Process of Change : socialnetworks

Social Computing from a distance

bobreb — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:56:39 GMT

I think we're taking to close a look at social computing to see it for what it really is. Stepping back, it looks a lot like social nets are the next level of internet sophistication.

From this perspective social nets are superimposed upon content nets which in turn rest upon an IP infrastructure. Another analogy -- not without it's problems, but in the right spirit -- might be third generation languages versus assembly.

And that is why it works so well. I suspect that anyone who tells you their online behaviors haven't changed much since their adoption of social computing tools/services, hasn't actually made the leap.

Interestingly, Google reached into this higher order to help manage the content web with their original ranking methodology. I don't think that Myspace, or anything like it, is the Google of the social -- that has yet to be discovered (or perhaps revealed, I'm not telling one way or another -- who'd believe me anyway). And while we're on that subject, who or what, do you think, would be the Cisco of the social? I like this game.

Great Posts from Steve on the State of Social Networking

bobreb — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:36:00 GMT

Microcommunities? Well, of course. And a lot more too. We're just scratching the surface of social networking -- the absolute tip of the proverbial iceberg.

http://hubmagazine.com/?p=200

And it's becoming clear we've reached a significant juncture in terms of acceptance.

http://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-prescott/2007/07/social_networking_for_moms_ret.html

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1519

http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_345.html

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_networking_goes_global.php

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11469141

And of course the man we have to thank for pulling (most of) this altogether, and adding his own commentary: Steve Rubel and his blog Micro Persuasion.

Integration first? Maybe -- but have you done your homework?

bobreb — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:16:02 GMT

Recently I found myself wondering about a comment from Sean discussing the order in which an organization should implement web 2.0 features.

Sean's answer was this:

"So, what’s the answer? Simple (simple to say, not do). The answer is none of the above. The most important feature to implement in your web 2.0 strategy is integration with existing systems and processes."

Sean is likely assuming you've done your homework. What I mean is that the what feature question is not the first one to ask.

Unless we're only discussing technical architecture, not user experience, the first thing you have to know is the readiness of your audience. The new "social" requires new behaviors. New behaviors are very costly to introduce. Has your audience already developed these habits of thought and action in any area directly related or not? Can you springboard from that? If not, do you understand what relative advantage participation provides and what personal cost your users will incur obtaining it? If the cost justifies the personal investment, it's time to demonstrate and educate.

If it's not entirely clear what features you should do first -- and the competitive situation could easily dictate a starting set of tactics -- I say think big, but start small. Experiment. If your customers must learn new behaviors, consider embedding the new into the old such that the old still works, but the new is clearly visible. Adding tags to existing support forums might be one example -- though not the least expensive.

If you can go where the audience already is, and you can do it credibly, that could be best. Experimenting with someone else's infrastructure has its good points. (As an aside, I believe there are ways of using existing third party investments without "going there" yourself, but that's beyond the scope of this post.)

In any event, wrap a simple program around the technology: incent the behavior; make the results observable; reward the participation; and, watch (measure) and learn.

Significant infrastructure investments are risky and therefore, appropriately, require evidence. Proof through analogy only goes so far. First hand experience with your customers is the best evidence.

Social software: people first, activity second? I wonder...

bobreb — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:08:26 GMT

(This was accidentally published in "note-to-self" form. Excuse me. It must have seemed more than a little incoherent.)

Anyway,

In a recent paper, The Significance of Social Software, Dana Boyd makes the following point:

"While early social technologies were about finding people with similar interests, the latest round
is far more about connecting to people and watching shared interests emerge
through that."

I do get this. I've been having a great experience with Facebook recently. They are focused on connecting to such an extent I can only image it must be written on the walls above the water coolers, in the header and footer of every document and email, and inserted subliminally in the background office hum, down in their Palo Alto offices. They certainly appear successful. It must be good advice.

How good? Dana also points out the following:

"...those who joined Friendster and assumed that everyone was like them did so
because of the way the site was designed – the structure is inherently egocentric.
This is also where things get tricky because egocentric communities cannot support
that many different contexts. And thus, what you see, is people using multiple sites
to keep contexts separate."

Clearly, defining activities shape the environment in which they are pursued. Though there are "social networking" sites that are successful and focus on the activity, or context, first -- librarything, linkedin, and a lot of dating sites, come immediately to mind. Somehow I don't think LinkedIn would work as well if it looked like a WOW fan site. I think that's the point she's making with context -- that, and the interaction styles individuals pursue within a given context. I, for instance, did not choose to make my LOTRO main character name prominent in my LinkedIn profile.

I wonder where the balance lies. Along those lines, Dana also makes this point:

"The problem is that monetization is hanging on the tip of everyone's tongues again.
To make money, sites have to grow. To grow, they have to expand beyond
comfortable context borders."

It's equally hard for me to imagine a large number of profitable "people-connect-first-and-we'll-see-what-context-turns-up" sites, as it is for me to imagine properties for every possible niche context. I believe that's the balance social experience builders have to address, and keep addressing. The creative in me wants to think you can have your cake and eat it too. I wonder if we could construct an experience that flexibly manages multiple contexts? The optimist thinks the answer might be yes.

I think Dana is asking the more general question here:

"Are there ways to rethink the scaling process to make social software more economically viable without killing the communities in the process?"

The quest for the best community strategy

bobreb — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:42:59 GMT

As I said, I've played online games for a while. Yes, that includes the classics, though I'd rather not talk about things that will date me. From where I stand, online games really started getting interesting with Diablo. With Asheron's Call (or EQ for some) they really came of age. I've played a couple of WOW characters -- never past level 30. Yes, I know, that means I barely played the game. My oldest son has a level 70 character (and of course a raft of others, but his level 70 druid is his main). For well over a year now I've been following his progression from the battleground, to the Arena, and into the world of raids. He has a full set of Gladiator gear now and is looking for a new guild. (Changing guilds is very interesting -- if you're into this whole thing, at least in part, to maintain pace with the state of the art in community creation and management. More on that later.) His druid kicks butt.

In the meantime, I've started in on Lord of the Rings Online. I'm trying to determine if Turbine learned anything from WOW -- if they've made any improvements. Here's my level 22 Minstrel.

He's been a blast to play -- but you'd have to like healers. I almost always choose healers. In my experience they're the most complex role to assume, and therefore the most interesting. Both my kids avoid healers. They're either DPS guys, or in the case of the Druid, an all around character able to do almost anything fairly well.

I've also joined a kinship. My new kinship is the "Misty Mountaineers". Got to love it. They seem like a fine group.

Turbine has made a tweak or two that I think might make a difference. I like how they've handled PvP better than the way it's done in WOW. I think that despite WOWs astonishing popularity, the way they've dealt with PvP will be their undoing. If I find it offensive, I can only imagine what a high context culture must think. I assume the Blizzard guys are totally aware of the ramifications of the world-building decisions they make and the impact those decisions could make on the popularity of the game in various cultural contexts -- I assume so anyway. I mean they have to be, right?

If you're into it, I play on Firefoot and my game name is Endorfin. Give me a tell.

Struggling to simplify the idea of social filtering

bobreb — Tue, 08 May 2007 20:41:36 GMT

Damn. It's just not simple enough yet. The stocks and flows discussion was too hard. People still find the idea of anticipating and answering questions before the "asker" has the occasion to ask incredible (as in not credible).

So I'm thinking that perhaps we can use the fact that it happens all the time -- though goes unnoticed -- to make it clear.

How about this...

Try to recall a time when you were fully engaged in some task for at least one hour. For that hour you didn't have to search the internet, or any other reference. Ask yourself why that was possible. Ignoring the possibility that you were channeling some other legitimately smart person, the answer is that already knew what you needed to know to get that job done during that hour. You had sourced the information prior to needing it from friends, books, TV, magazines, hallway conversations, or possibly you deduced it from principles you'd learned (that you picked up from books, teachers, whatever).

In every case, you sourced the information from somewhere, and then made it a part of your personal toolkit, to be applied whenever needed. You only need a reference, you only need to search, when your sources fail to properly prepare you.

Social networking, social filtering, is all about using a social network to do a better job sourcing -- a much better job. Because your ideal social network consists of people very similar to you, the social filtering provides what must be the most relevant, most highly targeted, selection of sources. Who or what can know better what you need to know, than people just like you that have already been where you're going. (Clearly, if you're always on the cutting edge, your trailblazing tendencies have a price. For 99 percent of us that's not an issue.)

Professional social networks share the burden of identifying the best sources. It's as simple as that, but the difference it makes is hard to underestimate. Understanding it changes the way we support community, measure community, and interact with the communities we serve.

Social Networks are not all created equal.

bobreb — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:51:00 GMT

From Wikipedia: A social network is a social structure made of nodes which are generally individuals or organizations. It indicates the ways in which they are connected through various social familiarities ranging from casual acquaintance to close familial bonds.

Social networks, then, cover a range of associations between members in some relationship to one another. Communities, then, are social networks. And like communities, social networks come in many forms. The different forms have different value propositions for the members.

Taking this a little farther, MySpace is often considered a social network. Okay, fine. But MySpace equals social networking to the same extent that that a cruise ship equals transportation. Yes it's true that a cruise ship is transportation for people with some very specific transportation needs. In the same sense MySpace is a social network for people with some very specific needs.

And the needs of that very specific audience happen to revolve around private spaces and identity production.

Now, below is a screenshot of another social network. This social network has no single "site" at its social center, though there may indeed be several management tools to help create and maintain it . People in this type of association typically have different needs than those in play on MySpace. (They better, because this social network isn't likely to meet their needs otherwise.)

This social network (one of mine, actually, and currently managed in an online reader called Feedraider that has some great features) is optimized for professionals seeking to maintain their knowledge and discover new information as it becomes available globally and in near real time in the area of web2.0 community technologies, tools, and techniques. Yes, it's nothing but a collection of RSS feeds. But a collection of RSS feeds -- the right collection of RSS feeds -- can change your life.

It's probably obvious, but the subject of the Feedraider social network portrayed above is only one of a nearly limitless number of possible subject areas. Others might include things like movies or books, sports fitness, hiking, Windows Vista deployment, ASP.Net development, Microsoft Small Business Server, or -- you get the point.

If you're reading this, you probably already have one or more of these types of social networks. Good for you. In fact, very good for you. You've already tapped into the latest generation "community" solution that is either already, or soon will, make you far more productive (for so many reasons) than any single resource in the past -- at least any that I've known about. It's a fabric that can and will underlie every other online community type.

Why this should be so, will be the subject of a later post. In that post I'll detail why this type of social network makes every participant more efficient and it can, for instance, answer most of your questions before you even know to ask them. I know, if you haven't experienced this first hand it sounds crazy. It's not. It's common sense. It's an everyday experience. It's unavoidable if you just plug in. In fact in its essentials, it's nothing new. It's little more than an online version of old old game -- it's another one of those disruptive things that have emerged recently on the web.

And it's one type of community my team is set to support, to accelerate, to simplify, and to introduce to a broader audience, when we release a new set of beta services in April.

Weak-tie networks rock.