Redimanager and the team may be “excited” but I am underwhelmed. The fact is that when Red-i was
launched in 2007 it had “Neighbourhood Forums” in the form of one for each of the 21 Wards. These forums were not well used partly due to councillors [with a few notable exceptions] not using them to engage with their constituents. The result of the last review was that these forums were removed leaving just the 7 forums based on Area Committees, as sub groups of the borough.
Using evidence and experience to guide decisions does not seem to be a characteristic being used here? This is not a criticism of Redimanager and the team. They know the score, I have discussed it with them at length, I know they understand. The problem is that this re-launch is being funded by a Government grant because they want to encourage “community participation” and are prepared to spend taxpayers money on daft schemes like this one to make it “look like” they are doing something constructive. Redbridge will no doubt get an “Award” too and it will be trumpeted as a success.
The red-i forums are following the same pattern as all other forums. They operate on the
1:9:90 rule.
90% of users are the “audience”, or lurkers. The people tend to read or observe, but don’t actively contribute.
9% of users are “editors”, sometimes modifying content or adding to an existing thread, but rarely create content from scratch.
1% of users are “creators”, driving large amounts of the social group’s activity. More often than not, these people are driving a vast percentage of the site’s new content, threads, and activity.
As of earlier this morning there were 9913 posts on Red-i. 50% of these have come from only 10 users, one of whom has not contributed for some time. 75% have come from 40 users but quite a few of them haven’t been seen for quite a while. Of the most recent 100 posts 80% come from only 8 users and two of them are known to live in the same “neighbourhood”.
Government attempts at social manipulation rarely, if ever, work.