Posted on Leave a comment

Fortune cookie say: Get your social network on!

Fortune cookie promotes social networkingThe social network is a buzzword that every Web 2.0 company has to include in their pitch. But what is it? Does social networking matter, or is it just a bunch of hype?

Here’s my brief, unobjective primer to social networks.

When explaining knowledge management to people, I usually tell them that it’s really nothing new. We have been sharing knowledge for ages, both on a personal level and with larger groups of people. At work, you ask a co-worker a question, and they share an answer. The tacit knowledge of one employee is transferred to another in that social transaction.

Likewise, social networks are not anything new. We all have our own personal networks, subconsciously tagged as family, friends, co-workers, business associates and so on.

Wikipedia describes a social network as “…a social structure made of nodes which are generally individuals or organizations. It indicates the ways in which they are connected through various social familiarities ranging from casual acquaintance to close familial bonds.”

So if social networking is nothing new, what’s all the fuss about?

The popularity of so-called social networking sites like MySpace and LinkedIn have captured the attention of the media. These sites generally revolve around the ability for members to setup a personal profile, and identify connections with other members.

In it’s simplest implementation, MySpace is merely a reflection of pre-existing social network structures. A teenager and his friends join, setup profiles, and add each other to their “friends” list. They already know each other. In this case, the virtual network is a mirror image of their real world network of friends.

The virtual networks make it easier to forge new connections, though the tensile strength of those connections is generally much weaker than real world connections. On MySpace, it’s not uncommon to find people who are looking to add everyone and anyone who will accept them as a friend, sometimes generating tens of thousands of friends. Naturally these are not real friends, and the connection can’t really be considered a relationship.

It’s not always vaccuous. Just as in the real world, people are also creating new relationships through these virtual social networks. Sites like Flickr and Last.fm encourage this by showing other members and giving you an opportunity to meet someone whose photography catches your eye, or who has a similar taste in music. These relationships begin much like the old pen-pal relationships I remember from grade school. They begin as virtual communication, and sometimes extend into the real world.

I have a friend who used to spend a lot of time online, communicating with people all over the world via instant messaging. Her network of friends was vast, but tenuous. Eventually, she chose to pull back from the online network and focus on the people she sees face-to-face (which includes some people that she initially met online at one time).I can understand and respect that choice. The tenuous nature of online-only relationships can be shallow and unfulfilling. People are wired for more than cerebral interaction; like Peter Gabriel said “I need contact!

Personally, I’ve made a number of new friends online, through discussion forums such as BigBlueBall, shared interest sites like Flickr and even sites like MySpace. Most of them I’ve never met, and I only know them through our online interaction (and their online personae). Some of them I correspond with regularly via instant messaging or voice chat. A few (about seven, so far) I have met ‘IRL’ (in real life), further strengthening the connection.

Some people may find it strange to make friends online, but it’s not much different from meeting new friends in your community. You participate in an activity with other people (going to church; playing tennis; playing World of Warcraft; exploring Second Life). In the process, you meet some people that you get along with, and a friendship begins.

So what does this mean for online social networks, particularly in the context of Web 2.0 and beyond?

  • For networks to have meaning, they must be limited to real relationships. Flickr may have recognized this when they recently put a limit on the number of contacts you can have.
  • Online communities can foster genuine relationships that exist purely online, but they must be based on common ground. LinkedIn, which focuses on professional networking, recognizes this. You cannot add someone without knowing them, or at least sharing a friend in common.
  • Friend whoring devalues the network. For long term success, communities need to find ways to discourage this behavior and encourage real relationships.
  • Stronger connections are enabled by richer contact experience. Real world relationships generally have the highest likelihood of developing a strong bond, but technologies such as VoIP and webcams can help strengthen online relationships.
  • We need strong, deep relationships as well as casual friendships more typical of online communities.

My fortune cookie encourages me to expand my social network. It’s good advice, but I’d like to hear from you. How do you recommend I expand my social circle?

Posted on Leave a comment

Web 2.0: Bubble or Boom?

Read a great article in the Wall Street Journal today where two venture capitalists face-off on whether the whole Web 2.0 thing is a bubble about to burst or a healthy boom. According to VentureOne, VCs sank $455 million into Web 2.0 companies in the first nine months of 2006 — three times the amount from the same period last year.

The question is, are these companies a good investment. Is the Web 2.0 phenomena a bubble or a boom? Todd Dagres of Spark Capital and David Hornik of August Capital face-off on the issue, with some interesting analysis (I won’t regurgitate the article here, go read it for yourself).

Dagres made a provocative statement: “…the combined cash flow of Spot Runner, LinkedIn and Facebook is less that that of one Costco store.” Hornik counters that the margins of those companies is probably much better than that Costco store, but Dagres’ makes his point. If Web 2.0 companies can’t deliver more than eyeballs — if they can’t deliver the cash — then it’s all just a bubble waiting to burst.

I agree that the barriers to entry are low. Hell, anyone with some decent AJAX coding skills and a clever idea can cobble something together on a bare-bones budget. And sure, most of those sites (like the billions of dormant blogs) will fade away and no one will miss them.

But what’s really being questioned here is not the Web 2.0 phenomena, but the potential of those companies that have taken venture capital. And frankly, most of those companies have potential.

Sure, there’s a number of MySpace wannabes and YouTube clones that will eventually fail, but the ones with strong market support (audience share), a sustainable business model, and solid leadership will do well. Just as any business with those qualities will generally do well.

So far, the VCs have resisted the urge to buy into the hype machine like they did during the Web 1.0 bubble. The market has been stingy to some firms that really understand the community and user-driven strategies of the Web 2.0 (like Yahoo).  We’re not faced with the runaway mess of VCs urgent to give money away lest they miss the boat (the name was Titanic).

Personally, I’m not to bothered by the whole thing. Good websites, providing good services or products and delivering value in a package that provides an opporunity to provide a good return will do well.

Remember, the cream always rises to the top. 

Posted on 8 Comments

MTB + Web 2.0 = Geoladder

GeoladdersI recently relocated to Aliso Viejo. Now instead of spending three hours on the road each day driving to and from the office, my commute is about five minutes. This gives me roughly 15 hours each week to fill with more meaningful pursuits. Pursuits such as mountain biking.

Being new to the area I set out looking for some trails nearby and ran across the amazing Geoladders.com site.  This site elegantly combines community, user-driven content, GPS data, Web 2.0 technology and asynchronous competition in a really special way.

I’ve used other sites like Trails.com for planning hiking routes, but Geoladders takes the cake. It does a helluva mashup with Google Maps, providing turn-by-turn directions with photos. They also merge GPS and terrain data to provide a 3-dimensional view of the trail, with elevation gain.

Although the stated purpose of the site combines GPS data from your rides with the duration to create a competitive ladder, this site is useful even for riders interested in finding and checking out potential trails.

I’ve focused on mountain biking because that’s my interest, but they also support road biking. In any case, check it out — it’s a great example of the Web 2.0 done right.

Posted on 8 Comments

Flickr files patent for ‘Interestingness’

You know I’m a big fan of Flickr. The online photo community has, for me, been fun, useful, amusing, educational and immensely interactive. Flickr helped popularize the whole concept of folksonomy tagging. And their secret formula for calculating ‘interestingness’ has an uncanny knack for surfacing truly amazing photos.

What exactly is interestingness? Well, it’s a method of calculating which photos are the most interesting, using information such as the tags used to describe the photo, how many times it’s been viewed, how many comments it’s received, the age of the photo, how many times it’s been saved as a favorite, and by whom — and probably a few other factors. The combination yields delightful results. Whereas Google’s image search reveals what you expect (the mediocre stuff), Flickr’s interestingness factor delivers the exceptional. Tim O’Reilly recently described a perfect example of Flickr’s interestingness in action.

The beauty of interestingness, as explained by Yahoo!’s own Bradley Horowitz, is that it exponentially expands the pool of participation within a community. People participate in the process of establishing interestingness without necessarily doing anything. Which is exactly what community builders want; a way to get the lurkers and the consumers to share their knowledge and insights.

Ok, so interestingness is a good thing, right? Well, now Yahoo has filed a patent application on interestingness.  Now I can understand that Yahoo! wants to protect their secret sauce, but isn’t that really limited to the weight factor they give each variable in their interestingness equation? If they are awarded the patent, does this mean I can’t take usage metrics to derive results in other arenas, like serving up the most interesting/salient/relevant knowledge? And really, is the concept of relevancy (however it’s defined) really new?
I love Flickr, and I like Yahoo! But this patent is too broad and filled with “uninterestingness.” Let’s hope it dies quietly.

Posted on Leave a comment

Nakama: Moblogging Photos Made Easy

Nakama logoMost mobile phones these days come with a basic camera built-in. It’s handy for spur-of-the-moment snapshots. I’ve used it in stores to capture price and SKU info for further research, or to document that fender-bender in the parking lot.

What’s not convenient is a way to share those photos online. Sure, a lot of the mobile companies have services, but if you’re already using something like Flickr, you don’t want or need another online gallery.

A number of companies have created add-ons that allow uploads from your mobile to Flickr, including Shozu, Nokia and Yahoo’s own Zonetag. But none of these would work with my HP iPAQ hw6515.

Enter Nakama.  This free service allows you to upload photos from any mobile phone capable of sending picture messages. While Nakama does provide it’s own online gallery, the real strength is it’s ability to automatically publish uploaded photos to your Flickr, MySpace or Live Space account.

I’ve tested Nakama,  and it worked perfectly. No special software was required, just the ability to send picture messages from my phone.

One caveat — the gallery of popular photos on Nakama contains a lot of suggestive photos. They do provide a “flag as inappropriate” capability, but so far, the majority of visitors apparently approve. Personally, I don’t give a rip about their own gallery; I’m only interested in using the service to make it easy to post to Flickr. And that it does quite well.

Posted on Leave a comment

Google Gets YouTube-ular

Today, Google announced that they have agreed to purchase YouTube, the outrageously popular video sharing site, for $1.65 billion in stock. YouTube was nothing a year ago, and now this? Kudos on the nicely executed exit strategy guys. Now let’s see if Mark Cuban was right.

Michael Arrington at TechCrunch as posted his notes from the conference call with the press, announcing the deal. Basically a lot is still unknown, other than that Google Video will not be going away (why not!?) and that they are looking for ways to integrate YouTube with Google Search (duh).