The Contexts Project
This is a rethinking and reformatting of the idea of the Social Lift project, about which I have already written, more than once: the first option , adapted for StartupPoint option , another option (probably the most unfortunate), a short version , another short version on StartupPoint. I think I will not write more, because I see no reason to continue to improve the description of the idea - this is enough to start thinking about a specific interface and so on.
The essence and relevance
Apparently, the central idea of the service is “maximum opportunities with minimum means”. Based on a simple (meaning relatively cheap to implement) functionality, it is proposed that users create a network of arbitrary objects connected by arbitrary relationships *. This expands the concept of a social network to a “social environment”, which is more familiar to man - in traditional society we are immersed in a world of diverse interrelations not only with people, but also with things, content, organizations, geographical places, and so on.
')
This is a semantic network, since the objects in it “acquire meaning” in the context of interrelations with other objects. The context for content objects is created by their user authors, according to their needs. The context is created, firstly, by creating typed relationships between objects, which is somewhat similar to traditional tagging, and secondly, by typing the objects themselves (assigning them a certain positioning, for example, “post”, “comment”, “opinion”, “ argument").
The most interesting features of such a network are related to the fact that the same objects can belong simultaneously to different contexts. Typing objects and relationships in essence provides a rich set of criteria for content sorting, aggregation and filtering. Complementing this with the ability to manipulate the visibility of objects and relationships for users allows you to isolate different contexts from a common environment and focus on different aspects.
Listed below are the interesting features mentioned.
1) The consistent combination of thematic discussions, with their pronounced component of chance, “oftopicality” and flood, with ordering and structuring (more here ). This in itself could serve as a central idea of the service, since here lies the main incentive for users to participate in it. Firstly, because in a network where tags, tags, topics are themselves objects (nodes) of this network, the ability to communicate leads to the formation of relevant communities around the corresponding tags. Moreover, the communities are relatively single-handed, due to the uniqueness of each tag. That means not just the relevance of the community, but the maximum (in this network) volume of the relevant audience. Then the exact assignment by the author of any content object to the correct tag (tags), as well as the correct positioning (typification) of the object means for this object and its author the correct audience. This is a powerful incentive for both content generation and its structuring. It can be said that this solves the urgent need of authors for social self-realization, and access to a highly relevant audience is interesting from the point of view of advertising and business. Secondly, content is generally easier to generate in the process of communication (and, accordingly, in small formats). This is the most massive activity on the Internet, which leads to the accumulation of a huge number of small-volume units of content. However, the long-term preservation of user interest in any area naturally leads to qualitative transformations of such small-format materials into larger and more structured forms. The problem is that there are few services in the modern Internet (runet) that allow you to collectively structure content (from examples - recently purchased by Google Metaweb with its Freebase) and apparently there are no such that would allow to simultaneously communicate and structure.
2) Partly possible is the presence of conflicting authors in one collective space, which is relevant both in itself and in connection with the aforementioned lack of alternative thematic communities. Read more here .
3) The actual collective (and individual) structuring, without communication, the construction of ontologies, etc., is also essentially a separate activity with its relevance. The service allows you to do this.
4) The “context network” also allows you to create custom services and projects within yourself, including profitable ones. Read more here . We are not talking about sample solutions such as your store, forum or social network. It's about the projects that users come up with themselves. The urgency is that it lowers the level of skills required for creating Internet projects, respectively, more people will be able to self-realize in this way, at the same time improving the lives of many other people. Of course, the projects that have been made so far will not be complete, they will most likely be rather primitive, but for a simple non-programmer user this is a big step forward, even in comparison with CMS.
5) The contextual network naturally expands the base for collaborative filtering and increases its accuracy. Read more here . Relevance is known - interesting offers are becoming more relevant, which is valuable for content authors, for advertising and business.
6) It is also possible to organize "individual-rated" filtering. Read more here . The relevance of this time is to increase the relevance of consumption. And also in mass testing of various options for rating systems.
In general, the project is in line with the ideology of the Semantic Web , albeit with some differences. The role of metadata is partly performed by typed links, and partly by other related (relevant) data in the network (that is, the division into data and metadata depends on the context). In addition, the emphasis is on identifying the possibilities of semantics in terms of social interactions, i.e. This is a human-centered approach. One of the ideas of the project lies in the fact that content structuring is not the main or explicitly declared goal; it takes place in the process of a different, mostly familiar user activity such as communication, self-presentation, building personal social connections, etc. At the same time, a large-scale database is created that is close in meaning to graph databases and knowledge bases of expert systems . Thus, although the project is human-oriented, a foundation is being created for the application of machine technologies in the future, in particular artificial intelligence technologies. (I find this the most likely direction for the development of modern search technologies. Read more here , as entertainment).
* In fact, even now the creation of objects and connections could occur using machine approaches (something like spyware programs analyzing a person’s activity and connections on various information available on the internet, but not necessarily in such a negative context). In other words, the network could be filled with a certain kind of content even without users.
But in and of itself, streamlining content already facilitates the search function. You can think of some advanced version of “Wikipedia”, in which materials with the type (positioning) “topic summary” fall into the top according to user ratings, but not only they are issued in the search results, but all related materials — alternative summaries, opinions, arguments, discussions, experts and more. In addition, this “Wikipedia” would contain user profiles and perform the functions of a social network and blog platform. And also contained profiles of organizations and institutions. Then, probably, a significant proportion of search queries would be satisfied by accessing this database. However, I would not position the project as another alternative to Wikipedia; This is just an example, a sketch that can be obtained on the basis of the semantic network.
Separately, it is worth noting that the formation of non-alternative thematic communities contributes to the relatively rapid identification of “stars” - creative, talented, professional and authoritative people in various subject areas. This is valuable in terms of recruiting.
Monetization
1) The basic idea is to give users the opportunity to earn in various ways and then withdraw interest from their income. First of all, it is connected with the mentioned opportunity to create your profitable services and quickly promote them within the general audience.
2) The second consideration is related to contextual advertising - if authors and content are provided with the maximum amount of intra-service audience, the same can be said about advertising. In theory, it should be effective in such an environment.
Comment
The project is rather unusual for users, and the proposed monetization scheme is not run-in (although it has long been run-in in traditional society in the form of taxes). Given this and the scale of ideas, such a project may be more experimental and in this form is only interesting for large players in terms of occupying a not quite occupied niche. On the other hand, given the relative simplicity of technical implementation (especially taking into account ficicating), it could also be an amateur project of a small group of enthusiasts, with a certain probability of “shooting” and becoming successful and profitable. Here I am not sure about anything. I can not say that I unconditionally believe in the success of the project. Especially not having marketing research and a business plan. I believe only in the rationality of the described approach, as well as in myself)
The target audience
The possibility of communication focuses the service on the widest audience. The search component works for the same. However, the possibilities of structuring and organizing, creating their projects will bring the greatest benefit to advanced users.
Separately, you need to select scientists. They are not always advanced Internet users, but their professional activity is associated with collective structuring. A little more about this here in the section on the target audience.
Ways of promotion
In connection with the diversity of service, you need to think. Since the service has the ability to create “individual” services, a good promotion can serve as more intuitive and focused on specific target audience intraservice projects, such as Startup-Lift .
Well, since this is especially important for scientists and science, to work in this direction, to attract additional funding from scientific organizations and departments for specific (intraservice, again) research projects.
What I need
Feedback, comments, feedback. Also PR)
Otherwise, the options are:
• Companion accomplices. Primarily in the form of a programmer.
• Small funding (? 000 -? $ 0000) to create a prototype or a working version of the site with minimal functionality.
• Large funding ($ 1,000,000) to create a full-fledged service and its promotion.
• Work on a project inside a large company (variants are also possible here).
The essence and relevance
Apparently, the central idea of the service is “maximum opportunities with minimum means”. Based on a simple (meaning relatively cheap to implement) functionality, it is proposed that users create a network of arbitrary objects connected by arbitrary relationships *. This expands the concept of a social network to a “social environment”, which is more familiar to man - in traditional society we are immersed in a world of diverse interrelations not only with people, but also with things, content, organizations, geographical places, and so on.
')
This is a semantic network, since the objects in it “acquire meaning” in the context of interrelations with other objects. The context for content objects is created by their user authors, according to their needs. The context is created, firstly, by creating typed relationships between objects, which is somewhat similar to traditional tagging, and secondly, by typing the objects themselves (assigning them a certain positioning, for example, “post”, “comment”, “opinion”, “ argument").
The most interesting features of such a network are related to the fact that the same objects can belong simultaneously to different contexts. Typing objects and relationships in essence provides a rich set of criteria for content sorting, aggregation and filtering. Complementing this with the ability to manipulate the visibility of objects and relationships for users allows you to isolate different contexts from a common environment and focus on different aspects.
Listed below are the interesting features mentioned.
1) The consistent combination of thematic discussions, with their pronounced component of chance, “oftopicality” and flood, with ordering and structuring (more here ). This in itself could serve as a central idea of the service, since here lies the main incentive for users to participate in it. Firstly, because in a network where tags, tags, topics are themselves objects (nodes) of this network, the ability to communicate leads to the formation of relevant communities around the corresponding tags. Moreover, the communities are relatively single-handed, due to the uniqueness of each tag. That means not just the relevance of the community, but the maximum (in this network) volume of the relevant audience. Then the exact assignment by the author of any content object to the correct tag (tags), as well as the correct positioning (typification) of the object means for this object and its author the correct audience. This is a powerful incentive for both content generation and its structuring. It can be said that this solves the urgent need of authors for social self-realization, and access to a highly relevant audience is interesting from the point of view of advertising and business. Secondly, content is generally easier to generate in the process of communication (and, accordingly, in small formats). This is the most massive activity on the Internet, which leads to the accumulation of a huge number of small-volume units of content. However, the long-term preservation of user interest in any area naturally leads to qualitative transformations of such small-format materials into larger and more structured forms. The problem is that there are few services in the modern Internet (runet) that allow you to collectively structure content (from examples - recently purchased by Google Metaweb with its Freebase) and apparently there are no such that would allow to simultaneously communicate and structure.
2) Partly possible is the presence of conflicting authors in one collective space, which is relevant both in itself and in connection with the aforementioned lack of alternative thematic communities. Read more here .
3) The actual collective (and individual) structuring, without communication, the construction of ontologies, etc., is also essentially a separate activity with its relevance. The service allows you to do this.
4) The “context network” also allows you to create custom services and projects within yourself, including profitable ones. Read more here . We are not talking about sample solutions such as your store, forum or social network. It's about the projects that users come up with themselves. The urgency is that it lowers the level of skills required for creating Internet projects, respectively, more people will be able to self-realize in this way, at the same time improving the lives of many other people. Of course, the projects that have been made so far will not be complete, they will most likely be rather primitive, but for a simple non-programmer user this is a big step forward, even in comparison with CMS.
5) The contextual network naturally expands the base for collaborative filtering and increases its accuracy. Read more here . Relevance is known - interesting offers are becoming more relevant, which is valuable for content authors, for advertising and business.
6) It is also possible to organize "individual-rated" filtering. Read more here . The relevance of this time is to increase the relevance of consumption. And also in mass testing of various options for rating systems.
In general, the project is in line with the ideology of the Semantic Web , albeit with some differences. The role of metadata is partly performed by typed links, and partly by other related (relevant) data in the network (that is, the division into data and metadata depends on the context). In addition, the emphasis is on identifying the possibilities of semantics in terms of social interactions, i.e. This is a human-centered approach. One of the ideas of the project lies in the fact that content structuring is not the main or explicitly declared goal; it takes place in the process of a different, mostly familiar user activity such as communication, self-presentation, building personal social connections, etc. At the same time, a large-scale database is created that is close in meaning to graph databases and knowledge bases of expert systems . Thus, although the project is human-oriented, a foundation is being created for the application of machine technologies in the future, in particular artificial intelligence technologies. (I find this the most likely direction for the development of modern search technologies. Read more here , as entertainment).
* In fact, even now the creation of objects and connections could occur using machine approaches (something like spyware programs analyzing a person’s activity and connections on various information available on the internet, but not necessarily in such a negative context). In other words, the network could be filled with a certain kind of content even without users.
But in and of itself, streamlining content already facilitates the search function. You can think of some advanced version of “Wikipedia”, in which materials with the type (positioning) “topic summary” fall into the top according to user ratings, but not only they are issued in the search results, but all related materials — alternative summaries, opinions, arguments, discussions, experts and more. In addition, this “Wikipedia” would contain user profiles and perform the functions of a social network and blog platform. And also contained profiles of organizations and institutions. Then, probably, a significant proportion of search queries would be satisfied by accessing this database. However, I would not position the project as another alternative to Wikipedia; This is just an example, a sketch that can be obtained on the basis of the semantic network.
Separately, it is worth noting that the formation of non-alternative thematic communities contributes to the relatively rapid identification of “stars” - creative, talented, professional and authoritative people in various subject areas. This is valuable in terms of recruiting.
Monetization
1) The basic idea is to give users the opportunity to earn in various ways and then withdraw interest from their income. First of all, it is connected with the mentioned opportunity to create your profitable services and quickly promote them within the general audience.
2) The second consideration is related to contextual advertising - if authors and content are provided with the maximum amount of intra-service audience, the same can be said about advertising. In theory, it should be effective in such an environment.
Comment
The project is rather unusual for users, and the proposed monetization scheme is not run-in (although it has long been run-in in traditional society in the form of taxes). Given this and the scale of ideas, such a project may be more experimental and in this form is only interesting for large players in terms of occupying a not quite occupied niche. On the other hand, given the relative simplicity of technical implementation (especially taking into account ficicating), it could also be an amateur project of a small group of enthusiasts, with a certain probability of “shooting” and becoming successful and profitable. Here I am not sure about anything. I can not say that I unconditionally believe in the success of the project. Especially not having marketing research and a business plan. I believe only in the rationality of the described approach, as well as in myself)
The target audience
The possibility of communication focuses the service on the widest audience. The search component works for the same. However, the possibilities of structuring and organizing, creating their projects will bring the greatest benefit to advanced users.
Separately, you need to select scientists. They are not always advanced Internet users, but their professional activity is associated with collective structuring. A little more about this here in the section on the target audience.
Ways of promotion
In connection with the diversity of service, you need to think. Since the service has the ability to create “individual” services, a good promotion can serve as more intuitive and focused on specific target audience intraservice projects, such as Startup-Lift .
Well, since this is especially important for scientists and science, to work in this direction, to attract additional funding from scientific organizations and departments for specific (intraservice, again) research projects.
What I need
Feedback, comments, feedback. Also PR)
Otherwise, the options are:
• Companion accomplices. Primarily in the form of a programmer.
• Small funding (? 000 -? $ 0000) to create a prototype or a working version of the site with minimal functionality.
• Large funding ($ 1,000,000) to create a full-fledged service and its promotion.
• Work on a project inside a large company (variants are also possible here).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/102384/
All Articles