounds like a good idea and like something they should have.
In CM circles, there's been talk about this growth for years and it's clear just looking at the job market; quite a few startups are investing in community early on and at more senior levels. Also more and more businesses offering the community management services and various certifications.
For me these past few years have proven that social media platforms at the macro scale are not great places for what I'd consider "community": encouraging (positive & continued) interactions between members around a shared purpose and goal. They're too big, they're too open, they're not moderated enough and the platforms and how they choose to display content are too susceptible to whims of the platform holders and their stakeholders. The people who have their communities on these platforms also have little to no say about the platform itself. Maximising profit-generating behaviour doesn't translate to a good experience for all communities. Coca Cola will figure out how to talk to an audience no matter what. The 100 person knitting circle group will give up and go elsewhere rather than "pivot their brand strategy".
While the big social media sites are here to stay I think the real meaningful "communities" that people will actually feel a part of will be Slack channels and Discord servers and other microservices, like BBS/IRC was for some of us. Being a part of one of these will be ubiquitous and about as casual as being a part of a friend or family WhatsApp group. Facebook wanted to get in on this with Groups but they're absolutely incapable of understanding humans beyond datapoints to be sold.
posted by slimepuppy at 6:57 AM on January 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
One of the things I wondered in looking at this: How many of these communities are text-only? (None that I saw, though I certainly could have missed something.)
posted by veggieboy at 7:24 AM on January 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by veggieboy at 7:24 AM on January 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
Broadly speaking that study seems to bear out what I see anecdotally but I could use some more granularity in the data. Is there a breakdown somewhere that gives a bit more information on the "Internet users" in the study? Based on the linked post it appears the participants are all US citizens with English as their first language, am I right in that assumption? A break down based on device, ethnicity, types of engagement, first and/or preferred language, country of origin, and if US only maybe State by State numbers (for instance is this heavily skewed to coastal Americans in big centres or is it consistent across a wide spectrum) might be a bit more applicable beyond "generic American millennial" and would be interesting.
posted by Ashwagandha at 7:32 AM on January 20, 2021
posted by Ashwagandha at 7:32 AM on January 20, 2021
Am I the only one who thinks it's super weird to refer to gamers or film enthusiasts as "niche"? I mean, esports are bigger than the NFL at this point. (My view may be skewed by poking around retrocomputing BBSes, which may not even qualify as a niche)
posted by phooky at 7:53 AM on January 20, 2021
posted by phooky at 7:53 AM on January 20, 2021
It's odd, but while I frequent a few different sites with discussion forums, boards, or that are entirely user post oriented, I never really thought about them as communities as such. Even when I might actually use the word to describe the member base as a whole to someone who doesn't frequent those same sites. Community, in that usage, was just a term for the group sharing a like set of interests, not something felt as being akin to a neighborhood or Elk's Club or some such.
I guess because there's still that missing element of "knownness" that I tend to think of coming from being in physical proximity to those I converse with that allows for a freer and fuller kind of interaction, where you aren't so topic driven in conversation. I suspect that might feel different if you actually have met the people you're conversing with online, as their individual quirks of personality one experiences only in someone's immediate presence might translate into how their conversations read, but I only have had limited chances to meet people I first encountered through text and those I talk to online that I knew before don't quite fit the concept.
It isn't that I don't appreciate the online, I guess we'll stick with, communities, Metafilter and other sites have been a big part of my life in recent years, it just feels different for having no strong sense of obligation to the site when I'm not online, like I would in "real life" and perhaps from being able to flit from one community to another to check for conversations rather than simply experiencing time in another's presence and filling it in whatever way is mutually pleasing.
That said, I can also see how the growth works and what it can provide, especially in contrasting on some smaller scale sites, like a small film forum I'm a part of, to Letterboxd, or a niche baseball site or even a specific team site on SBnation compared to the main boards there. There is more a sense of being known and remembered and having some continuity of conversational flow over time on smaller sites that aren't quite so topic driven and have smaller member base. On a site like Metafilter, I know I'm vaguely known to some other users, but don't feel "known" in the same way as I do when posting to smaller sites, and far, far less than I do in a "real world" community where I can gauge how people are responding and adapt for better conversation and pleasure. It feels like the lack of that on sites like this feeds into the problem being discussed in Metatalk about snark and communication problems that come up for the site.
Online communities are great, but, for me, still feel distinctly different than knowing someone personally. There's some advantage in that for the ability to walk away, ignore what you don't want to deal with, maybe say things you wouldn't to people face to face, and/or stay anonymous, so it isn't as if virtual communication doesn't have its own rewards, it's just hard to accept the insubstantial nature of it as being community in the same way as in the "real world' and I have to wonder what the seeming exchange of some of the latter for more of the former portends for how we communicate and think about people.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:31 AM on January 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
I guess because there's still that missing element of "knownness" that I tend to think of coming from being in physical proximity to those I converse with that allows for a freer and fuller kind of interaction, where you aren't so topic driven in conversation. I suspect that might feel different if you actually have met the people you're conversing with online, as their individual quirks of personality one experiences only in someone's immediate presence might translate into how their conversations read, but I only have had limited chances to meet people I first encountered through text and those I talk to online that I knew before don't quite fit the concept.
It isn't that I don't appreciate the online, I guess we'll stick with, communities, Metafilter and other sites have been a big part of my life in recent years, it just feels different for having no strong sense of obligation to the site when I'm not online, like I would in "real life" and perhaps from being able to flit from one community to another to check for conversations rather than simply experiencing time in another's presence and filling it in whatever way is mutually pleasing.
That said, I can also see how the growth works and what it can provide, especially in contrasting on some smaller scale sites, like a small film forum I'm a part of, to Letterboxd, or a niche baseball site or even a specific team site on SBnation compared to the main boards there. There is more a sense of being known and remembered and having some continuity of conversational flow over time on smaller sites that aren't quite so topic driven and have smaller member base. On a site like Metafilter, I know I'm vaguely known to some other users, but don't feel "known" in the same way as I do when posting to smaller sites, and far, far less than I do in a "real world" community where I can gauge how people are responding and adapt for better conversation and pleasure. It feels like the lack of that on sites like this feeds into the problem being discussed in Metatalk about snark and communication problems that come up for the site.
Online communities are great, but, for me, still feel distinctly different than knowing someone personally. There's some advantage in that for the ability to walk away, ignore what you don't want to deal with, maybe say things you wouldn't to people face to face, and/or stay anonymous, so it isn't as if virtual communication doesn't have its own rewards, it's just hard to accept the insubstantial nature of it as being community in the same way as in the "real world' and I have to wonder what the seeming exchange of some of the latter for more of the former portends for how we communicate and think about people.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:31 AM on January 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think the real meaningful "communities" that people will actually feel a part of will be Slack channels and Discord servers and other microservices, like BBS/IRC was for some of us. Being a part of one of these will be ubiquitous and about as casual as being a part of a friend or family WhatsApp group.
You really know you're old when not only are you not on the New Thing, but you're also not on the Ubiquitous Old Thing to which people are comparing New Thing.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:38 AM on January 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
You really know you're old when not only are you not on the New Thing, but you're also not on the Ubiquitous Old Thing to which people are comparing New Thing.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:38 AM on January 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
Gen X doesn't care about your bloody community. Too busy wondering why no-one ever invites them to one.
Cause. Effect.
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 8:48 AM on January 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
Cause. Effect.
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 8:48 AM on January 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
Perhaps GenX is not in any communities because the $5 entry fee is a financial hardship for them
(wait that demographic includes me... checking history... yep, I signed up when it was still free, so that checks out)
Personally I am not a member in any online communities, and I wouldn't want to be part of any community that would accept the likes of me! /hamburger srsly I love you all
posted by caution live frogs at 9:39 AM on January 20, 2021
(wait that demographic includes me... checking history... yep, I signed up when it was still free, so that checks out)
Personally I am not a member in any online communities, and I wouldn't want to be part of any community that would accept the likes of me! /hamburger srsly I love you all
posted by caution live frogs at 9:39 AM on January 20, 2021
I am a member of Gen X. I am on Metafilter, having paid the $5 entry fee. I also participate in on-line communities, though a bit less now than ~15 years ago when I went through my anime fanfiction phase.
posted by heatherlogan at 9:55 AM on January 20, 2021 [4 favorites]
Internet users are moving from sharing as a method of broadcasting themselves, into a way of sharing that has community at its heart – and users engaging with online communities has grown significantly over the past few years.Whoever wrote this has apparently only been on the internet for the past few years, and/or was never engaged in an online community before the past few years. Up until the last several years, internet use was entirely based on sharing with a community; "broadcasting themselves" only became a thing very recently after Facebook and Twitter and algorithmic-YouTube became ubiquitous.
posted by heatherlogan at 9:55 AM on January 20, 2021 [4 favorites]
I used to be in a lot of now-defunct online communities. I miss them. But Facebook pretty much ate them all. I was bored with Facebook after 24 hours originally and well, nowadays I'm just plain scared of it, so I have more or less lost a lot of people I could have held onto if I just participated in Facebook. But I'm terrified of anything I might say there accidentally offending someone and going viral, so...there you go.
I feel like Metafilter is the last survivor, in a sense. This place is big enough that it hasn't died off yet, and I hope it doesn't. (Other than that I do Slack and Discord, though I haven't done too much on Discord as yet.) The good and bad thing about that is that I felt like I had closer online friendships at my old websites that had a smaller audience, so you felt like you got to know everyone. Ain't no way that's happening here, though I have gotten to know a few people individually and especially in Crone Island of late. But a website audience of 20ish people or less may not last these days, so I'm grateful for the size of MeFi.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:58 AM on January 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
I feel like Metafilter is the last survivor, in a sense. This place is big enough that it hasn't died off yet, and I hope it doesn't. (Other than that I do Slack and Discord, though I haven't done too much on Discord as yet.) The good and bad thing about that is that I felt like I had closer online friendships at my old websites that had a smaller audience, so you felt like you got to know everyone. Ain't no way that's happening here, though I have gotten to know a few people individually and especially in Crone Island of late. But a website audience of 20ish people or less may not last these days, so I'm grateful for the size of MeFi.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:58 AM on January 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
Up until the last several years, internet use was entirely based on sharing with a community; "broadcasting themselves" only became a thing very recently after Facebook and Twitter and algorithmic-YouTube became ubiquitous.
That's an overly broad generalization. Certainly some of us only or primarily interacted with the internet by setting up our own personal websites to just broadcast a uni-directional flow of content in the pre-social media/comments section days. I still remember some of the popular personal web sites from the '90s (and of course the internet also pre-dates that era, going back to before I was old enough to be online). And I knew a number of fellow teens in the mid to late '90s whose families had AOL, who didn't have their own web page (this was also pre-Myspace), but also didn't really know of the existence of bulletin boards or MUDs or such, so their only interactive experiences online were one-on-one through direct email or chat with people they knew in real life; no "broadcasting themselves", but also minimal to no "sharing with a community" (at least not any sort of primarily-online community).
posted by eviemath at 4:33 PM on January 20, 2021
That's an overly broad generalization. Certainly some of us only or primarily interacted with the internet by setting up our own personal websites to just broadcast a uni-directional flow of content in the pre-social media/comments section days. I still remember some of the popular personal web sites from the '90s (and of course the internet also pre-dates that era, going back to before I was old enough to be online). And I knew a number of fellow teens in the mid to late '90s whose families had AOL, who didn't have their own web page (this was also pre-Myspace), but also didn't really know of the existence of bulletin boards or MUDs or such, so their only interactive experiences online were one-on-one through direct email or chat with people they knew in real life; no "broadcasting themselves", but also minimal to no "sharing with a community" (at least not any sort of primarily-online community).
posted by eviemath at 4:33 PM on January 20, 2021
« Older Dinosaur Butthole | Biden / Harris Inauguration Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chavenet at 5:01 AM on January 20, 2021 [22 favorites]