Participation on Web 2.0 sites remains weak

Even large producers of content consume more content than they produce. For every blog post I usually view 10-12 sites/articles/posts myself from external sources.<p>This is news?

Weak in comparison to what standard? So .2% of Flickr visits are to upload photos. What percentage of visits would represent "strong" participation?

Provided these sites have sufficient content, these 'low participation' figures actually suggest that user content is being widely viewed.<p>Also I think a high submission to viewing ratio would correspond with a deluge of low quality content.

I think this makes sense. I certainly look at far more pictures and videos on Flickr and YouTube than I upload myself. But I do upload to both. <p>But I think the title is wrong. These ratios seem normal to me, not weak.<p>An interesting number would be word count of read vs. written in blogs and comments. My guess is that bloggers have an easier time having a conversation than videos or photos allow, making it more participatory. <p>And on that same note, do you include comments as participation? I think you should, but it doesn't look like they did.<p>

I'd be more interested in % of participating <i>visitors</i> than <i>visits</i>. Also, commenters count, too!

It is too bad this article does not mention what the upload/read only ratio is for MySpace and Facebook since I would imagine that these sites probably have higher ratios that would dispute their claim.

Basically, this article stinks and just uses a sensationalist headline for the sake of it.