Copyright
The reason blogs have soared is that they made publishing text easy for non-techies.
- Generally, the publication of texts was available to non-techies, for example, on forums long before the appearance and mass development of blogs. Those. This is not the reason. Blogs, unlike forums with their “collective” texts, have a much more pronounced author component - this is one of the main reasons for the popularity of blogs, in my opinion. However, without commenting and frending, i.e. without elements of a collective social environment, blogs obviously would not have become as popular. Such statistics are not enough for conclusions, so it’s not so much a conclusion as an assumption: the success of the content-generating mass services largely depends on the balance of individual authoring and social-collective beginnings. But what is the right balance, what should we strive for?
Traditional society is largely based on vertically hierarchical relationships (head-slave relations), which generally contributes to the manifestation of the “author's principle” among bosses. Let's look at private business - in the names of firms often the name of the owner or founder is played up. Perhaps the most vivid examples of copyright business are obtained when it is associated with the professional specialization of the founder - the clinic of Dr. Bubnovsky, the institute of Natalia Nesterova, and the design studio of Artemy Lebedev. In art, classical authoring projects are various kinds of productions - films, performances, ballets. Although the director usually does not participate in them himself, they say “the film of such and such”, “the performance staged by such and such”. In science, research institutes or their subdivisions are named after someone only posthumously, but this means that at one time they were, to a certain extent, the author’s lifetime projects of these people. Political and religious projects are also often copyrighted and based on vertical links. Probably, the success of all these vertical models is largely due to the correct proportion of individual and collective - on the one hand, they allow individual creative leadership, organizational and managerial talents to be revealed, and on the other, to take advantage of collective work with distribution of duties, specializations and functions.
')
However, vertical links are completely uncharacteristic for the Internet, horizontal links are reigning here. The only tools of direct subordination in the network are in the rights of moderators of various resources, and basically it is only a “stick” - to restrict access or ban. Gingerbreads are also there, they manifest themselves indirectly through rating systems and encourage the desired behavior, but this is usually a collective impact, not a moderator function. In addition, the moderator is usually not thought of as the “author” (ideological inspirer) of the resource, his position is considered more technical - to keep order and follow the rules. Of the rare exceptions - the orthodox forum of Andrei Kuraev. In it, he is not just the main moderator, he determines the policies, themes, orientation and general spirit of this Internet site. The horizontally connected Ineta environment contributes to the fact that the authors mainly create the content themselves (or collect someone else's content), which is hardly the most efficient way of production. Accordingly, the formats of activity of well-known authors are mostly blogs, less often autonomous sites (although Nosik said that less often, rather, only in Runet), even less often “one person’s media”. In the case of online media, by the way, we also have an exception, since they usually reproduce the vertical connections that exist in the "real", i.e. a staff of paid editors, journalists, and other employees. It can be assumed that the online media reproduced the traditional model with almost no changes, because the Internet did not significantly change either the meaning or format of the media, nor their monetization model - although magazines and newspapers cost money, it rather pays for paper and other expenses than makes a profit. ; Profit is made on advertising ( amilner expressed this consideration). Network publications are free, but for them there is no cost for paper, because their free does not radically change the situation - the main income is still made on advertising.
Here we come to the question of why horizontal links prevail in the internet. If we accept that monetary interest is one of the main factors that motivates people in “real” to organize themselves into vertical structures (otherwise there would be much less willing people on the role of subordinates), then one of the visible reasons is the strong differences with “real” in monetization schemes. Perhaps, the way of monetization was influenced by the initial free of charge of many Internet services - this prompted the use of the advertising model everywhere and changed the conditions of competition and the nature of the development of services. Probably, the effect of mass services on the average user, which usually does not think about their own undertakings with the need to involve other users, also affects here. Accordingly, Internet services are rarely positioned so that paid services between users are assumed (as in private business) or the ability of some users to decide how much money others will receive (such as when financing from funds). However, the development of the Internet will not be able to ignore the advantages of vertical formations, which are confirmed by the experience of traditional society, so the trend will be directed there one way or another. Especially considering that the monetary interest in this issue is not the only one - people can gain valuable experience from collective cooperation, develop social ties. Another important difference of the "real" is the presence of a "super service" in the form of the state, when using tax and other organizational mechanisms there is a redistribution of funds to finance such vertical structures that would not arise as a result of the activities of private business alone - the army, the fundamental science etc. Probably, something similar can in principle be done in the framework of sufficiently massive Internet services, but a separate article should be devoted to these issues. It should also be added that vertical associations may also be based on ideological motives (for example, religious or political beliefs). Probably, this includes "game" moments, for example, role-playing games.
The efficiency of self-produced content by authors is lower than in vertically-collective structures; Nevertheless, it can be quite high and largely depends on the characteristics of the author’s audience. Usually authors are able to produce high-quality content (including free), if their audience is 1) relevant, i.e. able to appreciate; 2) is quite numerous; 3) is quite “long-lasting” in the sense that the author's content is not one-time use, but it can be used in the future for the development of other authors. In this regard, the horizontally-oriented Internet environment also has room for development. I mentioned earlier the problems of various network formats regarding this aspect: autonomous authoring sites seem to be good only for already established authors with an accumulated audience. Or in combination with the simultaneous use of other resources that have a collective component. Blogs emphasize the author's beginning, but the author must build his audience himself, and this is a long and specific process, because Not every author of good content is also good at shaping his audience. In forums, the audience is usually already formed and the probability of being noticed is high, but its volume, as a rule, is rather limited and the problem of relevance often remains relevant. The volume and relevance of the audience in social media is highly dependent on the voting system. At the same time, as the resource grows in popularity, the composition of its users changes (worsens :)), which means the voting system should respond to these changes. This is an interesting task and I find it promising, but it is probably not easier than moderating the content manually. It almost turns social media into a kind of ordinary. As for the “duration”, all three mentioned formats are not capable of providing it - due to the positioning and the functionality that is not sufficient for it. To ensure the duration and relevance of the audience, social databases are good, but in their present form they do not give it a large amount, and also severely limit the space of the author's self-manifestation. However, the duration and volume are two incompatible things, since no topic can be long in the top of the attention of a large audience. Approximately the same can be said about the ratio of volume and relevance - in most cases, an increase in volume means a fall in relevance (this is all the more true the more specialized topics are affected). But the duration of the audience, most likely, in most cases means its relevance, although the reverse is not necessarily true. Thus, as among these conflicting conditions, finding the optimal solution that allows you to reach the largest possible audience, the most relevant and the longest possible audience is the actual problem for the near future.
Previously, I suggested a possible approach to the optimal formation of the author’s audience, but there was not much about stimulating vertical communities. This is not surprising, since The monetization scheme was not spelled out. Nevertheless, ideologically, the two indicated directions of development represent one thing - the development of the idea of ​​authorship in its most general understandings, the stimulation of authorial self-manifestation, the identification of the formats of such activity. I would summarize what was said in the concept of copyright spaces - this is a collective environment for individual authorial activity, and a resource environment in general (informational, financial, cultural, etc.), and the format (interface) of their interaction.
- Generally, the publication of texts was available to non-techies, for example, on forums long before the appearance and mass development of blogs. Those. This is not the reason. Blogs, unlike forums with their “collective” texts, have a much more pronounced author component - this is one of the main reasons for the popularity of blogs, in my opinion. However, without commenting and frending, i.e. without elements of a collective social environment, blogs obviously would not have become as popular. Such statistics are not enough for conclusions, so it’s not so much a conclusion as an assumption: the success of the content-generating mass services largely depends on the balance of individual authoring and social-collective beginnings. But what is the right balance, what should we strive for?
Traditional society is largely based on vertically hierarchical relationships (head-slave relations), which generally contributes to the manifestation of the “author's principle” among bosses. Let's look at private business - in the names of firms often the name of the owner or founder is played up. Perhaps the most vivid examples of copyright business are obtained when it is associated with the professional specialization of the founder - the clinic of Dr. Bubnovsky, the institute of Natalia Nesterova, and the design studio of Artemy Lebedev. In art, classical authoring projects are various kinds of productions - films, performances, ballets. Although the director usually does not participate in them himself, they say “the film of such and such”, “the performance staged by such and such”. In science, research institutes or their subdivisions are named after someone only posthumously, but this means that at one time they were, to a certain extent, the author’s lifetime projects of these people. Political and religious projects are also often copyrighted and based on vertical links. Probably, the success of all these vertical models is largely due to the correct proportion of individual and collective - on the one hand, they allow individual creative leadership, organizational and managerial talents to be revealed, and on the other, to take advantage of collective work with distribution of duties, specializations and functions.
')
However, vertical links are completely uncharacteristic for the Internet, horizontal links are reigning here. The only tools of direct subordination in the network are in the rights of moderators of various resources, and basically it is only a “stick” - to restrict access or ban. Gingerbreads are also there, they manifest themselves indirectly through rating systems and encourage the desired behavior, but this is usually a collective impact, not a moderator function. In addition, the moderator is usually not thought of as the “author” (ideological inspirer) of the resource, his position is considered more technical - to keep order and follow the rules. Of the rare exceptions - the orthodox forum of Andrei Kuraev. In it, he is not just the main moderator, he determines the policies, themes, orientation and general spirit of this Internet site. The horizontally connected Ineta environment contributes to the fact that the authors mainly create the content themselves (or collect someone else's content), which is hardly the most efficient way of production. Accordingly, the formats of activity of well-known authors are mostly blogs, less often autonomous sites (although Nosik said that less often, rather, only in Runet), even less often “one person’s media”. In the case of online media, by the way, we also have an exception, since they usually reproduce the vertical connections that exist in the "real", i.e. a staff of paid editors, journalists, and other employees. It can be assumed that the online media reproduced the traditional model with almost no changes, because the Internet did not significantly change either the meaning or format of the media, nor their monetization model - although magazines and newspapers cost money, it rather pays for paper and other expenses than makes a profit. ; Profit is made on advertising ( amilner expressed this consideration). Network publications are free, but for them there is no cost for paper, because their free does not radically change the situation - the main income is still made on advertising.
Here we come to the question of why horizontal links prevail in the internet. If we accept that monetary interest is one of the main factors that motivates people in “real” to organize themselves into vertical structures (otherwise there would be much less willing people on the role of subordinates), then one of the visible reasons is the strong differences with “real” in monetization schemes. Perhaps, the way of monetization was influenced by the initial free of charge of many Internet services - this prompted the use of the advertising model everywhere and changed the conditions of competition and the nature of the development of services. Probably, the effect of mass services on the average user, which usually does not think about their own undertakings with the need to involve other users, also affects here. Accordingly, Internet services are rarely positioned so that paid services between users are assumed (as in private business) or the ability of some users to decide how much money others will receive (such as when financing from funds). However, the development of the Internet will not be able to ignore the advantages of vertical formations, which are confirmed by the experience of traditional society, so the trend will be directed there one way or another. Especially considering that the monetary interest in this issue is not the only one - people can gain valuable experience from collective cooperation, develop social ties. Another important difference of the "real" is the presence of a "super service" in the form of the state, when using tax and other organizational mechanisms there is a redistribution of funds to finance such vertical structures that would not arise as a result of the activities of private business alone - the army, the fundamental science etc. Probably, something similar can in principle be done in the framework of sufficiently massive Internet services, but a separate article should be devoted to these issues. It should also be added that vertical associations may also be based on ideological motives (for example, religious or political beliefs). Probably, this includes "game" moments, for example, role-playing games.
The efficiency of self-produced content by authors is lower than in vertically-collective structures; Nevertheless, it can be quite high and largely depends on the characteristics of the author’s audience. Usually authors are able to produce high-quality content (including free), if their audience is 1) relevant, i.e. able to appreciate; 2) is quite numerous; 3) is quite “long-lasting” in the sense that the author's content is not one-time use, but it can be used in the future for the development of other authors. In this regard, the horizontally-oriented Internet environment also has room for development. I mentioned earlier the problems of various network formats regarding this aspect: autonomous authoring sites seem to be good only for already established authors with an accumulated audience. Or in combination with the simultaneous use of other resources that have a collective component. Blogs emphasize the author's beginning, but the author must build his audience himself, and this is a long and specific process, because Not every author of good content is also good at shaping his audience. In forums, the audience is usually already formed and the probability of being noticed is high, but its volume, as a rule, is rather limited and the problem of relevance often remains relevant. The volume and relevance of the audience in social media is highly dependent on the voting system. At the same time, as the resource grows in popularity, the composition of its users changes (worsens :)), which means the voting system should respond to these changes. This is an interesting task and I find it promising, but it is probably not easier than moderating the content manually. It almost turns social media into a kind of ordinary. As for the “duration”, all three mentioned formats are not capable of providing it - due to the positioning and the functionality that is not sufficient for it. To ensure the duration and relevance of the audience, social databases are good, but in their present form they do not give it a large amount, and also severely limit the space of the author's self-manifestation. However, the duration and volume are two incompatible things, since no topic can be long in the top of the attention of a large audience. Approximately the same can be said about the ratio of volume and relevance - in most cases, an increase in volume means a fall in relevance (this is all the more true the more specialized topics are affected). But the duration of the audience, most likely, in most cases means its relevance, although the reverse is not necessarily true. Thus, as among these conflicting conditions, finding the optimal solution that allows you to reach the largest possible audience, the most relevant and the longest possible audience is the actual problem for the near future.
Previously, I suggested a possible approach to the optimal formation of the author’s audience, but there was not much about stimulating vertical communities. This is not surprising, since The monetization scheme was not spelled out. Nevertheless, ideologically, the two indicated directions of development represent one thing - the development of the idea of ​​authorship in its most general understandings, the stimulation of authorial self-manifestation, the identification of the formats of such activity. I would summarize what was said in the concept of copyright spaces - this is a collective environment for individual authorial activity, and a resource environment in general (informational, financial, cultural, etc.), and the format (interface) of their interaction.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/58322/
All Articles