tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5148972.post6310126274400537734..comments2023-09-15T09:56:16.253-03:00Comments on Composing: Composinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01739889615635395138noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5148972.post-26902002537984056622007-10-19T08:09:00.000-02:002007-10-19T08:09:00.000-02:00I still maitain that maitaining any relationship n...I still maitain that maitaining any relationship needs conversations. Of course Facebook does allow for one to one conversations - but hey - even email let's you have group conversations with CC and list servers. And that has nothing to do with the private/public dimension you need both and in any combination with group/one to one. You even mention above 'empowering exclusive groups' - and I maintain that you cannot have any meaningful groups without group discussions - because this is the only way to reach some level of mutual understanding - you cannot get there with just 'tickling' and browsing the lists of participants.zbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636763782334128869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5148972.post-12598734377785503772007-10-19T02:47:00.000-02:002007-10-19T02:47:00.000-02:00Phil your observation that YASNS are "social-netwo...Phil your observation that YASNS are "social-network management" services is very smart. <BR/><BR/>Being not of the digital age, I note with interest how many young people manage their online identities. One of my favorite things is Online English, youth dialects that aren't bounded by geographic communities, but signal youth identity. <BR/><BR/>That's off point, but I mention it because I'm with zby in wanting, or expecting engagement. I think others do too, and Facebook falls flat. <BR/><BR/>My Facebook news feed is uninteresting. I don't care when someone in my network decides to "wave" at someone else. There's value in caring, so it's not that the waves and fun wall posts aren't important, but I'd like more friends and less noise. <BR/><BR/>The Baby Roto service you present is a brilliant example of "social-network management". To work well Facebook would have to be a place where people go frequently because they want to, that is, Baby Roto isn't enough of a reason for people who might use it to use Facebook frequently. The people involved would want to be engaged with each other and others at Facebook.<BR/><BR/>I see your point, and I think it's very important. However, I think the communication part is vitally important and while many members have signed up, many aren't particularly engaged there.<BR/><BR/>I've been using social networks quite a lot the past couple of months. The more I explore, the better Tribe seems. But engagement there seems to be flagging.<BR/><BR/>Some sort of innovation on the engagement side of the equation is necessary to make the "social-network management" side of the equation really sing at Facebook.John Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126222842766191343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5148972.post-29555175500891135142007-10-18T15:23:00.000-02:002007-10-18T15:23:00.000-02:00Zby :agree that Tribe was (and is) the best YASN f...Zby :<BR/><BR/>agree that Tribe was (and is) the best YASN for conversation and making new friends. Tragic that it this is considered "failure".<BR/><BR/>However, it also illustrates one of my deeper contentions. Ultimately YASNS are <I>not</I> communication / conversation infrastructure. If they were, then everything the critics say about the values of openness would be true.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately the web is the best, most open substrate for communication. And will always remain so.<BR/><BR/>But, like I say, YASNs are NOT communication services. They are "social-network management" services. And that's a completely different kind of animal.<BR/><BR/>This is where Umair Haque's insight is crucial : communities != markets != networks.<BR/><BR/>An effective network provides exclusive access to the *right* resources rather than mass access to a lot of resources. An effective network is good at keeping secrets in contrast with a good market which needs and encourages information flow.<BR/><BR/>Tribe was a community. MySpace is a market. Facebook may be a real network.<BR/><BR/>But you may be right, that, today, most YASNS don't really know which they want to be. Some will fail because they can't make up their minds, or they will be judged by the wrong criteria.<BR/><BR/>If people expect Facebook to be a community like Tribe, they'll be disappointed and leave, just as those who thought Tribe was a market like MySpace judged it a failure.<BR/><BR/>(Agree too that because Facebook is not a market it's also no good for collective intelligence and decision making)<BR/><BR/>But what Facebook (or something similar that knows it is a network) will be good at, is letting people build and manage private relationships and empowering these exclusive groups with software tools.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm too buried in enterprise software at the moment, but from where I'm standing, I see that a large class of this kind of software is basically about articulating and tracking relationships between users and the people they deal with. And that a huge amount of money and effort goes into reinventing the basic relationship management layer. A good, generic infrastructure could replace much of that. But it will never be used "out in the open".<BR/><BR/>That's an opportunity for the YASNS to seize, but it's also something that's likely to affect the shape of our industry and of "software development" in general, profoundly.Composinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739889615635395138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5148972.post-82547686515553768722007-10-18T14:13:00.000-02:002007-10-18T14:13:00.000-02:00As I've already said on the other communication ch...As I've already said on the other communication channel - I don't have much to say about your line of thinking (about the widgets, relationship management etc). I just don't care about those things until I have a good environment for having meaningful conversations. Conversations are the number one feature of all social web sites and until I have it all else is mostly irrelevant. And after the demise of Tribe.net (it's still alive - but no much heat coming from it), I can't find a popular place that have good conversations. Facebook certainely is not such a place - this was quite suprising for me, since I've kind of expected that all the social metadata on Facebook is gathered to facilitate conversations, to make them more smooth and interesting but apparently <A HREF="http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/2007/10/facebook-and-conversations.html" REL="nofollow"> this is not the case</A> (or perhaps I still don't know how to use Facebook, have you got any tips on that?).<BR/><BR/>Convesations is what is needed for group decision making, learning new things etc. - all the things that you would need if you wanted to base your company communications on Facebook, or manage your customer relations, or vendor relations or anything more complex than 'tickling'. Because conversation is the most intuitive, the most universal, the most free form of communication.zbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636763782334128869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5148972.post-83371247176684731052007-10-18T10:14:00.000-02:002007-10-18T10:14:00.000-02:00Hi Chad, thanks for push-back.Well, the relation b...Hi Chad, thanks for push-back.<BR/><BR/>Well, the relation between platform owners and application developers is always fraught with co-opetition and abuse. But we have plenty of evidence that it *can* survive for decades without the developers leaving or the owner killing them outright.<BR/><BR/>"a few simple standards working together are all it will take to enable the benefits you describe to operate in a more distributed manner."<BR/><BR/>That's the conventional wisdom that I'm challenging here. I *don't* believe that all the services available from a closed platform such as FB could be reproduced by open distributed standards.<BR/><BR/>In particular, I don't see how you can have properties 2) and 3) of BabyRota (privacy AND ability to reach out and touch non-members) - which, together, define what I'd call semi-permeability, in an open, distributed system.<BR/><BR/>Like I say, I'm open to you to try to persuade me of this, but I currently can't see it.<BR/><BR/>Your last point sounds like the usual argument against Software-as-a-service, and I guess all the standard pros and cons apply. If the platform owner can demonstrate to the potential customers that it is reliable and capable of protecting the customer's privacy, then I think they can be convinced.Composinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739889615635395138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5148972.post-13227238845486947832007-10-18T04:48:00.000-02:002007-10-18T04:48:00.000-02:00the real trouble here is that FB will, if this vis...the real trouble here is that FB will, if this vision plays out, squash any profitable companies that live on its "platform". which, in turn, leads dev's not to write to it.<BR/><BR/>also, the utility of the simple hyperlink is probably a powerful force working against any one SN having a strangelhold.<BR/><BR/>i think you are overestimating the value of a single platform provider. a few simple standards working together are all it will take to enable the benefits you describe to operate in a more distributed manner.<BR/><BR/>also, don't organizations want to own this kind of data? do they really want one company in silly-valley to own their precious organizational knowledge?chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272480610329333973noreply@blogger.com