Social architecture: what you need to social network did not die immediately after birth?
At first it was difficult to write on the web, because it was necessary to have a certain literacy. Then it became easy to write. Some more time passed, and the information became so much that chaos arose. This chaos spawned the demand for software that allows you to organize the surrounding information: cut off the excess and show the main thing. People now need such a thing that helps to overcome all data streams from the network - and at the same time not lose important things to work, including in a group.
Something like this usually represents a corporate social network.
Surely you know examples of such things: they are convenient trackers, convenient systems for working together on code, RSS readers and so on. All this is the means that turn a bunch of sources of information into an organized structure. The main ones are social networks: they provide relevant and interesting information for you.
')
Last month, Ross Mayfield gave a lecture at Digital October, where he talked about how to think about the network architecture, how to make people like it, and how to initiate live communication. At the same time, he explained what was wrong with G + and why Facebook needed Instagram.
Ross is now engaged in the development of SlideShare, he came up with Socialtext before, and before that he worked with Fujitsu marketing and was an adviser to the President’s office in Estonia (the country where disconnecting the Internet means disconnecting the whole country from the world). By the way, literally in a week he managed to sell his solid piece of Linkedin to the information about password leakage. Ross has a lot of practical experience and organization of information flows, and building communication within corporate communities.
Mobility simply turns the modern Internet. The point is not even geo-targeting or simple access to the network, but the fact that tablets and phones allow you to simultaneously be in the real world and on the network. When we sit at a stationary computer, we cannot walk in the park, for example. But you can get a mobile gadget for a walk, check in at the DPSnik booth, see where the nearest cafe is and write to a friend on Twitter so that it goes to you. While everyone around is talking about the fact that social networks are killing real communication, Ross thinks that they, on the contrary, will unite people at the expense of widespread use of mobile devices.
Here is an example:
So, the two main trends of the modern network are described above: people began to isolate and emphasize their personality more on the network (which was very difficult 10 years ago), plus devices that are always with you are widely used. There is one more thing left - the adaptation of modern software to the social environment. There is a demand for web-based architecture. If earlier it was important to redraw the application interface so that it became clear for untrained people, now it is important to redo the architecture so that the software works on different technical platforms, in different operating systems and does not load the user with data on standards. Example - Dropbox, which is almost the same under all operating systems, and many users do not see much of a difference between access on the desktop and tablet.
General standards like RSS are very much needed by networks, and, remarkably, they arise quickly and, in fact, independently (not centrally, like HTML5, for example). These standards make it easy to transfer personal data and social graphs to networks from one place to another. Any startup today, using the social network API, can easily get the social graph of a user who would otherwise have to recruit over the years.
At the same time, the corporate environment is extremely conservative. Most of the really used software is inherited from the old versions: fundamentally new things are hampered in development, because they are not proven. First of all, it beats on teamwork: almost everyone has isolated systems that can intersect through ERP connectors, if they are lucky. We are discussing the need for a platform for sharing documents, information, maintaining personal contacts with representatives of other departments with reference to business processes.
Compare with the offices of companies. There are facades: this is what everyone sees, including occasional visitors: for example, these may be pages of closed groups, where there is still some basic information. Then - a place like a hall where customers and visitors are allowed. Next - offices only with "their" and private negotiation, where you can have a conversation without any extra people. Facebook has it all. On Twitter, the architect decided that the whole building would be a large hall, and only a small corner would remain for negotiations.
For the corporation, such an architecture is generally understandable, but not suitable: the fact is that it is necessary to prevent leakage of classified information. In this case, the architect tries by the very structure of the system to encourage the exchange of necessary information. Given that now there is no need to put almost any effort to exchange information, it is extremely difficult to protect against leaks.
Now windows and doors: you need to somehow take into account the communication network with the outside world. In the role of windows, external services will appear, such as integration of Vkontatka news (when data is collected outside, but the user does not run away from the resource) or Facebook cards. Windows is easy to connect and disconnect. Windows between network sites (for example, bundles of groups) determine the possibilities of viral data distribution. Doors are places where people get into the net. For example, almost all modern startups make the doors as wide as possible, remove all entry restrictions or allow you to register in one click. And this is a victim of the privacy of communication. You can sacrifice ease of connection and make some privacy, such as the entrance with passes (invites).
For members of the social community, it is important to express one’s self (otherwise the community would not be social). In fact, each network or group reduces all participants to a common denominator. This denominator (or ideal) is the most important factor in the success of communication. If people are comfortable in trying on the role of such a common denominator, they will come back again and again.
The second important factor is the desire to disclose information about yourself. IT specialists usually relate to this paranoid, but here, for example, in California (in the home of Ross) young people are ready to tell almost everything about themselves. In Russia, the situation is not very different in the youth environment. Many windows for some houses are bad, because those who are looking for information about a person will definitely find it in such a place.
Another thing needed to start a conversation is an object that attracts attention. It could be an iPad, it could be a picture, coffee, after all. In the physical world, these objects are full, they surround us at every turn, while on the web the best example of such objects will probably be photos.
This is very important: each photo can be discussed with friends and acquaintances. And in Facebook, most of the activity is controlled by user photos. They can be liked, fumbled and discussed: it is very interesting to users. It is for this reason that Facebook paid a billion for Instagram: after all, on the threshold of an IPO, it was impossible to allow a small and young competitor to shoot and become a really serious competitor on a fully mobile platform. In the future, social networks will be attentive to things that are interesting to discuss. Ross thinks that most of these things will come from what a mobile phone can generate.
In the corporate segment, there is an analogue of Twitter, Yammer. He has a similar architecture. The only critical difference is stimulating people while continuing to communicate. You can not just open the chat, you need things that will be discussed. These could be potential customers, important deals, products, and so on. Something similar happened to Power Point: in 2006, the development team realized that presentations were important for corporations, but could not be sent by mail. This idea came to the future head of the project in India, where (lo and behold!) There are many Hindu programmers around. This is how SlideShare appeared, where each presentation is a social object.
The goal can also be considered an important social object. The best example is Kickstarter. There are also services of quitting, weight loss, training, and so on: friends and relatives know that you are moving towards the goal.
Reed Hoffman once offered to list the seven deadly sins, and then draw analogies with the motives for using different social networks. The principle is very simple: at the heart of each network is not architecture as such, but an architecture suited to the satisfaction of some kind of human passion.
For the sake of the attractiveness of a resource, you often have to sacrifice control: for example, you build a building, but you don’t know what furniture the users will bring and what colors they will paint on the walls. Ross advises to first look at the first people on the social network, consider what rules they secretly form, and only then fix them as norms of behavior.
Most people do not make any significant contribution to the generation of information. Others generate data, but, as it may initially seem, unsystematic. True, if there are enough of them, the law of large numbers works: for example, the average article in a wiki can be considered incomplete, not completely accurate, somewhat biased - but on average more than good.
So, success in the social environment depends equally on how you design the environment, what incentives and motivators you give to attract people, how you can provide content so that word of mouth works. The desire to share information in a new social environment is also important: for example, G + is good for almost everyone except the last. The value of any environment is the number of people: the more inside a person and the more often they turn to the community, the higher the significance of the environment for all participants.
Ross’s lecture in Russian and English (ibid, complete transcript).
Something like this usually represents a corporate social network.
Surely you know examples of such things: they are convenient trackers, convenient systems for working together on code, RSS readers and so on. All this is the means that turn a bunch of sources of information into an organized structure. The main ones are social networks: they provide relevant and interesting information for you.
')
Last month, Ross Mayfield gave a lecture at Digital October, where he talked about how to think about the network architecture, how to make people like it, and how to initiate live communication. At the same time, he explained what was wrong with G + and why Facebook needed Instagram.
Ross is now engaged in the development of SlideShare, he came up with Socialtext before, and before that he worked with Fujitsu marketing and was an adviser to the President’s office in Estonia (the country where disconnecting the Internet means disconnecting the whole country from the world). By the way, literally in a week he managed to sell his solid piece of Linkedin to the information about password leakage. Ross has a lot of practical experience and organization of information flows, and building communication within corporate communities.
Two trends: people and mobile devices
Mobility simply turns the modern Internet. The point is not even geo-targeting or simple access to the network, but the fact that tablets and phones allow you to simultaneously be in the real world and on the network. When we sit at a stationary computer, we cannot walk in the park, for example. But you can get a mobile gadget for a walk, check in at the DPSnik booth, see where the nearest cafe is and write to a friend on Twitter so that it goes to you. While everyone around is talking about the fact that social networks are killing real communication, Ross thinks that they, on the contrary, will unite people at the expense of widespread use of mobile devices.
Here is an example:
I have one familiar company called Industrial Molds, which is engaged in industrial casting, judging by its name, faced such a problem that people working in production, on whom, in general, everything depends on the company, they felt that they were completely torn off from all other employees of the company. Let's say from those who work in the sales department or in the office. And the company decided to distribute to all production employees iPad, so that they are constantly in touch with other employees of the company. And it seems to me a good example of how social software can play no longer a technical, but rather a psychological role in our life.
Third Trend: General Standards
So, the two main trends of the modern network are described above: people began to isolate and emphasize their personality more on the network (which was very difficult 10 years ago), plus devices that are always with you are widely used. There is one more thing left - the adaptation of modern software to the social environment. There is a demand for web-based architecture. If earlier it was important to redraw the application interface so that it became clear for untrained people, now it is important to redo the architecture so that the software works on different technical platforms, in different operating systems and does not load the user with data on standards. Example - Dropbox, which is almost the same under all operating systems, and many users do not see much of a difference between access on the desktop and tablet.
General standards like RSS are very much needed by networks, and, remarkably, they arise quickly and, in fact, independently (not centrally, like HTML5, for example). These standards make it easy to transfer personal data and social graphs to networks from one place to another. Any startup today, using the social network API, can easily get the social graph of a user who would otherwise have to recruit over the years.
At the same time, the corporate environment is extremely conservative. Most of the really used software is inherited from the old versions: fundamentally new things are hampered in development, because they are not proven. First of all, it beats on teamwork: almost everyone has isolated systems that can intersect through ERP connectors, if they are lucky. We are discussing the need for a platform for sharing documents, information, maintaining personal contacts with representatives of other departments with reference to business processes.
How is the social environment in general?
Compare with the offices of companies. There are facades: this is what everyone sees, including occasional visitors: for example, these may be pages of closed groups, where there is still some basic information. Then - a place like a hall where customers and visitors are allowed. Next - offices only with "their" and private negotiation, where you can have a conversation without any extra people. Facebook has it all. On Twitter, the architect decided that the whole building would be a large hall, and only a small corner would remain for negotiations.
For the corporation, such an architecture is generally understandable, but not suitable: the fact is that it is necessary to prevent leakage of classified information. In this case, the architect tries by the very structure of the system to encourage the exchange of necessary information. Given that now there is no need to put almost any effort to exchange information, it is extremely difficult to protect against leaks.
Now windows and doors: you need to somehow take into account the communication network with the outside world. In the role of windows, external services will appear, such as integration of Vkontatka news (when data is collected outside, but the user does not run away from the resource) or Facebook cards. Windows is easy to connect and disconnect. Windows between network sites (for example, bundles of groups) determine the possibilities of viral data distribution. Doors are places where people get into the net. For example, almost all modern startups make the doors as wide as possible, remove all entry restrictions or allow you to register in one click. And this is a victim of the privacy of communication. You can sacrifice ease of connection and make some privacy, such as the entrance with passes (invites).
What you need to start communication?
For members of the social community, it is important to express one’s self (otherwise the community would not be social). In fact, each network or group reduces all participants to a common denominator. This denominator (or ideal) is the most important factor in the success of communication. If people are comfortable in trying on the role of such a common denominator, they will come back again and again.
The second important factor is the desire to disclose information about yourself. IT specialists usually relate to this paranoid, but here, for example, in California (in the home of Ross) young people are ready to tell almost everything about themselves. In Russia, the situation is not very different in the youth environment. Many windows for some houses are bad, because those who are looking for information about a person will definitely find it in such a place.
Another thing needed to start a conversation is an object that attracts attention. It could be an iPad, it could be a picture, coffee, after all. In the physical world, these objects are full, they surround us at every turn, while on the web the best example of such objects will probably be photos.
This is very important: each photo can be discussed with friends and acquaintances. And in Facebook, most of the activity is controlled by user photos. They can be liked, fumbled and discussed: it is very interesting to users. It is for this reason that Facebook paid a billion for Instagram: after all, on the threshold of an IPO, it was impossible to allow a small and young competitor to shoot and become a really serious competitor on a fully mobile platform. In the future, social networks will be attentive to things that are interesting to discuss. Ross thinks that most of these things will come from what a mobile phone can generate.
In the corporate segment, there is an analogue of Twitter, Yammer. He has a similar architecture. The only critical difference is stimulating people while continuing to communicate. You can not just open the chat, you need things that will be discussed. These could be potential customers, important deals, products, and so on. Something similar happened to Power Point: in 2006, the development team realized that presentations were important for corporations, but could not be sent by mail. This idea came to the future head of the project in India, where (lo and behold!) There are many Hindu programmers around. This is how SlideShare appeared, where each presentation is a social object.
The goal can also be considered an important social object. The best example is Kickstarter. There are also services of quitting, weight loss, training, and so on: friends and relatives know that you are moving towards the goal.
Reed Hoffman once offered to list the seven deadly sins, and then draw analogies with the motives for using different social networks. The principle is very simple: at the heart of each network is not architecture as such, but an architecture suited to the satisfaction of some kind of human passion.
For the sake of the attractiveness of a resource, you often have to sacrifice control: for example, you build a building, but you don’t know what furniture the users will bring and what colors they will paint on the walls. Ross advises to first look at the first people on the social network, consider what rules they secretly form, and only then fix them as norms of behavior.
Someone once offered companies the following deal: you will transfer all of your employees to our network and find out who of them is communicating with whom, what informal connections are, and you will actually get control over all the information they generate. This can also be considered an architectural decision, but it certainly lies on the other side of constitutional rights and freedoms.
Most people do not make any significant contribution to the generation of information. Others generate data, but, as it may initially seem, unsystematic. True, if there are enough of them, the law of large numbers works: for example, the average article in a wiki can be considered incomplete, not completely accurate, somewhat biased - but on average more than good.
Summary
So, success in the social environment depends equally on how you design the environment, what incentives and motivators you give to attract people, how you can provide content so that word of mouth works. The desire to share information in a new social environment is also important: for example, G + is good for almost everyone except the last. The value of any environment is the number of people: the more inside a person and the more often they turn to the community, the higher the significance of the environment for all participants.
Ross’s lecture in Russian and English (ibid, complete transcript).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/145293/
All Articles