UberNoggin

I’ve had some feedback (translation: confused readers) after my Laws of Networking post last week so I thought I’d go at the idea another way….

The Exciting Story of Mr. Fez’s Party!

Once upon a time Mr. Fez decided to have a party. He was old school. He wanted all of the attention on him and his fantastic hat.  He had recently learned a new dance and wanted everyone to see. This is a party under Sarnoff’s model. It might be fun for a little while but eventually folks are going to get bored.

After the dismal failure of his first party, Mr. Fez got an idea for an even better party! This time, instead of everyone only looking at him, he would pair his guests off and have them only talk to each other. Surely, Mr. Bone and Mr. Wood will love to meet each other. This was all good and fine but after a while the guests got bored again. After all, there’s only so much you can learn about why Mr. Cheesehead prefers cheddar over muenster.  This is a party which adheres to Metcalf’s law. It’s only handy for pairs of people.

Now Mr. Fez is annoyed! How on Earth can he throw a party where everyone is happy? He decides to have a party based on Reed’s law. At this party people will be allowed to form their own groups based on their interests, the groups can be any size they want and people will be able to join more than one conversation and move between the conversations! Eureka! His third party is a raging success!

So what are the implications of this? First, people like to decide who they’ll connect with and they want to be able to see all of their options. Networks that don’t allow you to at least view the people you have something in common with (as Facebook allows you to see the profiles of people who are in your network) don’t allow members to connect with whom they want. Second, people like to self-organize. They don’t want to be forced into groups and they want to be able to form, join, and leave groups whenever they want.

Apply this to Second Life, for example. In SL I can’t see how recently someone has logged in; I can’t see who their friends are (group names don’t often tell you enough), and I’m limited to how many groups I can join. Would SL change significantly if we could see each other’s friends lists or if we could join more than 25 groups? Yes! But more on this later.

I hope that this strange little story makes these ideas about social networks make a little more sense. Now it’s your turn! Which networks would be improved with the addition of more flexible group tools or more transparent group membership? How would networks be changed with more transparent friend affiliations or more viewable profiles?

The McKinsey Quarterly Journal recently released a research paper summarizing a study of 573 users of contributory video sites. In addition to their findings regarding why people contribute videos, the report includes the table below which shows the supposed rates of participation in many web 2.0 applications. This is a prime example of corporate research publishing findings generated by others without questioning the rigor of the findings.

• 6% of residents of Second Life create 100% of the content?: If you take a look at the study from which this number is drawn, you’d see that the study included an N of all registered accounts at the time of the study, not active accounts. They also defined participation as engaging in the economy through purchase not as actually creating content for themselves or for sale to others. This is an absolutely inaccurate measure of participation. Any one who uses Second Life at all would know this.
• 2% of Wikipedia users create 60% of content?: This stat is misleading due to its being based on a comparison of the numbers of visitors against the number of registered users. Wikipedia gets an astronomical amount of traffic. The fact that only 2% of visitors become contributors is out of proportion to the size of the user population and should also be compared to the number of contributors responsible for a printed encyclopedia for reference.
• 2% of Flickr users post 95% of content?: So the million pics posted a day (Flickr adds 15 terabytes of storage per month!) accounts for grandma posting her 10 pics a month but it also accounts for the photography buff down the street who posts several hundred a week. The fact that there are a few folks who post a whole heck of a lot of content doesn’t make grandma’s pics any less important.
• 60% of del.icio.us content is posted by 10% of users?: There are a couple of important lessons in this one. First, is the nature of the tool. Del.icio.us is primarily a selfish service. I book mark sites so I can find them again. It’s nice that other people might find them useful but that’s not my primary reason to use the site. Second, of all the sites listed on the graph, del.icio.us is by far the easiest to use and the one most similar to a popular old tool, bookmarking in your browser. It’s no wonder that del.icio.us comes across as the most participatory website!

Misuse of research never ceases to amaze me. In the rush to publish a whitepaper or study companies (and sometimes academics, but much less so) snag numbers from whatever source they can find, dress them up, and present them as credible facts.

Dig a little deeper, folks. Get a better understanding of what you’re talking about BEFORE you post/publish/press release.

This will take about three blog posts to really explain in full detail but like all great ideas I’ve just got to get it out! Some of you may have heard of these concepts before but I find them so applicable that I think it’s important to give them some space to grow.

Come with me on a ride in the “Way Back Machine” to the Golden Age of television when Sarnoff theorized that the value of a network was linear and equal to the number of viewers.

Sarnoff’s rule is useful only for monologic, one-way communication in the most linear models.

Metcalf’s law, a law developed to describe the possibilities created by ethernet networks . Metcalf adds to Sarnoff’s law by including communication that isn’t just one-to-many but is one-to-one in a network of many. We can see these kinds of connections in email networks and telephone networks where the ability access anyone in the network adds value to access even if you don’t actually reach out to every person in the network. Metcalf’s law helps us understand how social networks grow when they reach a critical point of adoption. We’re not likely to join a small network; without enough people involved we have little incentive to join but once we see that a site has achieved critical mass the value of the service may increase in our view. (Note: there are, of course, early adopters who are happy to join small social networks to “kick the tires.”)

Finally, we should look at Reed’s law which adds multiple size groups to the network to build on the one-to-one communication possibilities with three, four, five person groups etc.

Why are these laws important? They become important when we look at larger networks.

Notice here that when the community size grows to just 100 the number of possible connections between users of the network grows exponentially!

So what are the implications?

The implications are huge when we think about the communication mechanics enabled in social networks. The ability to create affinity groups within a social network creates powerful possibilities for network loyalty and adoption. For example, let’s take a look at Facebook.

When Facebook started it was limited to pre-established local networks. When I joined the only profiles I could access were those who were also students on my campus. I could not reach beyond that group and I couldn’t form new subgroups inside that network to better express my interests and form closer bonds with those already in my larger network. At this point Facebook and MySpace were neck and neck with usage and account numbers and many social network critics couldn’t quite establish why Facebook would be desirable when it was so limited. Then Facebook changed. The first change was to allow non-students to join the site, thus raising its value by sheer numbers (Sarnoff’s law). The network was simply able to reach more people. Second, Facebook began to allow individuals to request their own networks that crossed the borders of existing networks (I belong to the Bloomington city network which has both students and non-students as members) as well as the freedom to start groups any time I’d like (Reed’s Law). Also instituted were additional methods of communicating one-on one (Metcalf’s law) followed closely by the “feed” which allowed much of this communication to be shared with my larger network. The result? Over the last year Facebook has experienced a massive growth from 7 million users to over 17 million in one year.

It’s tough to argue against that kind of growth!

So, you might be saying, that’s all good and fine for Facebook but how can I use these laws to suggest how I can make my social network, blog, software, virtual world really take off? Well, I know the answer but you’ll just have to wait until the next blog entry. Enjoy the suspense…and the links!

• Reed “Weapons of Math Destruction”
• Metcalfe’s Law Recurses Down the Long Tail of Social Networks
• The Four C’s: Steps to Reed’s Law
• Metcalf’s Law is Wrong
• That Sneaky Exponential—Beyond Metcalfe’s Law to the Power of Community Building

Jenkins talks to the Chronicle of Higher Education on a podcast. It’s worth your time to listen to it. Jenkins talks about the role of academia in the larger conversation regarding the direction our culture is taking.

You’ve probably heard of Schrodinger’s Cat. The cat in the box is neither dead or alive or both dead and alive (depending on who you ask) to illustrate the paradox of possibilities in a quantum world.  Yes, this is a seriously cooked down version of a very complex theory. If you want the complex version read here.

The bit of all this complex physics that I want to focus on is the concept of possibility curves and how they collapse and expand (think string theory). At one point, everything is possible. With each choice made possibilities close and others open. Tie this back a bit to Aarseth’s concept of “cybertext” and “ergodic literature” (any text that takes a significant effort to be consumed) and we’re back to thinking about MMORPGs.

When you create a character in a MMORPG you’re presented with some options: “Will I be a hobbit or a human? Will I be a mage or a fighter?” Each decision precludes others and creates new ones. You are, in effect, creating the story of your character’s life/career/relationships. But this goes beyond participatory storytelling because there are trees of outcomes laid out in front of you as you enter the space.  Choose to become a fighter and you’ve “plucked” the strings of skills, missions, possibilities of avatar appearance, group dynamics, the economy etc. sending them vibrating through the space and the possible narratives related to your role in the space.

The implications are still cooking. Any feedback is appreciated.

Google just keeps adding useful apps to their arsenal of online software. Spreadsheets, text documents, and the impending wiki…all made to offer an alternative to software based solutions that have to be purchased, installed, and live only on one computer rather than being available from anywhere. In response, a “representative from Microsoft” put out this list of 10 reasons why customers should not use Google apps. I’ve put in some responses after each.

“1. Google touts having enterprise level customers but how many “USERS” of their applications truly exist within the enterprise?

Why is this important? “No one else is using it!” is kind of like “If your friends told you to jump off a cliff…” Bad logic.

“2. Google has a history of releasing incomplete products, calling them beta software, and issuing updates on a “known only to Google” schedule – this flies in the face of what enterprises want and need in their technology partners – what is Google doing that indicates they are in lock step with customer needs?

And just how often does Microsoft let us know of bugs and updates? How often have you updated Office to find it runs WORSE rather than better? Transparency is key in business. I don’t see anything but opaque or one-way glass in MS’s practices.

“3. Google touts the low cost of their apps –not only price but the absence of need for hardware, storage or maintenance for Google Apps. BUT if GAPE is indeed a complement to MSFT Office, the costs actually become greater for a company as they now have two IT systems to run and manage and maintain. Doesn’t this result in increased complexity and increased costs?

This one made me laugh. How does using a free online app cause a company to have to maintain this no hardware, no software, no storage space solution? The office I work in uses both seamlessly. We use Google Docs to collaborate and Office to create final docs that go to customers. It’s not a burden. It’s more efficient.

“4. Google’s primary focus is on ad funded search. Their enterprise focus and now apps exist on the very fringe and in combination with other fringe services only account for 1% of the company’s revenue. What happens if Google executes poorly? Do they shut down given it will them in a minimal and short term way? Should customers trust that this won’t happen?

Any company has a right to discontinue service/products that become unprofitable. That’s just business. However, I think Google better understands that customer loyalty is important and that providing great free services contributes to trust and loyalty. MS, what have you given us lately?

“5. Google’s apps only work if an enterprise has no power users, employees are always online, enterprises haven’t built custom Office apps – doesn’t this equal a very small % of global information workers today? –On a feature comparison basis, it’s not surprising that Microsoft has a huge lead.

Haven’t these folks paid any attention to penetration rates of broadband and wifi? Today’s work force is becoming increasingly mobile and more communication dependent rather than software dependent. With Google apps I never have to worry about file formats, file size, or whether the computer I’m on has the right software.

“6. Google apps don’t have essential document creation features like support for headers, footers, tables of content, footnotes, etc. Additionally, while customers can collaborate on basic docs without the above noted features, to collaborate on detailed docs, a company must implement a two part process – work together on the basic doc, save it to Word or Excel and then send via email for final edits. Yes they have a $50 price tag, but with the inefficiencies created by just this one cycle, how much do GAPE really cost – and can you afford the fidelity loss?

Seems like passing a doc around to have headers, footers, and other cosmetic features approved would be a giant waste of time too. Besides, when I move from Office 2007 on my PC to Office 2000 on my Mac my formatting gets all screwed up anyway. If I really want to know that a doc will be consistent on any computer I have to convert it to PDF.

“7. Enterprise companies have to constantly think about government regulations and standards – while Google can store a lot of data for enterprises on Google servers, there is no easy to use, automated way for enterprises to regularly delete data, issue a legal hold for specific docs or bring copies into the corp. What happens if a company needs to respond to government regulations bodies? Google touts 99.9% uptime for their apps but what few people realize that promise is for Gmail only. Equally alarming is the definition Google has for “downtime” – ten consecutive minutes of downtime. What happens if throughout the day Google is down 7 minutes each hour? What does 7 minutes each hour for a full work day that cost an enterprise?

I’ve lost a whole lot more than 7 minutes an hour restarting Office 2007 (which has features I love and have written about before). I’ve never had to restart a Google doc or pound the Crtl+Alt+Delete to restart it or shut it down.

“8. In the world of business, it is always on and always connected. As such, having access to technical support 24/7 is essential. If a company deploys Google Apps and there is a technical issue at 8pm PST, Sorry. Google’s tech support is open M-F 1AM-6PM PST – are these the new hours of global business? And if a customer’s “designated administrator” is not available (a requirement) does business just stop?

“9. Google says that enterprise customers use only 10%of the features in today’s productivity applications which implies that EVERYONE needs the SAME 10% of the feature when in fact it is very clear that in each company there are specific roles people play that demands access to specific information – how does Google’s generic strategy address role specific needs?

A look at the GAPE info that’s been made available so far it seems that there will be some pretty powerful customization and it looks easier than macros in Word which have me slamming my head against the desk.

“10. With Google apps in perpetual beta and Google controlling when and if they rollout specific features and functionality, customers have minimal if any control over the timing of product rollouts and features – how do 1) I know how to strategically plan and train and 2) get the features and functionality I have specifically requested? How much money does not knowing cost?

“I invite you to speak with customers, partners and analysts who can validate Office’s business model.”

Yes, but Google has a great track record for rolling out small, easy to deal with updates rather than brand new versions of software with unfamiliar menus. It took me a month or two to get used to Office 2007 and I still have to hunt for familiar tools now and then.

Microsoft could learn a lot from Google’s online model of constantly updated apps. Google apps (enterprise or not) may not fit every company’s needs but MS’s products certainly don’t aid in efficiency, mobility, or adaptation to new business models.

What do you think?

Ever get a big idea that feels like it’s just on the tip of your brain tongue? You know that there is something important cooking in the ol’ noggin but you can’t quite get to what it is. Welcome to my world. Geesh! For about a month I’ve had some huge idea about where we’re going as a technological society, as a networked public, as rhetorically digital people but I can’t quite spell it out. When this happens I go to the bookstore and peruse for inspiration. Sometimes it’s finding one book that I can agree with and use as a springboard. Sometimes I find something I so vehemently disagree with that I begin to find a way to form my ideas as a response. Lately, my forays into the coffee-scented worlds of Barnes & Noble have resulted in strange combinations of books that seem to address the ideas I’m trying to yank out of my brain. This week’s reading combination is truly weird.

If you haven’t read anything by Seth Godin, well you should! His writing style is dense and to the point and he’s one smart dude. Even if you’re not interested in marketing I think there’s something here for you. I’m a strong believer in self-marketing and branding and his ideas can just as easily be applied to you as they can be applied to the next big thing on the web or a new brand of dishwashing detergent.

John Gribbin has a gift for making the really complicated stuff of physics something that the rest of us can understand. There’s something important about being able to see the big picture of how things work (or might work, or work in another parallel dimension) that helps me get perspective on ideas. I’d also suggest Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything for a good mind trip around the way things happen in this crazy world we live in.

Yeah, I know. The hype around the singularity is about as dramatic as a guy on the street telling you “The End is Nigh! Repent!” but I think there’s more to it than that. There’s something important about an understanding of how technology is changing who we are as humans and where we’re going as a species. I know I think differently than I did 15 years ago when I wasn’t so digital. I can’t even imagine the changes my kids are going to see in their lifetime. It gets me thinking.

So, this is what I’m reading this week. Tune in to see if anything big comes from the total brain jello that I’ll be by the end of the week when all of this is finished cooking.

What are you reading? What have you read lately that surprised you? That wasn’t on your typical reading list?

Pictures make blogs more fun to read. Sometimes when I write an entry I want a pic but I don’t have anything of my own so I start Google searching for an image I can use (and attribute to its source, of course). We can talk about the propriety of using other’s images some other time. Today I just wanted to have some fun with image searching. You just never know what you’re going to get. So some sample blog headlines and images to go along with them….. I think these search results say a lot about how search engines work and about how important image tags are.

——————-

Virus indicated in Bee Decline : Apparenly bad movies, not a virus or cell phones, are causing declines in bee populations

——————-

.

.

.

.

.

.

Depression Leads to Worst Health : This band is responsible for all your health problems. Can their music be that bad?

——————-

LaCrosse Player Seeks 30 million in settlement : Maybe it’s not money the Duke player is seeking but a campaign to fill a viking settlement with 30 million people. Those would be some crowded long houses.

——————-

Bush and Putin Seek to Engage Asia : I just don’t have any idea how this image is even closely related to the search terms “engage asia” but it would be funny to put Bush and Putin in this pic.

——————-

Rock Report: Not only the good die young: The study itself is quite the joke without a funny image to go along with it.

——————-

Black Comedian Cut Short for Using N-Word: a lesson for Michael Richards. When you search “n-word” you now get his pic. This is how internet infamy gets started, folks. Be careful.

What funny key-word searches can you find?

If you blog then you know the feeling of sitting at your keyboard staring at an empty Word doc or WordPress page, thrumming your fingers on your coffee cup, and trying to decide what to write. Some days I have a hot topic in mind and I can’t wait to get to my desk. Other days I’m lost in thinking “What do people want to know about?” and I end up reading RSS feeds until I find inspiration.

I often coach businesses on how to blog for increased corporate transparency, better relationships with customers and business partners, and as a way to develop their vision in a larger conversation. For an individual it’s not that much different. A blog, whether for a CEO or a grad student, is a way to reach out to others to engage in dialogue. The concept of dialogue or conversation through blogging is important to me. It’s not a monologue I’m writing here. It’s not a soap box. It’s the opening volley of a conversation. “I think this. What do you think?” and then I wait eagerly for comments, rebuttals, additions etc. However, if I want those conversations then I have to keep in mind who is reading and write about things they’ll want to comment on, not just read and close. So we end up where we started, writing something that will please others rather than just expressing our own ideas. It’s not a bad place to start but it can stump you if you don’t know who is reading your blog.

Back when I was blogging on my Second Life Education Research blog I had huge traffic. It was a very niche blog with an observant, engaged audience but since I moved to Ubernoggin (a move I made because I’m not teaching this semester) I’ve struggled to reestablish a significant body of readers. I’ve watched the traffic in response to certain entries, kept up with link backs etc. to stay in the conversation, but it’s been a real experiment in practicing what I preach to other bloggers about how to build traffic and establish a steady readership.

So, after all this pontificating, I want to make a list of the ways I try to increase the number of readers who come to participate in the conversations I start here:

• Be sure your blog is registered with search engines like Technorati, google, and Pubsub so people can find you.
• Use categories in WordPress. Be sure the category tags are descriptive, specific, and popular with your desired audience.
• Write often. The more you write, the more your page is updated and the higher your search rank. If you don’t have time to write often, write several entries at once and post date them to post later in the week.
• Use headlines that are descriptive of the content not kitch or puns.
• Let your network know you’ve written. Don’t spam your friends with your blog address but posting it as a Twitter message, a Facebook status update, or even a gmail status will let your friends know you’ve written something they might be interested in.
• Link to other blogs you like and pay attention to your trackbacks. If someone references your blog go read what they have to say and participate in the conversation on their blog.
• Include your blog address in your email signature and on all online profiles.

What would you add to this list? How do you drive traffic to your blog? How do you encourage conversation? (btw, ending with a question will encourage people to comment and engage in your conversation as well!)

I’m a huge fan of Google apps. I’ve pushed the internal links in a Google doc to their limits trying to make something wiki-like to share with coworkers and collaborators so I’m really excited that Google might be announcing the release of wikis on Google apps.

Google acquired Jotspot a while back so let’s keep our fingers crossed!