Wondering if social networks need to be centred around people - rather than it be objects that have connections?
2 years, 1 month ago.
16 comments so far
Neither. Resource-centric. Both people and objects are resources, and all resources can have links. Resources are also unique, should have locators and descriptions.
Agreed tom. Resources are a better label than social objects. Like a village well or market it attracts people to both the putative resource and the social resource
It's all nomenclature. I've always objectified elements and resources are elements. You can perform operations on objects. That's a finding in the peer-reviewed doctoral research surrounding social networking.
So what I'm wondering is, can my connections to other people be successfully formed through my objects (i.e. we share the same object.) so everyone connects to objects, rather than connecting to people. Now it is the object who has the people as a resource, rather than the people having the objects.
It depends on the object I suppose. While a shared printer is a shared resource, it is rarely considered a social object (but similar to a shared village pump). Is a shared wiki an example of a shared object?
Or are the objects simply conduits to the people behind them e.g. text to phone not person?
I always see it as we are connecting to people via aspects of their personality such as where they work or what they work as, we connect to their email but that's just an aspect of them, we connect to their UCC network, we connect to their interest in Sigur Ros, we connect to their sexuality on dating sites. I still see it as connecting to people though.
However it's like turning one of those jackets inside out and it can be worn like a new garment. Change your vantage point and it could be seen as objects with people traits.
So I'm thinking in terms of 'passionate products' here. Specifically outdoor products, people get very passionate about their kit (and the technology in it).
I've a mock-up of phase 1 running at http://gear.teamgearedup.com (but you need to reg/sign-in to see it actually start matching you up). It's very very conceptual and just this weekend of work so a lot more days on it needed!!
It's all hooked into the blog, so the blog is at the centre of the network. IF we write about a product it starts listing which of our readers owns, loves or wishes for that product. And vice versa (try going to the Salomon brand page for a good example).
The idea is that the gear (and soon expeditions, completed climbs etc..) is what matches/connects people, requiring you to actually go out and achieve something (or buy something) to grow your network.
ahem. Don't even try to give about about the design/implementation/speed. I only sat down to do this on Saturday! although the idea has been in the head much much longer.
@rgb I've been running a social network for 7 years, except in the 1.0 days we used to call 'em message boards or discussion forums. Members came for the social object (a niche sport) but stayed for the people.
I believe we are especially attracted to those straightforward resources that can also lead a secret double life as convenient social props. These types of objects enable us to subtly negotiate and balance 1) the desire to connect with 2) the need to maintain a comfortable distance. Such resources enable us form social bonds on terms everyone is comfortable with, reducing social friction and helping us reach an end-point where we can say "I came for the 'object' but stayed for the people".
where are the boundaries of a social network? The words I never want to say are "I'm creating a social network for....", "I'm building the delicious of....", "I'm building a social search....."........ I don't want to make it about social - it's about connected-ness... somehow. anyway - back to the hard graft and see what come out after some user feedback. cheers all.
Great questions Robin. Where is the boundary between close friends and aquaintances? Online social networks have clearly defined boundaries that rarely exist in real world. Even the idea of a network is a poor metaphor for reality, where its social groups are much more dynamic with fuzzy boundaries. More like a social cloud.
16 comments so far
Neither. Resource-centric. Both people and objects are resources, and all resources can have links. Resources are also unique, should have locators and descriptions.
2 years, 1 month ago by tommorris
I don't think so. Social network - people = network
2 years, 1 month ago by WillKnott
Agreed tom. Resources are a better label than social objects. Like a village well or market it attracts people to both the putative resource and the social resource
2 years, 1 month ago by NiaLLLarkin
It's all nomenclature. I've always objectified elements and resources are elements. You can perform operations on objects. That's a finding in the peer-reviewed doctoral research surrounding social networking.
2 years, 1 month ago by topgold
So what I'm wondering is, can my connections to other people be successfully formed through my objects (i.e. we share the same object.) so everyone connects to objects, rather than connecting to people. Now it is the object who has the people as a resource, rather than the people having the objects.
2 years, 1 month ago by rgb
interesting....
2 years, 1 month ago by ALXtreme
Sounds to me like @rgb is building the Mechanical Turk of Social Networks by turning the traditional model on its head and making people the resource.
2 years, 1 month ago by EirePreneur
It depends on the object I suppose. While a shared printer is a shared resource, it is rarely considered a social object (but similar to a shared village pump). Is a shared wiki an example of a shared object? Or are the objects simply conduits to the people behind them e.g. text to phone not person?
2 years, 1 month ago by WillKnott
I always see it as we are connecting to people via aspects of their personality such as where they work or what they work as, we connect to their email but that's just an aspect of them, we connect to their UCC network, we connect to their interest in Sigur Ros, we connect to their sexuality on dating sites. I still see it as connecting to people though.
However it's like turning one of those jackets inside out and it can be worn like a new garment. Change your vantage point and it could be seen as objects with people traits.
2 years, 1 month ago by DamienMulley
So I'm thinking in terms of 'passionate products' here. Specifically outdoor products, people get very passionate about their kit (and the technology in it).
I've a mock-up of phase 1 running at http://gear.teamgearedup.com (but you need to reg/sign-in to see it actually start matching you up). It's very very conceptual and just this weekend of work so a lot more days on it needed!!
It's all hooked into the blog, so the blog is at the centre of the network. IF we write about a product it starts listing which of our readers owns, loves or wishes for that product. And vice versa (try going to the Salomon brand page for a good example).
The idea is that the gear (and soon expeditions, completed climbs etc..) is what matches/connects people, requiring you to actually go out and achieve something (or buy something) to grow your network.
ahem. Don't even try to give about about the design/implementation/speed. I only sat down to do this on Saturday! although the idea has been in the head much much longer.
2 years, 1 month ago by rgb
It's ideas like that which take two parts of my brain and jam them together that excite me. I like the idea but I won't reg :)
2 years, 1 month ago by DamienMulley
@rgb I've been running a social network for 7 years, except in the 1.0 days we used to call 'em message boards or discussion forums. Members came for the social object (a niche sport) but stayed for the people.
2 years, 1 month ago by EirePreneur
I believe we are especially attracted to those straightforward resources that can also lead a secret double life as convenient social props. These types of objects enable us to subtly negotiate and balance 1) the desire to connect with 2) the need to maintain a comfortable distance. Such resources enable us form social bonds on terms everyone is comfortable with, reducing social friction and helping us reach an end-point where we can say "I came for the 'object' but stayed for the people".
2 years, 1 month ago by NiaLLLarkin
where are the boundaries of a social network? The words I never want to say are "I'm creating a social network for....", "I'm building the delicious of....", "I'm building a social search....."........ I don't want to make it about social - it's about connected-ness... somehow. anyway - back to the hard graft and see what come out after some user feedback. cheers all.
2 years, 1 month ago by rgb
eBay to create social networks around items for sale http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/364390/ebay-taps-into-social-commerce.html
2 years, 1 month ago by liammorrison
Great questions Robin. Where is the boundary between close friends and aquaintances? Online social networks have clearly defined boundaries that rarely exist in real world. Even the idea of a network is a poor metaphor for reality, where its social groups are much more dynamic with fuzzy boundaries. More like a social cloud.
2 years, 1 month ago by NiaLLLarkin