Groups

Super post, getting a user interested is a key one for sure. My approach has been real live events and meetings and then after to continue the discussion in a forum of some sorts online - therefore even 10 or 12 people who have been attending can feel genuinely part of the discussion - alot of wo...

Super post, getting a user interested is a key one for sure. My approach has been real live events and meetings and then after to continue the discussion in a forum of some sorts online - therefore even 10 or 12 people who have been attending can feel genuinely part of the discussion - alot of work but worth it as these 10 or 12 usually hang around for years and stay in touch with the discussion online. I think for anahita a nice registration work flow and invites (done in a nice way for groups and personal profile) could be exciting. nice post

I thought I'd share this article: Surprisingly Good Evidence That Real Name Policies Fail To Improve Comments

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surprisingly-good-evidence-that-real-name-policies-fail-to-improve-comments/

Looks like improving comments goes back to good community management and ha...

I thought I'd share this article: Surprisingly Good Evidence That Real Name Policies Fail To Improve Comments

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surprisingly-good-evidence-that-real-name-policies-fail-to-improve-comments/

Looks like improving comments goes back to good community management and has little to do with having a real name policy.

I opened four Google App accounts this week to (handle domain mail. docs etc) and was pleasantly surprised. I finally caught a glimpse of the bigger Google picture. With the app store, I was able to install several reasonably good free apps (like an accounting system, project management system & ...

I opened four Google App accounts this week to (handle domain mail. docs etc) and was pleasantly surprised. I finally caught a glimpse of the bigger Google picture. With the app store, I was able to install several reasonably good free apps (like an accounting system, project management system & a few others) into my different Google app accounts. So suddenly I had a menu on the top of my window with my Google+, Mail, Docs, Calendar, Accounting plus a whole host of other apps, all tightly integrated with the Google eco system.

In this context it became obvious why Google don't want anonymity on their network. Google+ is not a social network in the Facebook sense. And Facebook will never be able to catch up with what they have so stealthily achieved. Facebook will forever remain a playground while Google becomes  the defacto online network for business  with a strong social networking context woven into its fabric.

With Google+ social networking is put back into context. With Facebook we have the activity stream as the central component, while with Google+ it remains just a component in the ecosystesm. 

In my experience most social networking platforms have tried to emulate Facebook to a degree. But this week it became clear that Google have been truly innovative with their approach.

In a sense Twitter and Facebook (and 4Chan for that matter) are much more politically orientated, and in that context, pseudonyms remain an important tool for free expression without persecution. With Google, and LinkedIn however, being business orientated systems, there can actually be very little good reason for someone to be anonymous, unless they are publicly known by their pseudonym.

I haven't had a chance to view the video as I am on my phone, but I was thinking about this and came to the conclusion that it is probably impossible for any single provider to satisfy everyone. I have no need for pseudonyms or games, but I am sure other people do. Perhaps they have no need for c...

I haven't had a chance to view the video as I am on my phone, but I was thinking about this and came to the conclusion that it is probably impossible for any single provider to satisfy everyone. I have no need for pseudonyms or games, but I am sure other people do. Perhaps they have no need for circles, or don't use Google Apps.

The points Robin makes are part of it, and I think that if people are unhappy about the way one network handles it, they should go to another one (or start their own). It would be awful if one network was able to become all things to all people and dominate anyway.

I suspect in the future we will all have our preferred network, Apis will make it less of an issue being on a different network to someone else you know, and many people will continue to be present on more than one.

As a result, Apis and other data exchange wil become more and more important (as well as the strategy networks adopt in implementing these, ie getting as much benefit as possible while not giving away the family silver...).

You see me now...I show my tru face LOL

Just to see how this feels... make it so for this discussion at least

I have defended before the importance of real identities. I am basically of the same opinion as Andy - not much use for anonymity, but think in many other cases it makes a whole lot of ...

You see me now...I show my tru face LOL

Just to see how this feels... make it so for this discussion at least

I have defended before the importance of real identities. I am basically of the same opinion as Andy - not much use for anonymity, but think in many other cases it makes a whole lot of sense.

But I watched the video and found the young man intriguing - I have little interest in 4chan, but the man made an impression on me.

I think the question underlying the anonymity issue goes back to what is its symbolic meaning. Anonymity exists and is used in many instances. For example, we know that experts sharing opinions do a better job when they don't know whose opinions these are. And there are tons of cases like that.

People at certain times flock to places where they can be anonymous - this has been the attraction of many cities. Quite possibly inflow of new anonymous people to cities is the very life blood of creative potential - the stress of the established order, the conformist, the politically correct; and the chaotic, disorderly, free, the force creating new connections and embodying the repressed emotions - squatters of all sorts, etc.

On the Internet it is not so different - Facebook is the polite and correct that excludes a lot of emotional expression - a about likes. The anonymous (Faceless-non-book)spaces offer a space of equality where different factors can co-mingle without prejudice.

If the interaction of any site is about any sort of objective content like riding bikes, or walking on trails, or doing business...quite possibly there is not much need to dissolve difficult situations, and so require less or no anonymity.

But take a power situation within an established organisation, where weaker voices may hold important answers but are heard through prejudiced filters (e.g. the opinions of subsidiaries, minorities, young employees, customers... vs people who are 'experienced' ).

In any group of 'experts' this sort of situation arises - seniority, gender, origin, connections, even a simple doctor's coat, all sorts of things ...prejudice perception, listening, attention, respect, empathy....

Yet anonymity does not necessarily has to be purely negative cover up, to allow mischief. One could be known to be a member of a group that shares a purpose, yet benefit from a non-descript identity to interact more freely, in a situation when this is necessary - new products, reflection of how well the business is doing, how the customers see us from the outside, etc.

What Moot (Christopher Poole, if that is his name) says is really worth pondering. Not about circles, but roles we each take within any given circle...

Here is what I suggest:

You can start by manually adding the first 10-20 people from your immediate circles and get started. Populate profiles, interact, get the game started.

Then you can start with an inquiry form to pick and choose the first let's say 100 or 1000 people. The very first peopl...

Here is what I suggest:

You can start by manually adding the first 10-20 people from your immediate circles and get started. Populate profiles, interact, get the game started.

Then you can start with an inquiry form to pick and choose the first let's say 100 or 1000 people. The very first people who join a community pretty much determine the culture of that community. You want to first start with the best people.

At this stage do start a blog and let the world know about the purpose of your project. Tell them why they should join your community, what you are all going to accomplish, and how you are going to do it.

Most important of all start with people who you think are more likely to gain followers. If you seed your community with influencial leaders, they will attract more followers. If you seed a community with followers, you may not be happy with the results.

Once you reach a critial mass number of members and your intuition tells you that the community is able to mostly sustain itself, then consider openning to the public.

Things to accept - I find each very interesting to discuss - so I will just take the first point for now - this says "social and technical cannot be extricated". I understand this as - you can't program groups or communities; you can't make waves - these things happen, and it is an art that requi...

Things to accept - I find each very interesting to discuss - so I will just take the first point for now - this says "social and technical cannot be extricated". I understand this as - you can't program groups or communities; you can't make waves - these things happen, and it is an art that requires a lot of subtlety.

Implication => If you have a completely finished product, you will have no community, no waves, no energy. 

Shirky says "So the group is real. It will exhibit emergent effects. It can't be ignored, and it can't be programmed, which means you have an ongoing issue. And the best pattern, or at least the pattern that's worked the most often, is to put into the hands of the group itself the responsibility for defining what value is, and defending that value, rather than trying to ascribe those things in the software upfront. "

I would add, that also if one tries to submit to a ruler/leader/system one inevitably creates a scapegoat - blame the leader, the software, etc - so acceptance by the group that it us up to them to make it work is paramount. Before this happens one can't really say there is a community of purpose, just a grouping of separate individuals.

The catch is that groups left on their own tend to do what Shirky says in the opening part  - pair-off, vilify the enemy and or deify/venerate the one way. They will stay at the basest level of potential and forget their higher aims.

From here emerges the challenge what is the minimum/optimal rules for the community to prosper? (isn't this what humanity is all about?)