Those who are students of life, are really the only ones that may or may not flock to our so-called cause. I have determined that my blogging numbers may not every be as grand as those I wrote about, and that is perfectly fine. However, I would enjoy a deeper conversation on a more regular basis.

The silver lining I have found though, are a handful of friends like yourself who are interested in genuinely participating. For what cause? None other than having a friendly conversation. Most seem to want something more, or could care less, but I do count myself fortunate to have found that handful I would have otherwise not met.

So thank you for that!

Thanks for the mention. I think you are right in what you say of the purpose of social media.

There's been lots posted on this topic. Much of it, to do with the post itself, is good advice. The statistical ratio of viewers: participants:contributors is also well documented, and there's been a lot of discussion and dissention about the validity of this so-called 'golden' ratio.

My experience is that the ratio (90:9:1) is actually quite conservative, which does not bode well for those hoping to get festooned by wonderful discussion, content and ongoing suggestions for further discussion – the content that we often read about – when they write a blog post.

I look at it this way – there's a heck-of-a-lot of people out there. We post some cogent, interesting topics for discussion. The participants seem to be restricted to what some may describe as an exclusive group of intellectuals. It isn't, but that's how it's viewed by many.

My question is, why are there so few people contributing to the blogs of yours and mine (comparatively) when there are literally millions (agruably billions) of potential participants? This (question) often leaves me wondering, and the answers escape me.

Best wishes
from Middle-earth