According to a recent Australian regulatory decision, unfriending a coworker on Facebook can add up to workplace bullying. There were other actions leading up to this, but unfriending was key (see CNET for details).
Just recently, and without provocation, I was similarly bullied!
I noticed this when a friend posted something to Facebook and tagged another person. When I went to go to my "friend's" page, I couldn't access it. I checked my friend list and sure enough I had been unfriended!
I probably have been unfriended by others before. In the early days of social media I, like most people, wantonly sent friend requests to people I barely knew or knew from long, long ago in a galaxy far away. I did end up interacting rather regularly via social media with some of those people, but by and large these very weak ties were not maintained. Of my 200+ friends on Facebook, I probably only interact with less than 30 in a given month. So if people unfriended me over the years, I really didn't notice.
I did notice this person unfriending me, however, as we have had a continual workplace relationship and collegial ties that have persisted for years. I thought we got along really well both offline and online and we never had any incidents. Possibly, this person just accidentally unfriended me or went through some massive friend purge in which I was engulfed. Or maybe I'm just a creep and I don't belong there.
Either way, considering that I must have continual business dealings (albeit limited) with this coworker her action is therefore quite unprofessional.
I wouldn't call it bullying - but it definitely seems mean-spirited, and more importantly it is unnecessary!
I'm going to give this person the benefit of the doubt and assume the unfriending wasn't personal and was possibly an accident. Otherwise unfriending someone is sending a direct and unequivocal message that you refuse to have further interactions with this person. This is not appropriate workplace behaviour. This is only acceptable if it has based on some sort of horrible dealings, which would be better dealt with by talking to your Human Resources department.
Facebook is a dominant form of social interaction (and likely THE dominant form) among friends, family, and coworkers, so closing this off is sending a very strong message of hostility. I don't believe most people realize how powerful a message it is (including digital media experts, as this case may be). I have often heard people talk about unfriending people very casually. We may not like how Facebook and other social networking sites have pervaded the workplace and so many spheres of our life, but we have to find ways to deal with this reality.
Some people choose to avoid social networking sites altogether. This is an effective tactic, but it is a blunt option that blocks one from lots of interactions that could be beneficial to one personally and professionally. Others choose to have multiple accounts or use pseudonyms to keep their lives and people apart - but this becomes unwieldy and too much effort to maintain.
Instead, there is a solution that achieves the same ends, but in a low-key and diplomatic fashion. People just need to take a few minutes to make use of the excellent privacy and group settings that Facebook and similar sites offer. Consequently, there is no point nowadays to unfriending someone (barring heinous acts) ever again.
First, set up various "list" of Facebook friends. I suggest having different lists for close friends, family, coworkers, and acquaintances at the very least. Facebook even has preset lists for some of these. You can then designate what members of a list have access to - as little or as much of your stuff as you decide. You can then target content to list by by type of content (e.g. all photos) or a specific piece of content (e.g. okay, even acquaintances can see this picture of me meeting this big shot). Facebook has a preset list called "Restricted" which only receives access to content you make public.
Then when you post status updates, photos, anything to Facebook it can be easily and quickly targetted to lists. Facebook even remembers your preference and makes that a default.
You can thereby easily and regularly segment portions of your life. Coworkers don't need to see family photos and your close friends don't need to hear about that interesting new article of interest to only those in your esoteric profession.
There is no need therefore to unfriend someone! Instead you can send someone down to restricted purgatory where they receive and can view little or no social media content from you.
And if you don't want to hear from them, you can remove them from your news feed via Facebook's "Unfollow" feature. You still remain "friends" but they are now dead to you in your social media stream. The great thing is that the person will likely not notice any of this and a working (or family) relationship can be peacefully maintained without the person ever knowing any differently.
To successfully pull this off, I recommend posting some stuff for all groups to see. There are many types of posts that you can benefit from more people seeing - such as promotional posts about an event, accomplishment, or company. For this reason, I also recommend making some Facebook posts public.
I am a little shocked that a digital media expert has behaved this way to me and didn't know enough about her field to make astute use of the website. It will be hard for me to not think much less of her personally and professionally as a result.
So learn from her mistake!
And if I am a creep, don't let me know that I don't belong - just make me "Restricted" and I'll never be the wiser.
Showing posts with label social networking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social networking. Show all posts
Thursday, October 01, 2015
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Mobile Devices Are Changing Our Lives
I recently signed out magazines from my nearby public library for recreational reading on a flight. I still like reading print, but don't like spending the $6 or more magazine now costs. Granted they were a bit old, but applicable to my research interests.
Toronto Life Magazine had an excellent article on the problems with RIM, "Lazaridis and Balsillie Meet Their Waterloo" (unfortunately, not available online).
Time magazine had a "Wireless Issues" this past August that discussed "10 Ways Your Phone Is Changing the World". These ways and their respective articles are:
I was thinking this blog post would be a good place to iteratively document mobiles impact from the major to the minor. So I would love for readers to add their thoughts or experiences with this. Here are my observations:
Toronto Life Magazine had an excellent article on the problems with RIM, "Lazaridis and Balsillie Meet Their Waterloo" (unfortunately, not available online).
Time magazine had a "Wireless Issues" this past August that discussed "10 Ways Your Phone Is Changing the World". These ways and their respective articles are:
- Democracy - elections will never be the same
- Giving - doing good by texting
- Spending - bye-bye, wallets
- Secrets (and surveillance) - the phone knows all
- Attitudes (socializing & communicating) - your life is fully mobile
- Talking (rural telecommunications) - the grid is winning
- Seeing (photography) - a camera goes anywhere
- Play - toys get unplugged
- Learning - gadgets go to class
- Health - disease can't hide
I was thinking this blog post would be a good place to iteratively document mobiles impact from the major to the minor. So I would love for readers to add their thoughts or experiences with this. Here are my observations:
- Socializing and Lifestreaming - our ever-present mobile devices enables us to share the magnificent and minute details of our lives
- Identity and Memory - not only do mobile devices allow us to record and reflect on the events and images of our lives, but they provide a way to craft and project our identity and serve as memory aids and diaries
- Personal efficiency - from digital to-do lists, calling the spouse at the grocery store, or proximal reminders - mobile devices help us manage our lives for efficiently (and also prevent us from ever escaping it)
- Information and m-Libraries - through either e-books, online news, reviews or facts, or mobile friendly info databases, we have more ready access to information than ever possible
- Maps - do we need them any more with GPS and maps on our phone or in our car (but we do need to learn to not drive into the ocean or onto logging roads because or device told us too)
- Accessibility - there are strong barriers to use of mobile devices based on ability literacy, and finances - but mobile devices are providing new forms of information and communication access to groups that have not otherwise had it such as in the developing world or for the deaf and their use of instant messaging as a readily available mass communication method.
Monday, February 06, 2012
Top 20 Most Important Developments of the Internet
The Internet Society is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. They are a global organization devoted to maintaining a free, open, accessible, and viable Internet.
I've recently blogged about the Internet Society's call for people to submit ideas for a new Internet Hall of Fame they are establishing.
Internet Society is also marking their anniversary with a listing of what people think are the 20 most significant developments in the history of the Internet, whether an innovation, event, or product.
So I figured I would offer my top 20. I tried to combine technological inventions, commercial product launches, and events that have shaped the Internet. I've linked to Wikipedia (#16) for more information on the topics.
Top 20 Internet Developments:
I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on what should be on the list (or off), and any corrections, such as missing predecessors or international developments that set the trend.
I've recently blogged about the Internet Society's call for people to submit ideas for a new Internet Hall of Fame they are establishing.
Internet Society is also marking their anniversary with a listing of what people think are the 20 most significant developments in the history of the Internet, whether an innovation, event, or product.
So I figured I would offer my top 20. I tried to combine technological inventions, commercial product launches, and events that have shaped the Internet. I've linked to Wikipedia (#16) for more information on the topics.
Top 20 Internet Developments:
- ARPANET - the military research network of the 1960s that became the Internet
- Hypertext - interlinking of digital text and media, predicted by Vannevar Bush in the 1940s, developed by Ted Nelson and Douglas Engelbart in the 1960s
- Email - invented in the 1970s and is the bedrock of Internet-based communications (honourable mention to Hotmail for making email more accessible in 1996 by offering the first free web-based email service)
- Domain Name System (DNS) - gives us the ability to use plain language web addresses
- MUDs (Multi-User Dungeon/Domain) - the first form of networked games, developed in the late 1970s and is the precursor to modern forms of collaborative and online gaming such as Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG)
- Archie - first Internet search engine (for FTP sites), developed at McGill University in 1990
- World Wide Web (WWW) - Tim Berners-Lee creates the ultimate digital medium in 1991
- Mosaic - user-friendly browser launched in 1993 that accelerated the popularity of the Web by displaying images and text together
- Netscape's Initial Public Offering - the browser's phenomenal IPO propelled Internet development and usage
- Secure Socket Layers - Netscape's encryption system, developed in the mid 1990s, helped make the web secure enough to allow e-commerce and e-banking to flourish
- Travelocity - one of the first victims of e-business were travel agencies (who books in person anymore?) and Travelocity, which launched to consumers in the mid 1980s via CompuServe, was one of the first online travel booking sites
- Internet Movie Database (IMDB) - launched first on USENET in 1990, IMDB was one of the first websites to popularize user-generated content, in the form of user ratings and reviews, thus being Web 2.0 years before the concept was created (honourable mention to Writing.com for also being one of the first UGC sites and one that encouraged more lengthy and collaborative content)
- Classmates.com - widely popular website, launched in 1995, that was among the first to create what we now know as a social networking site (way ahead of Friendster, in 2002, and MySpace, in 2003)
- GeoCities - launched in 1995, popularized personal web publishing by offering free web hosting and customizable homepages (honourable mention to Blogger with its 1999 launch it was one of the first and most popular web publishing tools and helped create the blog genre))
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) - these guidelines, first published in 1999 by the W3C, have done more than anything else to enable websites to be accessible to people with various abilities
- Wikipedia - launched in 2001, two huge contributions: 1) open access to encyclopaedic information and 2) breaks down barriers of official knowledge by allowing anyone to participate in its creation
- Delicious - launched in 2003, the social bookmarking site became possibly the first instance of folksonmies, that is collaborative user tagging of information objects (in this case bookmarks)
- Streaming and downloadable media - from listening to the radio or watching video live (such as Victoria's Secret's annual fashion show, the first majorly successful webcast), to downloading music MP3s from Napster or iTunes, to watching videos on YouTube or through IPTV - the Internet has fundamentally changed our media consumption and purchasing (or lack thereof) behaviour
- Mobile Web and Internet-enabled mobile apps - mobile apps or mobile-friendly webpages have enabled ubiquitous access to the Internet, surpassing desktop access since 2008
- Open-source software and standards - free programming languages, such as HTML, JavaScript, and XML (hence AJAX), and software, such as Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP and Perl (hence LAMP), have made it financially possible for anyone to build and host their own websites, breaking down prior elite forms of media production and distribution
Runner-ups:
As you can see I had a hard time, limiting myself to 20.- Open access publishing - the Internet made it effective to share information freely and widely, with resulting open access journals, such as First Monday (about the Internet)
- Internet porn - legendary driver of online development and adoption
- Forums and chat rooms - excellent new forms of multi-person communication
- Recommendation systems - using our collective data to help identify things we may like, the music site Pandora is an excellent example of the power of this, the Netflix Prize contest helped propel development in this area
- Google - revolutionized search engines and the first great online-only company
- eBay & PayPal - perfected microsales and consumer-to-consumer commerce
- VoIP & Skype - no more long-distance telephone charges
- Craigslist - the first widely popular online classified website that assisted in the demise of newspapers
- Foursquare - the first geosocial network and location-based service to hit critical mass
- Internet of Things - everything will soon be wired to the Net from cars, refrigerators, and closets
I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on what should be on the list (or off), and any corrections, such as missing predecessors or international developments that set the trend.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Geosocial Networking: Check Out What's Happening With Check-ins
This week, I had the opportunity to guest lecture for a great class on social networking at the University of Toronto. I spoke about how new technologies were facilitating geosocial networking, that is people connecting and sharing place-based experiences via their mobile device.
I've been studying this for over two years and I'm an avid user of the ultimate geosocial app, foursquare. So I was excited to speak on this topic.
I'll give a brief summary of the main themes I addressed in my presentation.
Introduction
I wanted to begin the presentation by having the class get a Swarm badge (earned for a mass check-ins at a location) from foursquare. But problems with the tech highlight that this field is not mature and profound user issues remain. For one, the lecture hall was in a basement of UofT and my network connectivity was the pits. When I finally could connect to foursquare, the app would not accurately find my location (it pulled up locations within an approximate 20 block radius). So I had to do a manual search for the building, but foursquare could not find it by the common, short version of the name of Alumni Hall. I had to exit the building to find out the proper name of the building and then enter it in full, i.e. Muzzo Family Alumni Hall. Finally, once I was able to check-in (15 minutes later) I asked the class of over 50 people how many of them had foursquare and only a handful did. Surprisingly, few of the class appeared to be using any geosocial apps. Considering that according to Pew only 4% of US people were using foursquare or other similar geosocial apps, the low uptake shouldn't be that surprising except that young people have the highest rate of adoption of such mobile and social tech.
Terminology
I've previously blogged about the core concepts and terms that enable geosocial and location-based apps, so I won't go over them in detail. But here are the need-to-know terms:
I've been studying this for over two years and I'm an avid user of the ultimate geosocial app, foursquare. So I was excited to speak on this topic.
I'll give a brief summary of the main themes I addressed in my presentation.
Introduction
I wanted to begin the presentation by having the class get a Swarm badge (earned for a mass check-ins at a location) from foursquare. But problems with the tech highlight that this field is not mature and profound user issues remain. For one, the lecture hall was in a basement of UofT and my network connectivity was the pits. When I finally could connect to foursquare, the app would not accurately find my location (it pulled up locations within an approximate 20 block radius). So I had to do a manual search for the building, but foursquare could not find it by the common, short version of the name of Alumni Hall. I had to exit the building to find out the proper name of the building and then enter it in full, i.e. Muzzo Family Alumni Hall. Finally, once I was able to check-in (15 minutes later) I asked the class of over 50 people how many of them had foursquare and only a handful did. Surprisingly, few of the class appeared to be using any geosocial apps. Considering that according to Pew only 4% of US people were using foursquare or other similar geosocial apps, the low uptake shouldn't be that surprising except that young people have the highest rate of adoption of such mobile and social tech.
 |
| Courtesy of Agent-X Comics ( http://www.agent-x.com.au) |
I've previously blogged about the core concepts and terms that enable geosocial and location-based apps, so I won't go over them in detail. But here are the need-to-know terms:
- Location-based services (LBS) - mobile apps that target content and interfaces based on a user's location
- Geolocation - identification of a user's physical location using positioning tech, such as GPS or cell signal triangulation, user self-selection, or a combination of these
- Geocoding - digital content with referenced geographic location appended to it
- Geotagging - user-based metadata appended to digital content, often in the form of folksonomies
Geosocial Media
Most of the forms of digital content that people create and connect over on the Web, known as social objects, are also used for geosocial networking. The most common geosocial media are:
- Reviews, tips, & ratings (e.g. of restaurants, shops, attractions)
- User profiles
- Photographs & videos
- Games
- Status updates & comments
- Participatory maps
Major Players in the Field
Lately, every digital media company is offering geolocative and geosocial functionalities to their services. I've been keeping track of some of the most popular and innovative apps on this blog through my ongoing List of Location-based services. But here are the major ones:
- foursquare (the most used of "pure" LBSs)
- Twitter (although this aspect is seldom used)
- Flickr (possibly the largest source of geocoded data due to automatic setting)
- Loopt
- Google Latitude
 |
| Screenshot of foursquare, showing user tips of nearby businesses. |
Social Coordination
From my research, I've found that one of main usages of LBS are for social coordination, that is the ability to find and meet-up with friends or others. Social coordination takes the following forms:
- Friends - these apps make it easy to see your friends whereabouts through map-based interfaces, status updates, and place-based check-ins and have impromptu or serendipitous encounters
- Strangers - some apps facilitate strangers connecting over proximity and shared interests or dating status
- Emergency situations - geolocative apps have been used in disaster situations to coordinate rescue, aid, and news- gathering. Also, a new app from Toronto, Guardly, makes it very easy for people to alert family, close contacts, and police in personal emergency situations
- Politics - LBS has been used to coordinate protests (e.g. Occupy and G20) and poll monitoring
Social Cohesion
I call this outcome of geosocial media place-based bonding. Mass check-ins and sharing of place information and tips helps friends and strangers connect. This can be related to an en masse event, such as I observed for Toronto's Pride Festival and Canada Day celebrations, or singular experiences of readings others stories and experiences with a place that they have shared via LBS.
Identity Projection
I also have a subtitle for this, it's "Why no one checks into Burger King or Walmart". During my research I found that, for the most part, people weren't check-in and sharing the places they are most apt to predominantly frequent, yet they eagerly shared trendy restaurants, clubs, travel destinations, or other seemingly impressive locales. As with other media, people deliberately use the tech to project their desired image of themselves.
Giving Voice
The academic subtitle for this would be "circumventing the hegemony" but no one other than journal reviewers wants to see this. Geosocial media are more than just user-generated content, they provide an effective voice to people with various positive outcomes:
- Consumer justice and protection - people's reviews and ratings of places are accessed via LBS are easy to access when and where needed
- Making visible hidden histories - people can annotate their own cities (I use the example here of how the power-that-be in Toronto decided to erect a prominent shrine to Winston Churchill at our City Hall, complete with a huge statue and ample plaques, despite the fact that Churchill had no significant connection to the city or even Canada. What the City has decided not to share is our own history, such as our first mayor and democratic revolutionary William Lyon Mackenzie, that the first China Town was razed to put up our new City Hall, or that it's the location of numerous weddings (including a stranger's that I was spontaneously asked to witness). All this can now be readily shared and virtually attached to the place - despite what is sanctioned by officials.
- Protests - place has been used to extend the visibility and power of protests, such as during Occupy, G2) protests and the famous Tiananmen Square anniversary protests via foursquare that resulting in China banning it.
G20 protesters checked in here in solidarity of detainees.
This location was mysteriously removed from foursquare's database shortly afterwards.
Privacy & Surveillance
I think too much is made of this issue, as most of the apps are getting better with their privacy settings and users need to take the time to read privacy policy and set their options appropriately. However, this was raised in the class and amongst my research participants as a major barrier to greater adoption. Yet, at the same time it is the ability of this tech to facilitate friend tracking, a.k.a. participatory surveillance, that help makes it so popular.
 |
| Courtesy of Agent-X Comics ( http://www.agent-x.com.au) |
Advertising
Most of the geosocial networking and LBS apps are commercial. So they have to make money somehow, even though most users don't often consider this. Advertising and marketing are the only current viable models. It's great when businesses get it right, such as a local gelato place that recognized via Fourquare that I was a frequent customer and gave me a free gelato. It's less great when I got an ad for a "deal nearby" for a plus-sized women's clothing store.
Explorations
These apps are helping us discover new things about our friends and new information about the place we encounter. This is both possible positive and negative outcomes. People appreciate the advice of others and it is a great way to make and decisions about the world. Yet, in an amazing essay by Mitchell Schwarzer, A Sense of Place: A World of Augmented Reality , having our world always curated for us by others may prevent us forming our own thoughts and experiences. I experienced this moments before my lecture as I checked-in to a nearby independent cafe. I thought it seemed great (it had a huge Klimt mural after all), but when I read the reviews I noticed that people had pointed out legitimate problems with the cafe that I had overlooked. I was enjoying myself there until the communal experience changed it for the worse.
Hybrid Space
One of the continual outcomes of this new technology and our geosocial networking is the changing nature of place. Place is no longer a backdrop to our media usage and everyday activities. Place is now merging with technology and us to create new hybrid spaces. Dana Cuff calls these new types of places, cyburgs. The resulting changes to our relationships will be fascinating to watch and experience.
For more information and applications on this topic, check out my Delicious Stack on Geosocial Networking.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Is Facebook an Echo Chamber?
Researchers at Facebook this week published the results of an extensive research project examining the popular conception that social networking sites promulgate a singularity of information sources and voices - creating an echo chamber. With the ongoing demise of broad information sources, such as the newspaper, and the increasing usage of social media (e.g. Facbeook, Twitter, LinkedIn) and other news feeds as the primary, or only, source of news, people are not exposed to anywhere near the same diversity of issue coverage as they used to.
So the study, Rethinking Information Diversity in Networks, is an important contribution in understanding this area. It is truly impressive in its design, scale (millions of Facebook users), and dazzling graphs. The study found that:
Facebook's study is really useful - but they are a couple claims that differ from my experience.
One, is that the nature of information on Facebook is diverse. It may be vast and it may be broad, but I found that with rare exceptions, the information circulated falls into maybe four categories. To me, I mostly see my social circle accounts, entertainment news & commentary, political news & rants, and occasionally news of the odd (okay it's me sharing those stories).
I am also not sure that those we are less close to, i.e. "weak ties", are necessarily that dissimilar and thus expose use to novel information. I don't doubt the value of weak ties in sharing information, but I still think the information falls into common categories and still tends to roughly entail a common voice or political leaning. Weak ties are still similar to individuals or they wouldn't be a tie at all. People on social network sites certainly friend indiscriminately, even wantonly, but we don't usually friend our polar opposites.
There is no doubt that the Internet exposes us to a greater diversity of voices than older media allowed. And the Internet definitely has improved the ability to share information - I did find out about this study through a friend's posting on Facebook. I'm still not convinced, however, that we are receiving anywhere near the diversity of coverage of issues and viewpoints that we need.
So the study, Rethinking Information Diversity in Networks, is an important contribution in understanding this area. It is truly impressive in its design, scale (millions of Facebook users), and dazzling graphs. The study found that:
even though people are more likely to consume and share information that comes from close contacts that they interact with frequently (like discussing a photo from last night’s party), the vast majority of information comes from contacts that they interact with infrequently. These distant contacts are also more likely to share novel information, demonstrating that social networks can act as a powerful medium for sharing new ideas, highlighting new products and discussing current events.Before I settled on my current research topic, I planned to research if the Internet promotes homophily and how to facilitating serendipitous information. I, as with many others, believe that access to a diversity of information sources and voices is important for an informed society and hence good government.
Facebook's study is really useful - but they are a couple claims that differ from my experience.
One, is that the nature of information on Facebook is diverse. It may be vast and it may be broad, but I found that with rare exceptions, the information circulated falls into maybe four categories. To me, I mostly see my social circle accounts, entertainment news & commentary, political news & rants, and occasionally news of the odd (okay it's me sharing those stories).
I am also not sure that those we are less close to, i.e. "weak ties", are necessarily that dissimilar and thus expose use to novel information. I don't doubt the value of weak ties in sharing information, but I still think the information falls into common categories and still tends to roughly entail a common voice or political leaning. Weak ties are still similar to individuals or they wouldn't be a tie at all. People on social network sites certainly friend indiscriminately, even wantonly, but we don't usually friend our polar opposites.
There is no doubt that the Internet exposes us to a greater diversity of voices than older media allowed. And the Internet definitely has improved the ability to share information - I did find out about this study through a friend's posting on Facebook. I'm still not convinced, however, that we are receiving anywhere near the diversity of coverage of issues and viewpoints that we need.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Foursquare - Need Help Researching
I'm conducting a study that I hope to publish and that will inform my dissertation research on foursquare.
Why foursquare? Although in its infancy, I am curious if foursquare will emerge as a leading platform for citizens to annotate their city and connect with like-mined individuals. Such online participation has larger implications, as it can foster similar participation in political, cultural, and economic realms. It is possible, however, that foursquare is popular for gaming and novelty, and it is not a new source of citizen civic participation.
Launched March 2009, foursquare is as a combination of social networking application, user-generated city guide, and entertainment/diversion. Users post their physical location, write reviews, view other users’ postings, and compete for honours (e.g. badges).
I therefore wish to explore: 1) what motivates users to participate, 2) how they use the application 3) what types of information are users seeking.
I propose to study users first by online observation of their publicly-available behaviour and then conduct email interviews. I'm also conducting autoethnography of my own usage, which I'll be posting here.
But I need help?
Please share below any things you love or hate about foursquare, problems you encountered, what you think its strengths or future potential is, any thoughts or experiences.
I also need people who would consent to be interviewed via email on their usage (5-7 questions). Finally, if there is a Toronto-area person who I could meet at a cafe and observe for about 30 minutes as they do a few check-ins that would be great. All research would be confidential.
But even if you just know of a good article or have some insight to share here, that would be greatly appreciated!
Here's my profile on my Faculty website.
http://www.ischool.utoronto.ca/students/glen-farrelly
Why foursquare? Although in its infancy, I am curious if foursquare will emerge as a leading platform for citizens to annotate their city and connect with like-mined individuals. Such online participation has larger implications, as it can foster similar participation in political, cultural, and economic realms. It is possible, however, that foursquare is popular for gaming and novelty, and it is not a new source of citizen civic participation.
Launched March 2009, foursquare is as a combination of social networking application, user-generated city guide, and entertainment/diversion. Users post their physical location, write reviews, view other users’ postings, and compete for honours (e.g. badges).
I therefore wish to explore: 1) what motivates users to participate, 2) how they use the application 3) what types of information are users seeking.
I propose to study users first by online observation of their publicly-available behaviour and then conduct email interviews. I'm also conducting autoethnography of my own usage, which I'll be posting here.
But I need help?
Please share below any things you love or hate about foursquare, problems you encountered, what you think its strengths or future potential is, any thoughts or experiences.
I also need people who would consent to be interviewed via email on their usage (5-7 questions). Finally, if there is a Toronto-area person who I could meet at a cafe and observe for about 30 minutes as they do a few check-ins that would be great. All research would be confidential.
But even if you just know of a good article or have some insight to share here, that would be greatly appreciated!
Here's my profile on my Faculty website.
http://www.ischool.utoronto.ca/students/glen-farrelly
Monday, April 12, 2010
Facebook and the Problem of Collapsed Identity
Privacy controls in social networking sites seems to be endlessly discussed. Facebook seems to regularly tinker with its user privacy controls and many users routinely ignore them.
One thing that I feel is missed in privacy discussions is that it is not a binary conception - either I’ll keep things just to me, my friends or network or I’ll share it. Such decisions are a foundational privacy issue. However, the information I want to share is often more complicated. It’s not a question of whether a user is an online recluse or virtual exhibitionist.
There are some types of information that is suitable to share in some contexts and with some types of people and then not with others. The Internet collapses barriers that otherwise kept various aspects of our identity separate. There used to be a clear distinction between work, home, political or religious spaces, etc. These barriers are being further collapsed online as Facebook increasingly becomes the defacto platform for all online social networking. Almost everyone I know is on Facebook - from my young and old relatives, work colleagues, old school friends, casual acquaintances, etc.
The benefits of sites like Facebook are that everyone is using it (critical mass) but the problem is that everyone is using it. Problems have been found with this particularly when work and social life collide online (e.g. cases of employees fired for criticizing employers, prospective employers not hiring due to seeing drunken photos, parents learning TMI about their kids’ leisure activities).
I love the term participatory surveillance as it encompasses the desire many of us have to share our personal details, stories, images, and mundane status updates online. The accompanying term should be induced voyeurism, as it is hard to not take note as this parade of info passes by on our social networks sites. But just because someone wants to share information, doesn’t mean they want to share it with everyone they know (and don’t know) online and have friended.
Facebook is gradually improving its privacy controls, but they haven’t made much progress on allowing users to segment the various dimensions of their identity. I have made groups in Facebooks for my friends based on whether I know them from work, school, family, professional associations, or are essentially strangers (friended as they share similar interests or friends). Other than restricting the photographs I upload based on these groups, there is little else I can do to recontextualize the various elements of my social life.
Could website features or user norms mitigate collapsed identities? Could any such features be sufficiently usable so users actually use them? Already privacy controls are often seldom used, would this just be further distractions?
The rich context available offline and spatial barriers preserved distinct identities. This will be difficult to replicate online, so from a longitude perspective will user behaviour adapt. Will collapsed identities become the norm?
One thing that I feel is missed in privacy discussions is that it is not a binary conception - either I’ll keep things just to me, my friends or network or I’ll share it. Such decisions are a foundational privacy issue. However, the information I want to share is often more complicated. It’s not a question of whether a user is an online recluse or virtual exhibitionist.
There are some types of information that is suitable to share in some contexts and with some types of people and then not with others. The Internet collapses barriers that otherwise kept various aspects of our identity separate. There used to be a clear distinction between work, home, political or religious spaces, etc. These barriers are being further collapsed online as Facebook increasingly becomes the defacto platform for all online social networking. Almost everyone I know is on Facebook - from my young and old relatives, work colleagues, old school friends, casual acquaintances, etc.
The benefits of sites like Facebook are that everyone is using it (critical mass) but the problem is that everyone is using it. Problems have been found with this particularly when work and social life collide online (e.g. cases of employees fired for criticizing employers, prospective employers not hiring due to seeing drunken photos, parents learning TMI about their kids’ leisure activities).
I love the term participatory surveillance as it encompasses the desire many of us have to share our personal details, stories, images, and mundane status updates online. The accompanying term should be induced voyeurism, as it is hard to not take note as this parade of info passes by on our social networks sites. But just because someone wants to share information, doesn’t mean they want to share it with everyone they know (and don’t know) online and have friended.
Facebook is gradually improving its privacy controls, but they haven’t made much progress on allowing users to segment the various dimensions of their identity. I have made groups in Facebooks for my friends based on whether I know them from work, school, family, professional associations, or are essentially strangers (friended as they share similar interests or friends). Other than restricting the photographs I upload based on these groups, there is little else I can do to recontextualize the various elements of my social life.
Could website features or user norms mitigate collapsed identities? Could any such features be sufficiently usable so users actually use them? Already privacy controls are often seldom used, would this just be further distractions?
The rich context available offline and spatial barriers preserved distinct identities. This will be difficult to replicate online, so from a longitude perspective will user behaviour adapt. Will collapsed identities become the norm?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Social Media Marketing Conference
Today was the first day of OpenDialogue's Social Media Marketing conference in Toronto, at the Old Mill, where amidst the old world eclectic setting, we tried to make sense of the new media chaos that is social media. As if symbolizing the lingering role of old technology disrupting the promise of the digital age, an ornate chandelier obstructed the PowerPoint presentations from being fully viewable. Still, the Old Mill is the best location of any Toronto conference I have ever been to, not only for the beautiful building, natural setting, proper tables, but most importantly: comfy chairs and ample personal space. (Here’s a cardinal rule for conference organizers: if you expect people to sit all day, do not have crappy, hard plastic chairs stacked so tightly together I can’t exhale without knocking over my neighbour’s knee-straddled laptop.)
As one who follows social media developments, I’ve heard a lot of hype but haven’t seen a lot of proof on how it is actually transforming business. Today’s speakers presented case studies of impressive use of social media delivering business results and offered useful best practices and insight into the medium. I’ll focus on the points that particularly intrigued me.
NutriSystem presented on their Canadian launch. They recruited Canadian bloggers to try their products, for free, and blog about the results. That takes a lot of courage as bloggers are known for being opinionated and irrational at times (not this blogger of course). NutriSystem, and the bloggers themselves, were open and transparent about this arrangement, and NutriSystem did not direct or influence what the bloggers had to say, so there were no charges of “pimping”. According to NutriSystem, the bloggers delivered messages consistent with the company’s and were effective in generating interest and sales.
Perennial conference presenter Bryan Segal from comScore presented impressive statistics on Canada’s adoption of social media. Canadians have the highest rates of social media page views and visit durations and “Canada is a Facebook and YouTube nation” declared Bryan. I was dying to know why he felt we have such fondness (or in my case addiction) of social media, but figured it was too academic a question for this marketing-focused crowd.
Adrian Capobianco of Quizative offered a lot of useful guidance on social media, so I’ll just bullet his words:
• The Pope is into social marketing, are you?
• Should you be listening to social media? Absolutely? Should you be participating? Maybe.
• Social media is changing so fast it’s like running on sand instead of concrete
• Social media is popular as it is relevant, immediate, self expression, conversational, real, human
• To maximize engagement, reward contributions with badges/visibility, rankings, points, contests, discounts, gifts, cash
• Marketing structure is often campaign based, but social media is iterative & ongoing
• Companies using social media need to have an employee anointed to listen and empowered to respond
Focusing on the rewards of online niche marketing , Andrew Cherwenka from Trapeze described how highly targeted social networks are present in the mass social networks, like Facebook. I was impressed by his campaign he described for a car company. For a relatively small sum of money, they launched a microsite for a specific car, accessed from the main car company site. That microsite then feed to channels/groups on Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr where user fans could post their own content in an organized, social fashion. They advertised to initially get word out but then involvement snowballed.
Making similar innovate use of existing social media, Wayne MacPhail, presented how an Ontario charity made incredible use of wikis, delicious, Google, and Flickr, to enables individual across its many local chapters to organize and produce their own content. As he pointed out, what resulted was the “opposite of the tragedy of the commons” as there was a high degree of participation and surprisingly little negative behaviour. To get this level of involvement, they did have to do some one-on-one in-person training and have instructional aids, but with some inventive use of existing, free services (such as Flickr’s slideshows, Google Maps, RSS feeds from delicious) the users themselves were inspired and able to do it themselves.
Overall, the conference today had a lot useful advice to offer companies on how to enter social media, but the examples cited today and, in generally hyped by social media enthusiasts are that it enables companies to now have earnest conversations and responsive action with their customers. This is rather utopian and not new, as companies have been able to do this through their telephone and email customer support - and we all know how mixed this media service has been. We are at a social media conference, so we do need to hype cases where companies did have the culture to be open to this, but as some presenters acknowledge social media participation (everyone should be monitoring) is not for every company – and this, I would argue, is the main reason why.
I opened this post describing the irony of discussing new media at the Old Mill. In another old vs. new analogy: before I left for the conference this morning my four year old daughter asked me incredulously if I was going to be talking about YouTube for my work (she LOVES it, BTW). As an Internet vet (ten years last month) it makes me so happy that I can reply to her that yes I was going to talk about YouTube and yes this was my job – how cool is that!
As one who follows social media developments, I’ve heard a lot of hype but haven’t seen a lot of proof on how it is actually transforming business. Today’s speakers presented case studies of impressive use of social media delivering business results and offered useful best practices and insight into the medium. I’ll focus on the points that particularly intrigued me.
NutriSystem presented on their Canadian launch. They recruited Canadian bloggers to try their products, for free, and blog about the results. That takes a lot of courage as bloggers are known for being opinionated and irrational at times (not this blogger of course). NutriSystem, and the bloggers themselves, were open and transparent about this arrangement, and NutriSystem did not direct or influence what the bloggers had to say, so there were no charges of “pimping”. According to NutriSystem, the bloggers delivered messages consistent with the company’s and were effective in generating interest and sales.
Perennial conference presenter Bryan Segal from comScore presented impressive statistics on Canada’s adoption of social media. Canadians have the highest rates of social media page views and visit durations and “Canada is a Facebook and YouTube nation” declared Bryan. I was dying to know why he felt we have such fondness (or in my case addiction) of social media, but figured it was too academic a question for this marketing-focused crowd.
Adrian Capobianco of Quizative offered a lot of useful guidance on social media, so I’ll just bullet his words:
• The Pope is into social marketing, are you?
• Should you be listening to social media? Absolutely? Should you be participating? Maybe.
• Social media is changing so fast it’s like running on sand instead of concrete
• Social media is popular as it is relevant, immediate, self expression, conversational, real, human
• To maximize engagement, reward contributions with badges/visibility, rankings, points, contests, discounts, gifts, cash
• Marketing structure is often campaign based, but social media is iterative & ongoing
• Companies using social media need to have an employee anointed to listen and empowered to respond
Focusing on the rewards of online niche marketing , Andrew Cherwenka from Trapeze described how highly targeted social networks are present in the mass social networks, like Facebook. I was impressed by his campaign he described for a car company. For a relatively small sum of money, they launched a microsite for a specific car, accessed from the main car company site. That microsite then feed to channels/groups on Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr where user fans could post their own content in an organized, social fashion. They advertised to initially get word out but then involvement snowballed.
Making similar innovate use of existing social media, Wayne MacPhail, presented how an Ontario charity made incredible use of wikis, delicious, Google, and Flickr, to enables individual across its many local chapters to organize and produce their own content. As he pointed out, what resulted was the “opposite of the tragedy of the commons” as there was a high degree of participation and surprisingly little negative behaviour. To get this level of involvement, they did have to do some one-on-one in-person training and have instructional aids, but with some inventive use of existing, free services (such as Flickr’s slideshows, Google Maps, RSS feeds from delicious) the users themselves were inspired and able to do it themselves.
Overall, the conference today had a lot useful advice to offer companies on how to enter social media, but the examples cited today and, in generally hyped by social media enthusiasts are that it enables companies to now have earnest conversations and responsive action with their customers. This is rather utopian and not new, as companies have been able to do this through their telephone and email customer support - and we all know how mixed this media service has been. We are at a social media conference, so we do need to hype cases where companies did have the culture to be open to this, but as some presenters acknowledge social media participation (everyone should be monitoring) is not for every company – and this, I would argue, is the main reason why.
I opened this post describing the irony of discussing new media at the Old Mill. In another old vs. new analogy: before I left for the conference this morning my four year old daughter asked me incredulously if I was going to be talking about YouTube for my work (she LOVES it, BTW). As an Internet vet (ten years last month) it makes me so happy that I can reply to her that yes I was going to talk about YouTube and yes this was my job – how cool is that!
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Social Internetworking
How the Internet Can Help Organizations Benefit From Social Networking
When Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty followed the trend of employers banning Facebook at work and banned it for Ontario civil servants, he asserted “I just don't really see how it adds value to the work you do in the workplace” (Flavelle, 2007). This was a provocative challenge to social networking sites (SNS) to justify their usefulness within the workplace. While niche SNS such as LinkedIn, Xing, and Plaxo do cater only to professional networking, overall there has not been much research on the value SNS and related technologies offer workplaces. It is my position that rather than being only a distraction to employees, Internet-enabled social networking offers considerable value to professionals and organizations.
I will first discuss the value of social networking within organizations, particularly the importance of SNS and related online technologies to establishing and maintaining useful connections with a diverse array of individuals with whom one is distantly connected (“weak ties”) and will then analyze how SNS permits employees to find, maintain, and connect to valuable weak ties on a greater scale than was previously possible.
Value of Online Social Networking
The field of social network analysis has demonstrated the value of discovering existing network structures within organizations so as to optimize networks to improve communications, resource flow, and foster innovation (Liebowitz, 2007). With the advent of affordable SNS and related online technologies, organizations are now more readily able to utilize the power of social networks, as prior spatial, temporal, and racial or social position constraints are lessened (Wellman, 1997).
In addition, these technologies enable “connections between people where none existed, and… builds new weak tie networks” (Haythornthwaite, 2005, p. 139). Weak ties, a term coined by Granovetter to denote those with whom we are not closely tied, such as friends of friends, casual acquaintances, and former co-workers or classmates, offer advantages over strong ties in that weak ties expose one to a greater breadth and more novel experience, opinion, and thoughts (Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2004). Research has found that when employees posed questions electronically to all staff, obtaining the correct answer was not related to contacting a greater number of people but rather contacting a greater diversity of people (Constant, Sproull & Keisler, 1996). In addition, Cross and Parker claim research shows that “more diversified networks are associated with early promotion, career mobility, and managerial effectiveness” (2004, p. 11). Thus there are numerous possible advantages to organizations actively encouraging the use of online social networking in the workplace.
Find Useful Contacts
In a large or geographically-dispersed organization, employees may not know their fellow co-workers. Even smaller companies may have departmental silos or gatekeepers preventing access to needed information or resources. The ability to seek information or collaborate with coworkers is hampered when employees are not even aware of or are unable to connect with applicable coworkers (Cross & Parker, 2004). Companies such as Accenture have built electronic systems to allow employees to find relevant expertise. Liebowitz found such expertise locators, or “online yellow pages of expertise,” enables people to connect via shared interests, find necessary resources, and get answers to questions (2007, p. 17). Design firm Organism achieved similar results by tying the company directory to its corporate wiki, in which every employee maintains their own profile page listing their skills, experience, and projects (Li & Bernoff, 2008). Organism also built its own social networking features so that employees can list their friends (in social networking parlance any added contact is deemed a “friend”) for referrals and recommendations for project assignments. Many SNS by default display one’s contacts to one’s friends (although this can usually be restricted if desired), so that organizations can achieve similar results without building their own platform.
In addition, some SNS offer automatic linking based on interests or experience; alternatively, one can search the site using company names, locations, or keywords to find applicable friends (often called first degree contacts) friends of friends (second degree contacts) and friends of friends of friends (third degree contacts). Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe found in a study of Facebook users that the features of SNS did make it easier for people to convert a latent tie into a weak tie (2007).
Maintain Weak Ties
Although strong ties tend to be supported by offline efforts (Wellman, 1997), Internet technologies can support weak ties effectively. As strong ties by their nature need more effort to maintain, maintaining weak ties can consist simply of keeping in touch with one another and possessing updated contact information. This can be easily achieved via SNS as one can quickly and easily add contacts (some with or without confirmation) and then receive access to their profiles and ongoing updates. Ellison et al. found that these SNS features and the low social cost of connecting online did allow users to “crystallize relationships that might otherwise remain ephemeral” (2007, p. 1143).
In addition to enabling people to easily make a record and keep track of a large number of contacts, Ellison et al. also found that socially-inhibited people were more able to network online as it “lower[s] the barriers to participation so that students who might otherwise shy away from initiating communication with or responding to others are encouraged to do” (2007, p. 1162). Offline one is limited by time and spatial barriers such that maintaining many ties is problematic and thus one will loose contact with some weak ties. Various researchers have hypothesized that Internet-based technology allows one to maintain significantly more ties than could be achieved exclusively through offline efforts (Donath & Boyd, 2004; Ellison et al., 2007).
Connecting and Sharing Information Online
While finding and maintaining weak ties is important, when the need arises to call upon the assistance of a weak tie, how can one be assured that the person will respond? Interestingly, one factor that limits sharing of information is greatly lessened online, as for those who have not previously meet in real life, the lack of visual cues online has been found to lessen discrimination based on race, gender, social status, and social similarity (Constant et al., 1996; Sproull, Conley, & Moon, 2005; Wellman, 1997). This has been found to be a liberating experience for some who are now able to connect at a different level than they were previously able to offline.
Researchers have found that “an electronic tie combined with an organizational tie is sufficient to allow the flow of information between people who may never have met face-to-face” (Garton, Haythornthwaite, & Wellman, 1997, Ties, ¶3). Online prosocial behaviour has been observed in various studies (Constant et al., 1996, and Sproull et al., 2005) in which people were found to offer aid to help achieve organizational goals, for altruistic reasons, as well as for self-esteem and recognition. Such was the case for Best Buy when they implemented open-source software to connect all employees. In fact, for Best Buy only achieving a small portion, ten percent, of employees using the software proved to be sufficient to enable employees to help each other (Li & Bernoff, 2008).
For targeted information requests, particularly to high level executives or difficult-to-reach people, more aid may be needed. This is where referrals and recommendations offered by some SNS provide a means for one to know that the information request comes from “someone [who] is connected to people one already knows and trusts [as this] is one of the most basic ways of establishing trust with a new relationship” (Donath & Boyd, 2004, p.72). LinkedIn is an exemplar in this regard as not only does it enable contacts to write online testimonials about ties, but they also facilitate brokered second degree and third degree contact introductions. Online social networking has been shown to offer effective communication whether a request comes directly from a weak tie, indirectly from a second or third degree contact, or from a stranger.
Conclusion
While online social networks do offer organizations the potential for employees to be better able to find, maintain, connect, and share information with valuable contacts, there are some important caveats. In both the Best Buy and Organism cases, their success was related to having an easy to use interface and achieving a critical mass of users (Li & Bernoff, 2008).
Another caveat is that with some SNS, such as Facebook, their original focus was on personal social networking. With the increasing adoption of Facebook in workplaces, it has introduced new challenges, such as one’s boss and workplace colleagues receiving access to previously off-limits, and possibly inappropriate, personal details and photographs (Dunfield, 2008). One possible solution, other than opting for more professional-oriented SNS like LinkedIn, would be to segments one’s SNS into groups and restrict various types of information based on these groups, as Facebook allows.
A further consideration for organizations is whether to make their online service public, to be better able to tap into important external contacts, such as possible suppliers or partners, or keep it private, so as to prevent employees being poached by recruiters. Finally, the crucial factor determining the success of online social networking in workplaces as found by researchers (Haythornthwaite, 2005; Constant et al., 1996; Li & Bernoff, 2008) is in creating the organizational culture that will support and foster participation.
References
Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices (pp. 156-163). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). Kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice [Electronic version]. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.
Cross, R. L., & Parker, A. (2004). Hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82.
Dunfield, A. (2008, July 9). Buddying up to the boss on Facebook [Electronic version]. Globe and Mail. Retrieved September 06, 2008, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080709.wcafacebook09/BNStory/Technology/home/?pageRequested=all
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). Benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites [Electronic version]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
Flavelle, D. (2007, May 04). Worries follow rise of Facebook [Electronic version]. Toronto Star. Retrieved September 06, 2008, from
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/210313
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects [Electronic version]. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125-147.
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social networks [Electronic version]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1), 0-0.
Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business Press.
Liebowitz, J. (2007). Social networking: The essence of innovation. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.
Sproull, L., Conley, C., & Moon, J. (2005). Prosocial behaviour on the net. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger, The Social Net: Understanding Human Behavior in Cyberspace. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 179-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
When Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty followed the trend of employers banning Facebook at work and banned it for Ontario civil servants, he asserted “I just don't really see how it adds value to the work you do in the workplace” (Flavelle, 2007). This was a provocative challenge to social networking sites (SNS) to justify their usefulness within the workplace. While niche SNS such as LinkedIn, Xing, and Plaxo do cater only to professional networking, overall there has not been much research on the value SNS and related technologies offer workplaces. It is my position that rather than being only a distraction to employees, Internet-enabled social networking offers considerable value to professionals and organizations.
I will first discuss the value of social networking within organizations, particularly the importance of SNS and related online technologies to establishing and maintaining useful connections with a diverse array of individuals with whom one is distantly connected (“weak ties”) and will then analyze how SNS permits employees to find, maintain, and connect to valuable weak ties on a greater scale than was previously possible.
Value of Online Social Networking
The field of social network analysis has demonstrated the value of discovering existing network structures within organizations so as to optimize networks to improve communications, resource flow, and foster innovation (Liebowitz, 2007). With the advent of affordable SNS and related online technologies, organizations are now more readily able to utilize the power of social networks, as prior spatial, temporal, and racial or social position constraints are lessened (Wellman, 1997).
In addition, these technologies enable “connections between people where none existed, and… builds new weak tie networks” (Haythornthwaite, 2005, p. 139). Weak ties, a term coined by Granovetter to denote those with whom we are not closely tied, such as friends of friends, casual acquaintances, and former co-workers or classmates, offer advantages over strong ties in that weak ties expose one to a greater breadth and more novel experience, opinion, and thoughts (Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2004). Research has found that when employees posed questions electronically to all staff, obtaining the correct answer was not related to contacting a greater number of people but rather contacting a greater diversity of people (Constant, Sproull & Keisler, 1996). In addition, Cross and Parker claim research shows that “more diversified networks are associated with early promotion, career mobility, and managerial effectiveness” (2004, p. 11). Thus there are numerous possible advantages to organizations actively encouraging the use of online social networking in the workplace.
Find Useful Contacts
In a large or geographically-dispersed organization, employees may not know their fellow co-workers. Even smaller companies may have departmental silos or gatekeepers preventing access to needed information or resources. The ability to seek information or collaborate with coworkers is hampered when employees are not even aware of or are unable to connect with applicable coworkers (Cross & Parker, 2004). Companies such as Accenture have built electronic systems to allow employees to find relevant expertise. Liebowitz found such expertise locators, or “online yellow pages of expertise,” enables people to connect via shared interests, find necessary resources, and get answers to questions (2007, p. 17). Design firm Organism achieved similar results by tying the company directory to its corporate wiki, in which every employee maintains their own profile page listing their skills, experience, and projects (Li & Bernoff, 2008). Organism also built its own social networking features so that employees can list their friends (in social networking parlance any added contact is deemed a “friend”) for referrals and recommendations for project assignments. Many SNS by default display one’s contacts to one’s friends (although this can usually be restricted if desired), so that organizations can achieve similar results without building their own platform.
In addition, some SNS offer automatic linking based on interests or experience; alternatively, one can search the site using company names, locations, or keywords to find applicable friends (often called first degree contacts) friends of friends (second degree contacts) and friends of friends of friends (third degree contacts). Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe found in a study of Facebook users that the features of SNS did make it easier for people to convert a latent tie into a weak tie (2007).
Maintain Weak Ties
Although strong ties tend to be supported by offline efforts (Wellman, 1997), Internet technologies can support weak ties effectively. As strong ties by their nature need more effort to maintain, maintaining weak ties can consist simply of keeping in touch with one another and possessing updated contact information. This can be easily achieved via SNS as one can quickly and easily add contacts (some with or without confirmation) and then receive access to their profiles and ongoing updates. Ellison et al. found that these SNS features and the low social cost of connecting online did allow users to “crystallize relationships that might otherwise remain ephemeral” (2007, p. 1143).
In addition to enabling people to easily make a record and keep track of a large number of contacts, Ellison et al. also found that socially-inhibited people were more able to network online as it “lower[s] the barriers to participation so that students who might otherwise shy away from initiating communication with or responding to others are encouraged to do” (2007, p. 1162). Offline one is limited by time and spatial barriers such that maintaining many ties is problematic and thus one will loose contact with some weak ties. Various researchers have hypothesized that Internet-based technology allows one to maintain significantly more ties than could be achieved exclusively through offline efforts (Donath & Boyd, 2004; Ellison et al., 2007).
Connecting and Sharing Information Online
While finding and maintaining weak ties is important, when the need arises to call upon the assistance of a weak tie, how can one be assured that the person will respond? Interestingly, one factor that limits sharing of information is greatly lessened online, as for those who have not previously meet in real life, the lack of visual cues online has been found to lessen discrimination based on race, gender, social status, and social similarity (Constant et al., 1996; Sproull, Conley, & Moon, 2005; Wellman, 1997). This has been found to be a liberating experience for some who are now able to connect at a different level than they were previously able to offline.
Researchers have found that “an electronic tie combined with an organizational tie is sufficient to allow the flow of information between people who may never have met face-to-face” (Garton, Haythornthwaite, & Wellman, 1997, Ties, ¶3). Online prosocial behaviour has been observed in various studies (Constant et al., 1996, and Sproull et al., 2005) in which people were found to offer aid to help achieve organizational goals, for altruistic reasons, as well as for self-esteem and recognition. Such was the case for Best Buy when they implemented open-source software to connect all employees. In fact, for Best Buy only achieving a small portion, ten percent, of employees using the software proved to be sufficient to enable employees to help each other (Li & Bernoff, 2008).
For targeted information requests, particularly to high level executives or difficult-to-reach people, more aid may be needed. This is where referrals and recommendations offered by some SNS provide a means for one to know that the information request comes from “someone [who] is connected to people one already knows and trusts [as this] is one of the most basic ways of establishing trust with a new relationship” (Donath & Boyd, 2004, p.72). LinkedIn is an exemplar in this regard as not only does it enable contacts to write online testimonials about ties, but they also facilitate brokered second degree and third degree contact introductions. Online social networking has been shown to offer effective communication whether a request comes directly from a weak tie, indirectly from a second or third degree contact, or from a stranger.
Conclusion
While online social networks do offer organizations the potential for employees to be better able to find, maintain, connect, and share information with valuable contacts, there are some important caveats. In both the Best Buy and Organism cases, their success was related to having an easy to use interface and achieving a critical mass of users (Li & Bernoff, 2008).
Another caveat is that with some SNS, such as Facebook, their original focus was on personal social networking. With the increasing adoption of Facebook in workplaces, it has introduced new challenges, such as one’s boss and workplace colleagues receiving access to previously off-limits, and possibly inappropriate, personal details and photographs (Dunfield, 2008). One possible solution, other than opting for more professional-oriented SNS like LinkedIn, would be to segments one’s SNS into groups and restrict various types of information based on these groups, as Facebook allows.
A further consideration for organizations is whether to make their online service public, to be better able to tap into important external contacts, such as possible suppliers or partners, or keep it private, so as to prevent employees being poached by recruiters. Finally, the crucial factor determining the success of online social networking in workplaces as found by researchers (Haythornthwaite, 2005; Constant et al., 1996; Li & Bernoff, 2008) is in creating the organizational culture that will support and foster participation.
References
Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices (pp. 156-163). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). Kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice [Electronic version]. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.
Cross, R. L., & Parker, A. (2004). Hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82.
Dunfield, A. (2008, July 9). Buddying up to the boss on Facebook [Electronic version]. Globe and Mail. Retrieved September 06, 2008, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080709.wcafacebook09/BNStory/Technology/home/?pageRequested=all
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). Benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites [Electronic version]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
Flavelle, D. (2007, May 04). Worries follow rise of Facebook [Electronic version]. Toronto Star. Retrieved September 06, 2008, from
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/210313
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects [Electronic version]. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125-147.
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social networks [Electronic version]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1), 0-0.
Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business Press.
Liebowitz, J. (2007). Social networking: The essence of innovation. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.
Sproull, L., Conley, C., & Moon, J. (2005). Prosocial behaviour on the net. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger, The Social Net: Understanding Human Behavior in Cyberspace. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 179-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Giving Twitter a Second Try
After a year of denigrating Twitter I have finally given in and started tweeting.
The first impression of Twitter is that it's a great waste of time, and it is, for the most part, as many people use it to share the most mundane details of their lives.
One thing that I have found interesting, however, about Twitter is it really is a completely new form of communication developing. It's only two years old, but only popular for 1 year (already has 2M users). It's interesting to watch norms developing, see people trying to figure out how to use this new medium, and imagine how it might evolve.
Twitter in brief:
Here's a good article on the communicative value of Twitter (particularly compared to blogs and Facebook): Why Twitter Hasn’t Failed: The Power Of Audience
But the main reason I'm writing, is that for me (or anyone) to realize value it relies on network effects. Check out my Twitter page and start following me if you're interested in what I had for dinner (I promise not to post this type of stuff - seriously).
The first impression of Twitter is that it's a great waste of time, and it is, for the most part, as many people use it to share the most mundane details of their lives.
One thing that I have found interesting, however, about Twitter is it really is a completely new form of communication developing. It's only two years old, but only popular for 1 year (already has 2M users). It's interesting to watch norms developing, see people trying to figure out how to use this new medium, and imagine how it might evolve.
Twitter in brief:
- works via text messaging and/or by the Web
- combo of micro-blogging/status updates & social network
- posts (tweets) are limited to 140 characters
- can be public or private (just to your network of friends)
Here's a good article on the communicative value of Twitter (particularly compared to blogs and Facebook): Why Twitter Hasn’t Failed: The Power Of Audience
But the main reason I'm writing, is that for me (or anyone) to realize value it relies on network effects. Check out my Twitter page and start following me if you're interested in what I had for dinner (I promise not to post this type of stuff - seriously).
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Negotiating Multifaceted Identity Online in Social Networking Websites
Our real-world identities can be multifaceted and contextually fragmented - we behave one way at work, and another when drinking with friends. Yet social-networking websites collapse “relationship types and contexts into the ubiquitous ‘Friend’” (Boyd, 2007, p.134). Thus one’s online social network friends, regardless of context (e.g. work, family, church, school) all receive, by default, the same information. This online flattening of offline relationships has progressed without adequate means to negotiate this experience. For example how to present one facet of personality, or persona, to one's friends vs. one's workplace colleagues. Some users have responded by replacing “cool” customizations with those more appropriate for business, thus sacrificing facets of identity to present an overall safe, sanitized persona (Boyd, 2007, p.143). New methods of encoding and decoding online identity/identities, whether new societal norms or technological solutions, are required to allow people to enjoy these websites and avoid clashes of real-world and online identities.
Many of these issues were documented by danah boyd in her study of the rise of Friendster, the first prominent social-networking website and inspiration for the more popular MySpace and Facebook. Friendster, boyd noted, by offering users a standard template to populate allows users the experience of “writing yourself into being” (Boyd, 2007, p.145) but within defined parameters. Yet truthfulness in these profiles has varied. Some users, boyd found, enjoyed exploring aspects of their identity through degrees of fiction; others assumed full truthfulness from those in their network (Boyd, 2007, p.150).
This unresolved tension continues to hound social-networking websites as seen by the recent Story2Oh! Facebook controversy. A Toronto writer, Jill Golick, created fictional characters and set up corresponding Facebook profiles, all labeled fictional (Golick, 2008a). These characters then sent friend requests to Toronto’s web community. While such a friend request allows one to view that person’s profile, some indiscriminately “friended,” missing the fiction label and then “didn’t realize till later that these were characters and not real people….The blurring of the lines between reality and fiction caused a lot of furor” (Golick, 2008b). Some responded by indicating feelings of betrayal and transgression of online norms; Facebook responded by deleting the accounts. Similar events were found by boyd in the “Fakester” controversy, highlighting that while profiles may allow for “performance of identity” (Boyd, 2007, p.141) all users are not yet accustomed to this.
Norms and technology are developing to address these issues. In March 2008, Facebook introduced the ability to group friends by user-defined type and designate what they can see (Gleit, 2008). While this resolves boyd’s issue of singular relationship types and collapsed context, this feature only allows users to remove details from view, it does not allow one to tailor online identity as one can in the real world. Offline, people can share certain photographs with friends and other sorts with family, but this feature either turns photographs on or off based on type. Still, technical features such as this and developing user norms, such as not friending strangers, begin to enable people to express multifaceted identity through a singular website.
References
Boyd, D. (2007). None of this is real: Identity and participation in Friendster. In Karaganis J. (Ed.), Structures of Participation in Digital Culture (pp. 88-110). New York: Social Science Research Council.
Gleit, N. (2008). More privacy options. The Facebook Blog. Retrieved May 11, 2008 from http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=11519877130
Golick, J. (2008a). Deleted from Facebook. Story2Oh.com. Retrieved May 09, 2008 from http://story2oh.com/2008/04/30/deleted-by-facebook
Golick, J. (2008b). I hear ya. Story2Oh.com. Retrieved May 09, 2008 from http://story2oh.com/2008/05/01/i-hear-ya/
Many of these issues were documented by danah boyd in her study of the rise of Friendster, the first prominent social-networking website and inspiration for the more popular MySpace and Facebook. Friendster, boyd noted, by offering users a standard template to populate allows users the experience of “writing yourself into being” (Boyd, 2007, p.145) but within defined parameters. Yet truthfulness in these profiles has varied. Some users, boyd found, enjoyed exploring aspects of their identity through degrees of fiction; others assumed full truthfulness from those in their network (Boyd, 2007, p.150).
This unresolved tension continues to hound social-networking websites as seen by the recent Story2Oh! Facebook controversy. A Toronto writer, Jill Golick, created fictional characters and set up corresponding Facebook profiles, all labeled fictional (Golick, 2008a). These characters then sent friend requests to Toronto’s web community. While such a friend request allows one to view that person’s profile, some indiscriminately “friended,” missing the fiction label and then “didn’t realize till later that these were characters and not real people….The blurring of the lines between reality and fiction caused a lot of furor” (Golick, 2008b). Some responded by indicating feelings of betrayal and transgression of online norms; Facebook responded by deleting the accounts. Similar events were found by boyd in the “Fakester” controversy, highlighting that while profiles may allow for “performance of identity” (Boyd, 2007, p.141) all users are not yet accustomed to this.
Norms and technology are developing to address these issues. In March 2008, Facebook introduced the ability to group friends by user-defined type and designate what they can see (Gleit, 2008). While this resolves boyd’s issue of singular relationship types and collapsed context, this feature only allows users to remove details from view, it does not allow one to tailor online identity as one can in the real world. Offline, people can share certain photographs with friends and other sorts with family, but this feature either turns photographs on or off based on type. Still, technical features such as this and developing user norms, such as not friending strangers, begin to enable people to express multifaceted identity through a singular website.
References
Boyd, D. (2007). None of this is real: Identity and participation in Friendster. In Karaganis J. (Ed.), Structures of Participation in Digital Culture (pp. 88-110). New York: Social Science Research Council.
Gleit, N. (2008). More privacy options. The Facebook Blog. Retrieved May 11, 2008 from http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=11519877130
Golick, J. (2008a). Deleted from Facebook. Story2Oh.com. Retrieved May 09, 2008 from http://story2oh.com/2008/04/30/deleted-by-facebook
Golick, J. (2008b). I hear ya. Story2Oh.com. Retrieved May 09, 2008 from http://story2oh.com/2008/05/01/i-hear-ya/
Monday, October 22, 2007
Royal Roads Scholar
As my classes at Royal Roads have "opened" today, I was thinking back to the process of what lead me to choose Royal Roads. This process shows not only the value of social networks, but also the power of Internet as an invaluable research tool.
As a prospective grad student, my determining criteria was: a) opportunity to learn - I wanted courses I cared about and an effective way to learn b) reputation of university - I benefit from the perception of the university's value c) opportunity to meet interesting, influential faculty & students d) had to be offered either by distance or in proximity to Toronto.
I scoured the websites of universities around the world. I found many possibilities, but was able to eliminate some by looking at their course calendar and being unimpressed with their offerings. I found some distance programs, but didn't feel their methods were good, ie. not fully using e-Learning. Several universities had outdated or incomplete information, which I was able to rectify from e-mails and then discount (eg. inappropriate faculty, program was shut down, or just a research centre not degree granting, etc.)
Here's how communication vehicles helped me cull the list:
1) ordered, from the websites, print brochures- this was a waste of trees as without exception all the material in print - and then some - was on their websites
2) emailed most of my Address Book - this had the most success, more later
3) posted to various web forums, specifically Yahoo Answers, LinkedIn, and Lonely Planet. Yahoo Answers was little help, but did scare me about e-Learning. LinkedIn got no response except two replies by Royal Roads staff, which showed they are tuned in. LonelyPlanet, who has a very active forum site, was the most success as I got a lot of positive and negative feedback.
4) telephoned - this was a determining factor for a Toronto university were staff and a program head were so uniformly rude and unhelpful, it made me very reluctant to go there.
In emailing my Address Book, I got some insider help and tips for new directions. When I came to specifically deciding whether or not Royal Roads was suitable emails to my contacts netted people I knew who knew: a current RR student, one of their e-Learning software developers, the chancellor of the university (probably the real reason I got in).
My friends put me in touch with their friends and the insider information I got on the quality of the program and the e-Learning platform was instrumental in my decision. This was the second time I can remember where I asked my online contacts to help me out and I never imagined it would be so successful - definitely a case study for the power of social networks.
I was favouring Royal Roads early on, but was discounting it due to my concerns that e-Learning would not be an effective way to learn, I wouldn't get to know students & faculty, and the reputation of a mostly online university and an online degree.
Largely through the Internet, via e-mailing various people and reading online articles & posts, I was able to dispell these concerns. I got to know a lot about the program, the technology, and their reputation.
As a result of my Internet research and my online social network, I was much better consumer. I was way more informed of my options and had a much better idea of what I was buying.
As a prospective grad student, my determining criteria was: a) opportunity to learn - I wanted courses I cared about and an effective way to learn b) reputation of university - I benefit from the perception of the university's value c) opportunity to meet interesting, influential faculty & students d) had to be offered either by distance or in proximity to Toronto.
I scoured the websites of universities around the world. I found many possibilities, but was able to eliminate some by looking at their course calendar and being unimpressed with their offerings. I found some distance programs, but didn't feel their methods were good, ie. not fully using e-Learning. Several universities had outdated or incomplete information, which I was able to rectify from e-mails and then discount (eg. inappropriate faculty, program was shut down, or just a research centre not degree granting, etc.)
Here's how communication vehicles helped me cull the list:
1) ordered, from the websites, print brochures- this was a waste of trees as without exception all the material in print - and then some - was on their websites
2) emailed most of my Address Book - this had the most success, more later
3) posted to various web forums, specifically Yahoo Answers, LinkedIn, and Lonely Planet. Yahoo Answers was little help, but did scare me about e-Learning. LinkedIn got no response except two replies by Royal Roads staff, which showed they are tuned in. LonelyPlanet, who has a very active forum site, was the most success as I got a lot of positive and negative feedback.
4) telephoned - this was a determining factor for a Toronto university were staff and a program head were so uniformly rude and unhelpful, it made me very reluctant to go there.
In emailing my Address Book, I got some insider help and tips for new directions. When I came to specifically deciding whether or not Royal Roads was suitable emails to my contacts netted people I knew who knew: a current RR student, one of their e-Learning software developers, the chancellor of the university (probably the real reason I got in).
My friends put me in touch with their friends and the insider information I got on the quality of the program and the e-Learning platform was instrumental in my decision. This was the second time I can remember where I asked my online contacts to help me out and I never imagined it would be so successful - definitely a case study for the power of social networks.
I was favouring Royal Roads early on, but was discounting it due to my concerns that e-Learning would not be an effective way to learn, I wouldn't get to know students & faculty, and the reputation of a mostly online university and an online degree.
Largely through the Internet, via e-mailing various people and reading online articles & posts, I was able to dispell these concerns. I got to know a lot about the program, the technology, and their reputation.
As a result of my Internet research and my online social network, I was much better consumer. I was way more informed of my options and had a much better idea of what I was buying.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Facebook is cyber-crack
It was exactly 10 days ago today that a friend, Lisa, invited me to join Facebook. I heard of Facebook but had no idea that it was open to anyone other than university students (Facebook opened their doors to anyone as of Sept. 2006).
It's only been ten days but it's been ten days of a cyber-crack induced haze of Facebook addiction. In that short time, I've gone from a Facebook virgin to Facebook tramp. During this time, I've forsaken my previous devoted amours of LinkedIn and even you, dear blog.
In honour of ten days of Facebook bliss, here are my ten favourite things about Facebook:
It's only been ten days but it's been ten days of a cyber-crack induced haze of Facebook addiction. In that short time, I've gone from a Facebook virgin to Facebook tramp. During this time, I've forsaken my previous devoted amours of LinkedIn and even you, dear blog.
In honour of ten days of Facebook bliss, here are my ten favourite things about Facebook:
- it's the most fun social networking site - LinkedIn may be more useful but isn't much fun and MySpace may be more popular, but it sucks
- you can post embarrassing photos of your friends and tag their name to the pic and then all their friends will see the photo and join in the laughs
- great way to find old friends and actually reconnect for free. You can find friends by searching by their name or joining your past school's inevitably pre-existing Group. Classmates.com, the granddaddy of social networking sites lost their edge by insisting on charging for this same functionality
- their event feature is like other sites (e-vent and Upcoming) but these sites make you get your contact network to these sites, whereas Facebook easily integrates with your existing network for private events and it also allows public events, or a combo of both
- as they say, Facebook is a stalker's best friend - Facebook's homepage makes it very easy to see exactly what your friends are up to (and it's way more fun than Twitter!)
- has same cool Group functionality as Yahoo or Google but as with point #4 you can tap into your existing network rather than try and get them to come to another website
- lots of sites try to encourage community by having members fill out Profiles but only Facebook seamlessly creates a network out of Profile interests. For instance, I had no idea so many people (320 in fact - some even under 50) shared my love of Golden Girls - now I don't feel so alone!
- has no annoying audio clips that start to play automatically when you visit a friend's page, like MySpace does
- let's you block "Friends" without their knowing it, which I have used to tune someone out without any awkward unpleasantness
- with ten friends you can too play the Friends Game! It's oh so much fun!
Yes, Facebook offers the addictive highs of cocaine and heroin, without the body-ravaging side effects.
Try it now! C'mon all your friends are doing it...
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Forgive me my Web. 2.0 trespasses
I can't help myself but I stumbled upon this great article on Web 2.0 by Jared M. Spool called "Web 2.0: The Power Behind the Hype".
He describes the excitement Web 2.0 engenders:
The article lays out the foundation technologies and principles of Web 2.0, such as:
The article closes with a caution with a reference appealing to Webslinger:
I remember those print-outs and combined with clip art, it was a scary time indeed. Hope it doesn't ever get that bad.
He describes the excitement Web 2.0 engenders:
The speed and ease at which these new applications were built is what is getting us very excited about the potential of the Web 2.0 world. Evocative of Dr. Frankenstein building a monster in his attic laboratory using body pieces he found lying around his neighborhood, people with a little skill can create new applications using common elements found lying around the Web in almost no time at all. As the skill requirements for building these applications are decreasing, we think this opens a whole new world of possibilities.
The article lays out the foundation technologies and principles of Web 2.0, such as:
- open APIs (Application Programming Interfaces)
- RSS (site syndication)
- folksonomies (individuals classification of information based on their own words and tagging)
- social networking
The article closes with a caution with a reference appealing to Webslinger:
As Spiderman's Uncle Ben pointed out, "With great power comes great responsibility." Just because we can do all these things doesn't mean we should do them. In the early 1980's, the cheap availability of laser printers and digital fonts produced a plethora of documents that more resembled ransom notes than professional publications. We could easily imagine designers going wild with the capabilities of this new technology and not using the restraint necessary to ensure they produce an optimal experience.
I remember those print-outs and combined with clip art, it was a scary time indeed. Hope it doesn't ever get that bad.
Friday, January 12, 2007
e-Ventful Websites
A Casecamp participant, in promoting the event, alerted me today to the free website Upcoming.org.
Upcoming.org
It's an excellent Web 2.0 example (I hate that term, but it's a useful concept) but I think its functionality far exceeds the confines of just its own website.
Upcoming.org started in 2003 (again I'm discovering these things late - I feel like I've been in a como for the past 2-3 years). Many sites have done event listings and enabled organizing and promoting personal events (evite, for instance). The problem with these is that most websites just didn't have enough event listings or they only did a certain type of event (to use Toronto as an example, Toronto.com, Now and Backbone seemed to miss a lot of significant events and never broadened listings beyond their respective focus). evite et al were great to help host and promote events but didn't offer listings.
Event listings are no easy feet to do either. There are thousands of events going on in Toronto, probably in just one month. I hate to think about a city like New York. How did websites publish this before? I take it they'd have some sort of streamlined process, but ultimately every event must have had to some sort of manual review and some level of manual coding or inputing. A ton of work and explains why so many sites did events so poorly (badly organized, missing events, outdated, etc.).
What's cool about Upcoming.org, now owned by Yahoo, is that it greatly expands the potential and amount of listings.
Upcoming puts the listing creation into the hands of users to create private events or promote public events. Events are organized by city and type (eg. music, arts, festival, commercial, arts - they actually need more types to encompass trade events as for now they all go under "other")
Judging by the number and breadth of events listed, the site has critical mass, they just need to expand beyond their comparative ghetto. That's why I think their service would be way more useful if repackaged in Toronto.com. People already go to this site for this type of information and their editorial and community can add value beyond just a listing.
Upcoming.org does encourage community by having you flagging events that you are attending or considering. You can then see which of your friends are going or share events with friends easily.
Meetup.com
Another, cool event website is Meetup.com.
Meetup seemed to take the idea and basic functionality of Yahoo Groups (which I have loved and used ever since I found others, a group even, of people as devoted and talkative about Xena, Warrior Princess as I was).
The problem with Yahoo Groups is that it is a lonely world and while it's great to post and email other Xenaphiles, it's nice to actually meet people in person some time. Meetup.com is devoted to groups that actually meet in person. Many types of groups and in your city! Even web-geeks needs some human contact every now and then - or just a beer/coffee.
While I registered with Meetup four months ago (I even joined the Toronto Web Centric Meetup Group) I haven't been able to actually been to a meeting yet.
Here's the rub... the Internet has enabled not only great social networking but also bringing unique, and yes often bizarre, groups together. It enables organizing public & private events and promoting them. But it still hasn't found a babysitter for me! Can't leave my two-year-old with Net Nanny.
Upcoming.org
It's an excellent Web 2.0 example (I hate that term, but it's a useful concept) but I think its functionality far exceeds the confines of just its own website.
Upcoming.org started in 2003 (again I'm discovering these things late - I feel like I've been in a como for the past 2-3 years). Many sites have done event listings and enabled organizing and promoting personal events (evite, for instance). The problem with these is that most websites just didn't have enough event listings or they only did a certain type of event (to use Toronto as an example, Toronto.com, Now and Backbone seemed to miss a lot of significant events and never broadened listings beyond their respective focus). evite et al were great to help host and promote events but didn't offer listings.
Event listings are no easy feet to do either. There are thousands of events going on in Toronto, probably in just one month. I hate to think about a city like New York. How did websites publish this before? I take it they'd have some sort of streamlined process, but ultimately every event must have had to some sort of manual review and some level of manual coding or inputing. A ton of work and explains why so many sites did events so poorly (badly organized, missing events, outdated, etc.).
What's cool about Upcoming.org, now owned by Yahoo, is that it greatly expands the potential and amount of listings.
Upcoming puts the listing creation into the hands of users to create private events or promote public events. Events are organized by city and type (eg. music, arts, festival, commercial, arts - they actually need more types to encompass trade events as for now they all go under "other")
Judging by the number and breadth of events listed, the site has critical mass, they just need to expand beyond their comparative ghetto. That's why I think their service would be way more useful if repackaged in Toronto.com. People already go to this site for this type of information and their editorial and community can add value beyond just a listing.
Upcoming.org does encourage community by having you flagging events that you are attending or considering. You can then see which of your friends are going or share events with friends easily.
Meetup.com
Another, cool event website is Meetup.com.
Meetup seemed to take the idea and basic functionality of Yahoo Groups (which I have loved and used ever since I found others, a group even, of people as devoted and talkative about Xena, Warrior Princess as I was).
The problem with Yahoo Groups is that it is a lonely world and while it's great to post and email other Xenaphiles, it's nice to actually meet people in person some time. Meetup.com is devoted to groups that actually meet in person. Many types of groups and in your city! Even web-geeks needs some human contact every now and then - or just a beer/coffee.
While I registered with Meetup four months ago (I even joined the Toronto Web Centric Meetup Group) I haven't been able to actually been to a meeting yet.
Here's the rub... the Internet has enabled not only great social networking but also bringing unique, and yes often bizarre, groups together. It enables organizing public & private events and promoting them. But it still hasn't found a babysitter for me! Can't leave my two-year-old with Net Nanny.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)