Social lift
The text below contains the concept of a certain project, has a lot of letters, it compiles a number of texts of my blog. I understand the value of short formats, especially in the presentation of projects. A short version of the queue, but I suppose once to paint relatively detail is also useful.
What could be an online resource that combines the main factors stimulating user participation? Participation in a general sense, including the degree of involvement, the quality of presence. What are these factors? How could such a service be positioned?
Following my favorite quote from A. Volozh, you need to look in the direction of traditional society. Where usually the principle “more / better you can, you have more”. ( update 5.04.2010 When the USSR was being spoken of the principle of socialism - “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Essentially the same thing, but in a more well-known and widespread version. Inspired by the post of A. Milner). In addition to benefits, people have more power and influence. Speaking abstractly, the space for their self-realization is growing, the possibility of revealing the inner potential. In the "real" power and influence is most often expressed in the form of delegated authority, which significantly involves management skills. For the Internet, delegation of authority is uncharacteristically, the space for self-realization is mainly of a media nature, and is associated with an influence on minds and feelings. Accordingly, the skills demanded more from the field of journalism and public relations. What is the reason for this specificity, limitations, distortions? Partly on this, I reflected in the notes Factors of social realization , Copyright spaces , “Tax” monetization . Anyway, the goal is to provide Internet users with the broadest possible space for self-realization.
')
Media component
If we take the media component, in general, the authors' need is formulated as a need for audience attention. The copyright space article talks about three components that characterize this attention - volume (number of views), duration (nature of volume distribution over time) and relevance (the ability of the audience, if not appreciated, then at least understand the author). They are not always combined with each other - the volume is not friendly with the duration and relevance, although the last two can be friends. Accordingly, the most common services containing author's content can be divided into two groups: a) providing (on average) a small amount, but high relevance and duration - a blog platform, social networks, forums, encyclopedias (Wikipedia); b) a large volume and relative relevance, but a short duration - media 2.0. This effect in the latter case is due to the presence of the top. Getting into the top always ensures a lot of attention from the audience.
Naturally, even within the limits of restrictions, the goal is the maximum possible for all three points at the same time. What is the nature of these restrictions? 1) The incompatibility of volume and duration is understandable, this is a property of human perception - no topic can be in the focus of attention for a long time. 2) Non-integration, fragmentation of the environment from various services, which is the modern Internet. Each service has its own audience, the relevant subsets of which could be summed up around a common interest and make up a fairly large amount. This is a global, infrastructural problem, we’ll come back to it. In principle, language barriers should be added here.
3) Another limitation is related to the need for clear and understandable positioning of services. For example, Wikipedia articles could bring respect and respect to the authors if the idea of ​​authorship was at least somehow played up. Also, although discussions of articles are possible, the service is not focused on them. Meanwhile, it is self-presentation and communication services that are most popular on the net. Those. Wikipedia ignores the most profitable things in terms of user attention. However, this allows them to focus on one thing - the function of the encyclopedia is in many ways similar to the function of search services, which until now were also the most requested on the Internet (they recently reported that Facebook seemed to have bypassed Google. Anyway, they will be comparable for some time . The idea of ​​an online encyclopedia is exactly the same as the idea of ​​a traditional encyclopedia; it is simple and straightforward. Only simple and understandable ideas can take possession of the masses - from this you need to proceed in the positioning of services. True, the success of Wikipedia is also significantly based on the webdanol component, and not by itself, but in combination with the “wiki principle”, which is described below. Probably a more vivid and illustrative example in terms of the value of accurate positioning - Odnoklassniki.ru. Wikipedia is shown here soon to show that the presence of a strong search component in the service greatly increases the overall interest in it. Although this is not related to the topic being discussed by the audience, the topic of search naturally arises in the following presentation.
Wiki principle
The opportunity to make a unique contribution to the general, to what will be used by many, is a motivator for “quality” participation. Communicates receive a certain social status, a rating that deliberately guarantees a certain level of public attention. Popular bloggers do not realize themselves exclusively within the blogosphere, they become participants, real estate investors, and figures of a common media space. In the immediate space, this also works. In fact, Wikipedia demonstrates a different type of top-tag for the media - a thematic one that every article (unlocked by administrators) falls into, since it fills a unique niche. And although the authors of these articles do not have a public (external) rating, the principle of a wiki seems to be acting anyway, the authors are aware of the significance of their participation and rely on the “internal” rating. In essence, the idea of ​​a wiki expresses the accumulative, “additive” principle of culture, when the new does not repeat the former, but complements or develops it. This is how science and technology develops. But for the modern Internet it is not typical - the same things are discussed in thousands of places in the network, the same arguments are given and results are obtained that in no way complement and develop each other. This is due to the above point 2) - non-integration of the network-wide environment. There is a “supra-platform” or “super-service” integration movement - RSS aggregators, social graph, OpenID, but this is not enough. More or less fully integrated environment can be imagined so far only within the services that would be specifically devoted to this.
User Voting Systems
Returning to the media top, SMI2.0, its quality is determined by user voting systems. The principle of “one vote one point” is very controversial. In any case, it is debatable as a universal approach. Phil Smirnov gave references to papers [1] , [2] , [3] , where rating mechanisms are linked to the nature of specific communities (see also the note Level vs Skill ). Following the same quote from Volozh, in traditional society we will see how it has been practiced for thousands of years. We will see that when filtering by quality, rating mechanisms a) are usually not based on the equality of votes of the participants, b) are context-sensitive. Moreover, these are natural and obvious points - the opinion of a specialist is always more valuable than a non-expert, but the specialist’s “weight” is limited only to his area of ​​expertise. These considerations must also be linked to the nature of specific communities, which makes the problem difficult. Its solution requires scientific research and the involvement of various specialists, from psychologists to mathematicians. And also requires an experiment, user feedback. To intensify the process, also traditional means is the competition of similar services. Suppose there were several Habrov with different user voting systems. As a result, steel b one or two with the most effective system.
( update 04/05/2010 amilner recalled (see here and here ) that in voting systems objects can be rated on several criteria at once. I completely agree, in the “real world” it usually happens.)
Two-piece top
The need for precise positioning mentioned in the example of Wikipedia does not mean that the task of Wikipedia cannot be accomplished in an environment that stimulates various authorial manifestations and social interactions. It can only be stated that such an environment also requires simple and clear positioning. Moreover, in traditional society, thematic top, as a rule, is combined with a rating system - in numerous professional communities, experts "bring up" the most deserving authors and materials. And if you are interested in any specific question, you will be shown some of the most appropriate materials and the most competent specialists. Which when free when for money you will be consulted. Those. in real life, an effective search results model was invented long ago, when apart from the relevant information, a consultant is offered as an option, and a earnings model for these consultants (we add now for the Internet service, too, for the mediation service). ( Update 04/03/2010 - I forgot about Aardvark . Maybe the idea is not exactly the same, but it looks like).
The only condition for a consistent combination of the functions of the network encyclopedia and communication in one service is the ability to easily distinguish different subsets (clusters) from the common set of all its elements. Then a wikipedia-like cluster will result from custom filtering based on quality, interest, relevance, and additional filtering based on the format of the encyclopedic article. This again boils down to the problem of intranet integration.
Types of user activity
Speaking of ratings, we usually associate them with the author or copyright content. With the author it is clear that this connection always exists, but the content on the network is known to be created by far fewer people than it consumes. This contrasts with the task of reaching as many people as possible with rating stimulation, and partly returns to the problems mentioned at the beginning. In addition to creating content, there are other types of rated activity. For example, many more users are able to evaluate other people's works quite well. At the same time, the effectiveness of rating can also be rated (I already wrote how). The ability to organize and structure materials is in demand and rated in services such as Flexum , My Compass (although I think the Internet formats for such skills are not very advanced now; a service specifically dedicated to structuring would help fix this). The mentioned “different Habras” were actually used by different author projects, the success of which is measured-rated most often by the number of users and financial profit. This is an organizational, leadership activity, although the example is not indicative, because people creating projects, even less than creating content. (In fact, there are subtleties with the very definition of the concept of “project”, about which my remark on projects ). In the less “author's” version, managerial skills are relatively widely demanded in the form of moderating.
It seems that the non-proliferation of delegation of authority in the internet, on which the low demand for managers depends, is related to the underdevelopment of Internet formats or services, within which such delegation would be interesting primarily in financial terms, because, if you look at real, vertical hierarchical the structures in it are largely supported by monetary incentives. Those. Ultimately, this is tied to the monetization scheme of Internet projects. In the article Socially significant online games, I proposed a monetization scheme, which in my opinion can contribute to the development of vertically oriented forms. Since then, there have been some examples of the application of something similar: [1] , [2] . And since then, my views have evolved. If the goal is to combine various participation incentive components in one service, logically, this should be a service that combines different monetization schemes. First of all, those that are beneficial to the mass user - making money on advertising in a blog, providing consulting services, paying users for popular content, something else ... Monetizing beauty and attractiveness , for example)) (See the “Tax” monetization note). This is only possible if the service combines different services. What in practice is also realizable only if this union is not a simple sum of the terms. Otherwise, such a hybrid is not available, even for Internet giants such as Google, not to mention the "garage" startups. This again leads to the problem of integration (connectivity) of the intraservice environment.
Integrated environment
My recipe for "hard money" is pretty simple. Connectivity means having connections, and I propose to formalize this abstraction literally: users create content objects of different types and connect them with relations (links) of different types. Structuring in such an environment occurs due to the establishment of the connections themselves, as well as due to the possibility of determining (arbitrary) types (clusters, classes, sets) of objects and connections. Some examples of types are given in Content Positioning . ( Update 04/04/2010 amilner in the above-mentioned texts gives an example of the “setting” of the system by positioning its objects.) If some objects can consist of others (are in the “part-whole” relationship), then almost any structure can be built difficulties. Although these will be “static” structures, they are probably good mostly for building ontologies of various subject areas.
To bring here the dynamics of social interactions, we also need a certain set of operations on objects, as discussed in the article Programming social interactions . They cover the most common things related to the management within the copyright space of the audience’s attention by administering access or “visibility” for different user groups of various specific objects, connections, and types or specific sets of objects and connections. And less common, allowing individual users or communities to establish in their own spaces their own rating systems, monetization schemes, to create "money clusters" - funds that can be redistributed in any way within the system. If we include the operation of delegation of authority to perform operations, then such a system can model truly complex social processes, create vertical hierarchical structures, thereby completing the original task - to provide users with maximum opportunities for self-realization and unleashing their potential in various activities. It sounds difficult, but in an abstract and simple system consisting of only two types of entities - objects and connections, there can not be very many operations, they are also abstracted and their number is minimized. However, on this topic still need to think.
Such an environment has no ready-made formats and boundaries defined by specific services. It implements a different philosophy, a different approach - a specific author or community is the center-attractor, around which specific activity is formatted. In this case, the user (author) project becomes the central concept of service. However, all this happens in a wiki environment. Also in essence, like traditional society, adjusted for greater flexibility and variability of the Internet.
Minuses
Any standardization carries with it both new opportunities and limitations. A project made in the traditional way can have a better design and be better sharpened under high loads. In addition, not any network project can be implemented using the object + connection model. This, in particular, does not include things related to visualization — topography, games ... It’s rather a matter of a certain spectrum of content projects.
pros
The main feature of the “objects + links” system is that links allow to refer the same objects to different sets, classes, clusters, structures. From the point of view of systematization of knowledge, this more accurately reflects reality, when there are simultaneously many criteria by which elements of knowledge are lined up in different hierarchies-taxonomies.
From the point of view of social interactions, this makes it possible to consistently combine the conflicting nature of human communication with the need to stay in a common wiki space.
In addition, it is possible to combine the strict logic of knowledge structures with the aspect of chance in human communication and thinking. I mean that lively discussions or reasoning are rarely thematically consistent and often have completely extraneous (but interesting) side branches. Hard moderation ruins the discussion, and soft moderates navigation - this problem is solved.In the section on the two-component top, a certain kind was also mentioned - the combination of communication and multi-parameter selection of clusters of objects.
The latter can be further developed. People expressing opinions and wanting to express them, billions. But the opinions themselves, arguments, theses on any topic are clustered into a very small set, to which the average user can add little. This combination is also realizable - let the masses of people speak and let an “accumulative” culture exist at the same time.
Perspectives
In the described form, the service potentially covers a variety of functions - not only social networks, blogs, forums, Wikipedia and media 2.0, but also, for example, Enterprise 2.0 and Government 2.0. I think such services in their development could eventually become a tool that seriously transforms many traditional social institutions, including even monsters like states. And this is natural, since the Internet with its main advantage - the elimination of space-time constraints - will inevitably become a “real killer” as soon as it finds the point of the most effective application of its forces. This point is the structuring of resources, as stated in the Aspects of structuring note and its continuation.. Concentration of various relevant resources has always been a key condition for breakthroughs in culture and technology. The main thesis is that in a structured environment it is more efficient to organize various processes. In particular, search. From this point of view, the search task becomes secondary, the main problem now is not how to organize a search in an unstructured environment, but how to structure the environment. The approach proposed here can be called “user-generated structuring” (user-generated structuring). Or structuring 2.0. I would even consider a fair formula: structuring 2.0 = Web 3.0. Services like the one described could be a testing ground for the network of the future.
Positioning
Above is shown not one parallel with the traditional society, this section is also no exception. Socium is a structured resource environment in which the possibility (sufficiently) of unlimited disclosure of the potential of individuals and communities is provided by certain mechanisms and factors. This accurately describes the essence of the proposed service and it would be possible to position it in such a way - “social environment”. But in the name it is better to display the main function, otherwise it will turn out too abstract. Therefore, it is logical to call the elevator a service that enhances the aforementioned traditional mechanisms by Internet capabilities. In such an interpretation, the phrase has a relatively new meaning, although the former sense is also partly preserved - usually, a social elevator is understood not as the whole complex of growth factors of social status and the sphere of personal self-realization,but only separate, particularly effective mechanisms. In the Internet context, the name is loaded with additional meaning, already formed in the traditions of Web 2.0, continuing the line of various services with the adjective “social”. Anyway, the positioning of the service by a social elevator evokes associations with something intuitive, giving an instant idea of ​​“lifting something / someone to some kind of top”. I still have a great slogan up my sleeve, which complements the name and finishes these associations to somewhat greater specificity, although there is still enough room for abstraction. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.continuing the line of various services with the adjective "social". Anyway, the positioning of the service by a social elevator evokes associations with something intuitive, giving an instant idea of ​​“lifting something / someone to some kind of top”. I still have a great slogan up my sleeve, which complements the name and finishes these associations to somewhat greater specificity, although there is still enough room for abstraction. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.continuing the line of various services with the adjective "social". Anyway, the positioning of the service by a social elevator evokes associations with something intuitive, giving an instant idea of ​​“lifting something / someone to some kind of top”. I still have a great slogan up my sleeve, which complements the name and finishes these associations to somewhat greater specificity, although there is still enough room for abstraction. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.although the abstraction still has enough space. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.although the abstraction still has enough space. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.
There is one problem with positioning. The accuracy of its wording contributes to the promotion of the service, but it can also become a brake on further development - due to the inertia of user perception and due to the fact that the previous positioning will no longer be accurate. The question of the evolution of mass services is interesting, it is a separate topic. Here I touch it because “accumulative culture” implies a rather long duration. Probably more than the average life cycle of modern mass services. The ability to build a long-term career is another factor in the “quality” user participation. In fast-flowing Internet time, this can only be ensured by services with a initially great potential for development.
PS From humane considerations some more fragments were not included in this text)
Update 04/12/2010On the site StartupPoint posted a version adapted to their wishes. Something shortened, something changed, added some sections.
What could be an online resource that combines the main factors stimulating user participation? Participation in a general sense, including the degree of involvement, the quality of presence. What are these factors? How could such a service be positioned?
Following my favorite quote from A. Volozh, you need to look in the direction of traditional society. Where usually the principle “more / better you can, you have more”. ( update 5.04.2010 When the USSR was being spoken of the principle of socialism - “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Essentially the same thing, but in a more well-known and widespread version. Inspired by the post of A. Milner). In addition to benefits, people have more power and influence. Speaking abstractly, the space for their self-realization is growing, the possibility of revealing the inner potential. In the "real" power and influence is most often expressed in the form of delegated authority, which significantly involves management skills. For the Internet, delegation of authority is uncharacteristically, the space for self-realization is mainly of a media nature, and is associated with an influence on minds and feelings. Accordingly, the skills demanded more from the field of journalism and public relations. What is the reason for this specificity, limitations, distortions? Partly on this, I reflected in the notes Factors of social realization , Copyright spaces , “Tax” monetization . Anyway, the goal is to provide Internet users with the broadest possible space for self-realization.
')
Media component
If we take the media component, in general, the authors' need is formulated as a need for audience attention. The copyright space article talks about three components that characterize this attention - volume (number of views), duration (nature of volume distribution over time) and relevance (the ability of the audience, if not appreciated, then at least understand the author). They are not always combined with each other - the volume is not friendly with the duration and relevance, although the last two can be friends. Accordingly, the most common services containing author's content can be divided into two groups: a) providing (on average) a small amount, but high relevance and duration - a blog platform, social networks, forums, encyclopedias (Wikipedia); b) a large volume and relative relevance, but a short duration - media 2.0. This effect in the latter case is due to the presence of the top. Getting into the top always ensures a lot of attention from the audience.
Naturally, even within the limits of restrictions, the goal is the maximum possible for all three points at the same time. What is the nature of these restrictions? 1) The incompatibility of volume and duration is understandable, this is a property of human perception - no topic can be in the focus of attention for a long time. 2) Non-integration, fragmentation of the environment from various services, which is the modern Internet. Each service has its own audience, the relevant subsets of which could be summed up around a common interest and make up a fairly large amount. This is a global, infrastructural problem, we’ll come back to it. In principle, language barriers should be added here.
3) Another limitation is related to the need for clear and understandable positioning of services. For example, Wikipedia articles could bring respect and respect to the authors if the idea of ​​authorship was at least somehow played up. Also, although discussions of articles are possible, the service is not focused on them. Meanwhile, it is self-presentation and communication services that are most popular on the net. Those. Wikipedia ignores the most profitable things in terms of user attention. However, this allows them to focus on one thing - the function of the encyclopedia is in many ways similar to the function of search services, which until now were also the most requested on the Internet (they recently reported that Facebook seemed to have bypassed Google. Anyway, they will be comparable for some time . The idea of ​​an online encyclopedia is exactly the same as the idea of ​​a traditional encyclopedia; it is simple and straightforward. Only simple and understandable ideas can take possession of the masses - from this you need to proceed in the positioning of services. True, the success of Wikipedia is also significantly based on the webdanol component, and not by itself, but in combination with the “wiki principle”, which is described below. Probably a more vivid and illustrative example in terms of the value of accurate positioning - Odnoklassniki.ru. Wikipedia is shown here soon to show that the presence of a strong search component in the service greatly increases the overall interest in it. Although this is not related to the topic being discussed by the audience, the topic of search naturally arises in the following presentation.
Wiki principle
The opportunity to make a unique contribution to the general, to what will be used by many, is a motivator for “quality” participation. Communicates receive a certain social status, a rating that deliberately guarantees a certain level of public attention. Popular bloggers do not realize themselves exclusively within the blogosphere, they become participants, real estate investors, and figures of a common media space. In the immediate space, this also works. In fact, Wikipedia demonstrates a different type of top-tag for the media - a thematic one that every article (unlocked by administrators) falls into, since it fills a unique niche. And although the authors of these articles do not have a public (external) rating, the principle of a wiki seems to be acting anyway, the authors are aware of the significance of their participation and rely on the “internal” rating. In essence, the idea of ​​a wiki expresses the accumulative, “additive” principle of culture, when the new does not repeat the former, but complements or develops it. This is how science and technology develops. But for the modern Internet it is not typical - the same things are discussed in thousands of places in the network, the same arguments are given and results are obtained that in no way complement and develop each other. This is due to the above point 2) - non-integration of the network-wide environment. There is a “supra-platform” or “super-service” integration movement - RSS aggregators, social graph, OpenID, but this is not enough. More or less fully integrated environment can be imagined so far only within the services that would be specifically devoted to this.
User Voting Systems
Returning to the media top, SMI2.0, its quality is determined by user voting systems. The principle of “one vote one point” is very controversial. In any case, it is debatable as a universal approach. Phil Smirnov gave references to papers [1] , [2] , [3] , where rating mechanisms are linked to the nature of specific communities (see also the note Level vs Skill ). Following the same quote from Volozh, in traditional society we will see how it has been practiced for thousands of years. We will see that when filtering by quality, rating mechanisms a) are usually not based on the equality of votes of the participants, b) are context-sensitive. Moreover, these are natural and obvious points - the opinion of a specialist is always more valuable than a non-expert, but the specialist’s “weight” is limited only to his area of ​​expertise. These considerations must also be linked to the nature of specific communities, which makes the problem difficult. Its solution requires scientific research and the involvement of various specialists, from psychologists to mathematicians. And also requires an experiment, user feedback. To intensify the process, also traditional means is the competition of similar services. Suppose there were several Habrov with different user voting systems. As a result, steel b one or two with the most effective system.
( update 04/05/2010 amilner recalled (see here and here ) that in voting systems objects can be rated on several criteria at once. I completely agree, in the “real world” it usually happens.)
Two-piece top
The need for precise positioning mentioned in the example of Wikipedia does not mean that the task of Wikipedia cannot be accomplished in an environment that stimulates various authorial manifestations and social interactions. It can only be stated that such an environment also requires simple and clear positioning. Moreover, in traditional society, thematic top, as a rule, is combined with a rating system - in numerous professional communities, experts "bring up" the most deserving authors and materials. And if you are interested in any specific question, you will be shown some of the most appropriate materials and the most competent specialists. Which when free when for money you will be consulted. Those. in real life, an effective search results model was invented long ago, when apart from the relevant information, a consultant is offered as an option, and a earnings model for these consultants (we add now for the Internet service, too, for the mediation service). ( Update 04/03/2010 - I forgot about Aardvark . Maybe the idea is not exactly the same, but it looks like).
The only condition for a consistent combination of the functions of the network encyclopedia and communication in one service is the ability to easily distinguish different subsets (clusters) from the common set of all its elements. Then a wikipedia-like cluster will result from custom filtering based on quality, interest, relevance, and additional filtering based on the format of the encyclopedic article. This again boils down to the problem of intranet integration.
Types of user activity
Speaking of ratings, we usually associate them with the author or copyright content. With the author it is clear that this connection always exists, but the content on the network is known to be created by far fewer people than it consumes. This contrasts with the task of reaching as many people as possible with rating stimulation, and partly returns to the problems mentioned at the beginning. In addition to creating content, there are other types of rated activity. For example, many more users are able to evaluate other people's works quite well. At the same time, the effectiveness of rating can also be rated (I already wrote how). The ability to organize and structure materials is in demand and rated in services such as Flexum , My Compass (although I think the Internet formats for such skills are not very advanced now; a service specifically dedicated to structuring would help fix this). The mentioned “different Habras” were actually used by different author projects, the success of which is measured-rated most often by the number of users and financial profit. This is an organizational, leadership activity, although the example is not indicative, because people creating projects, even less than creating content. (In fact, there are subtleties with the very definition of the concept of “project”, about which my remark on projects ). In the less “author's” version, managerial skills are relatively widely demanded in the form of moderating.
It seems that the non-proliferation of delegation of authority in the internet, on which the low demand for managers depends, is related to the underdevelopment of Internet formats or services, within which such delegation would be interesting primarily in financial terms, because, if you look at real, vertical hierarchical the structures in it are largely supported by monetary incentives. Those. Ultimately, this is tied to the monetization scheme of Internet projects. In the article Socially significant online games, I proposed a monetization scheme, which in my opinion can contribute to the development of vertically oriented forms. Since then, there have been some examples of the application of something similar: [1] , [2] . And since then, my views have evolved. If the goal is to combine various participation incentive components in one service, logically, this should be a service that combines different monetization schemes. First of all, those that are beneficial to the mass user - making money on advertising in a blog, providing consulting services, paying users for popular content, something else ... Monetizing beauty and attractiveness , for example)) (See the “Tax” monetization note). This is only possible if the service combines different services. What in practice is also realizable only if this union is not a simple sum of the terms. Otherwise, such a hybrid is not available, even for Internet giants such as Google, not to mention the "garage" startups. This again leads to the problem of integration (connectivity) of the intraservice environment.
Integrated environment
My recipe for "hard money" is pretty simple. Connectivity means having connections, and I propose to formalize this abstraction literally: users create content objects of different types and connect them with relations (links) of different types. Structuring in such an environment occurs due to the establishment of the connections themselves, as well as due to the possibility of determining (arbitrary) types (clusters, classes, sets) of objects and connections. Some examples of types are given in Content Positioning . ( Update 04/04/2010 amilner in the above-mentioned texts gives an example of the “setting” of the system by positioning its objects.) If some objects can consist of others (are in the “part-whole” relationship), then almost any structure can be built difficulties. Although these will be “static” structures, they are probably good mostly for building ontologies of various subject areas.
To bring here the dynamics of social interactions, we also need a certain set of operations on objects, as discussed in the article Programming social interactions . They cover the most common things related to the management within the copyright space of the audience’s attention by administering access or “visibility” for different user groups of various specific objects, connections, and types or specific sets of objects and connections. And less common, allowing individual users or communities to establish in their own spaces their own rating systems, monetization schemes, to create "money clusters" - funds that can be redistributed in any way within the system. If we include the operation of delegation of authority to perform operations, then such a system can model truly complex social processes, create vertical hierarchical structures, thereby completing the original task - to provide users with maximum opportunities for self-realization and unleashing their potential in various activities. It sounds difficult, but in an abstract and simple system consisting of only two types of entities - objects and connections, there can not be very many operations, they are also abstracted and their number is minimized. However, on this topic still need to think.
Such an environment has no ready-made formats and boundaries defined by specific services. It implements a different philosophy, a different approach - a specific author or community is the center-attractor, around which specific activity is formatted. In this case, the user (author) project becomes the central concept of service. However, all this happens in a wiki environment. Also in essence, like traditional society, adjusted for greater flexibility and variability of the Internet.
Minuses
Any standardization carries with it both new opportunities and limitations. A project made in the traditional way can have a better design and be better sharpened under high loads. In addition, not any network project can be implemented using the object + connection model. This, in particular, does not include things related to visualization — topography, games ... It’s rather a matter of a certain spectrum of content projects.
pros
The main feature of the “objects + links” system is that links allow to refer the same objects to different sets, classes, clusters, structures. From the point of view of systematization of knowledge, this more accurately reflects reality, when there are simultaneously many criteria by which elements of knowledge are lined up in different hierarchies-taxonomies.
From the point of view of social interactions, this makes it possible to consistently combine the conflicting nature of human communication with the need to stay in a common wiki space.
In addition, it is possible to combine the strict logic of knowledge structures with the aspect of chance in human communication and thinking. I mean that lively discussions or reasoning are rarely thematically consistent and often have completely extraneous (but interesting) side branches. Hard moderation ruins the discussion, and soft moderates navigation - this problem is solved.In the section on the two-component top, a certain kind was also mentioned - the combination of communication and multi-parameter selection of clusters of objects.
The latter can be further developed. People expressing opinions and wanting to express them, billions. But the opinions themselves, arguments, theses on any topic are clustered into a very small set, to which the average user can add little. This combination is also realizable - let the masses of people speak and let an “accumulative” culture exist at the same time.
Perspectives
In the described form, the service potentially covers a variety of functions - not only social networks, blogs, forums, Wikipedia and media 2.0, but also, for example, Enterprise 2.0 and Government 2.0. I think such services in their development could eventually become a tool that seriously transforms many traditional social institutions, including even monsters like states. And this is natural, since the Internet with its main advantage - the elimination of space-time constraints - will inevitably become a “real killer” as soon as it finds the point of the most effective application of its forces. This point is the structuring of resources, as stated in the Aspects of structuring note and its continuation.. Concentration of various relevant resources has always been a key condition for breakthroughs in culture and technology. The main thesis is that in a structured environment it is more efficient to organize various processes. In particular, search. From this point of view, the search task becomes secondary, the main problem now is not how to organize a search in an unstructured environment, but how to structure the environment. The approach proposed here can be called “user-generated structuring” (user-generated structuring). Or structuring 2.0. I would even consider a fair formula: structuring 2.0 = Web 3.0. Services like the one described could be a testing ground for the network of the future.
Positioning
Above is shown not one parallel with the traditional society, this section is also no exception. Socium is a structured resource environment in which the possibility (sufficiently) of unlimited disclosure of the potential of individuals and communities is provided by certain mechanisms and factors. This accurately describes the essence of the proposed service and it would be possible to position it in such a way - “social environment”. But in the name it is better to display the main function, otherwise it will turn out too abstract. Therefore, it is logical to call the elevator a service that enhances the aforementioned traditional mechanisms by Internet capabilities. In such an interpretation, the phrase has a relatively new meaning, although the former sense is also partly preserved - usually, a social elevator is understood not as the whole complex of growth factors of social status and the sphere of personal self-realization,but only separate, particularly effective mechanisms. In the Internet context, the name is loaded with additional meaning, already formed in the traditions of Web 2.0, continuing the line of various services with the adjective “social”. Anyway, the positioning of the service by a social elevator evokes associations with something intuitive, giving an instant idea of ​​“lifting something / someone to some kind of top”. I still have a great slogan up my sleeve, which complements the name and finishes these associations to somewhat greater specificity, although there is still enough room for abstraction. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.continuing the line of various services with the adjective "social". Anyway, the positioning of the service by a social elevator evokes associations with something intuitive, giving an instant idea of ​​“lifting something / someone to some kind of top”. I still have a great slogan up my sleeve, which complements the name and finishes these associations to somewhat greater specificity, although there is still enough room for abstraction. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.continuing the line of various services with the adjective "social". Anyway, the positioning of the service by a social elevator evokes associations with something intuitive, giving an instant idea of ​​“lifting something / someone to some kind of top”. I still have a great slogan up my sleeve, which complements the name and finishes these associations to somewhat greater specificity, although there is still enough room for abstraction. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.although the abstraction still has enough space. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.although the abstraction still has enough space. As it should be - because we are talking about a fairly universal service.
There is one problem with positioning. The accuracy of its wording contributes to the promotion of the service, but it can also become a brake on further development - due to the inertia of user perception and due to the fact that the previous positioning will no longer be accurate. The question of the evolution of mass services is interesting, it is a separate topic. Here I touch it because “accumulative culture” implies a rather long duration. Probably more than the average life cycle of modern mass services. The ability to build a long-term career is another factor in the “quality” user participation. In fast-flowing Internet time, this can only be ensured by services with a initially great potential for development.
PS From humane considerations some more fragments were not included in this text)
Update 04/12/2010On the site StartupPoint posted a version adapted to their wishes. Something shortened, something changed, added some sections.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/89770/
All Articles