They're the "1 Guest Online" of your local forum. They're the person who logs into group chats but doesn't type anything. They've probably gone through any of your public photo albums on Bebo/Facebook/Myspace. You've most likely been one before. In fact, there's probably a few of you reading this right now.
A lurker is someone who...well, lurks... online. They don't post. Often it's people who haven't even got accounts on the given site. The word implies something creepy, something voyeuristic. But is it really a bad thing to hang back? I mean, it's not as if the Lady Gaga comment-argument-spiels need more contributors.
If these "lurkers" have got an account, they're easily identifiable by:
- "Now Online!" or a recent last login date
- Member Since: Jan 2003 (insert long-time-ago date of choice)
- Total Post Count: 0 (or something equally small, compared to their membership length.)
(Hey, that website has the exact same cool diagrams as on my link at the end of this post. Suspicious. Also, that's a good essay. You should totally click on it.)
To qualify as a proper "lurker", ideally you'll need to have saved the lurkee website/forum/chatroom to Favourites, so you can check back regularly and see what everyone's doing. A lot of forums actually encourage lurking. "Lurkers" learn the various etiquettes of sites without making embarassing n00b posts that get them flamed. (Then again, other groups will actually delete you if you're not sufficiently "active" after initial acceptance into the group.)
So. Why do so many people lurk? How is it possible to be shy on the internet? Maybe there's a kind of appealing safeness to being able to "listen in" on peoples' conversations without risking potential social rejection.
Vicarious social interaction. Observation. It's not a bad thing to be a "lurker", for want of a better word. They're the quiet kids of the internet classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.