Gardening Tools for Social Networks

I had a bunch of interesting conversations with people at the recent Future of Web Apps conference in London. This is more and more my favourite thing about conferences… talking to people and seeing what you end up talking about repeatedly… what are the themes that just emerge from the zeitgeist, with or without any particular curation on the part of the conference organisers.

One of the conversations I found myself having repeatedly was to do with social networks and issues of scaling. That they can just get too diluted, too noisy, too predictable – that they kind of degenerate over time as you add more and more people to your network or as people’s behaviour cycles over time.

It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that whilst a lot of attention is being paid to the problems of adding more and more to your network, we’re not paying enough attention to cultivating our network. We don’t have good gardening tools for social networks.

One set of tools that I would find most beneficial is some kind of reflection of my recent and historical behaviour in the network and the behaviour of others that I’m networked too. As we know, what we *think* we do and what we *actually* do can be two very different things – and both of these sets of information – the perceived and the actual, are equally important. But I don’t get much opportunity to see ‘the real’ in my social network interfaces, short of being told how many ‘friends’ and ‘followers’ I have, for example. This is not particularly useful stuff.

When thinking about this, the closest example to the kind of thing I’d like to see is the ‘Trends’ page you get if you use Google Reader.

Google Reader Trends

What I like about the ‘Trends’ page on Google Reader is that it gives me a whole bunch of ways to cut through the way that I’m consuming my RSS reads, and also what people on my feeds list are doing – who is updating more frequently, who is inactive.

What would something like this for me in a Social Network environment? A few things I think.

Firstly, it will give me the opportunity to reflect a little on my own behaviour in this network – how noisy am I? (Particularly interesting if you can compare it to other people). Are there particular times that I’m more or less noisy (not sure whether that would change my behaviour at all, but it is interesting to be more aware of it). Are there particular people I’m communicating with more regularly than others? Are there types of functions or interactions that I’m engaging with more frequently?

Secondly, it will give me an opportunity to reflect more on the behaviour of those in my network – who are the really noisy ones? Who are the really quiet ones? Who starts conversations that I tend to engage in (responding, saving, favouriting etc.)? How closely are people in my network related? Are there any interesting patterns in the way that they communicate?

A really simple example of one of these kinds of tools can be found on Dopplr and also Jaiku, and it’s just a list of people ‘who I might know’ – using the network effect to help me find people that I might have overlooked connecting with because – as my social network has reached critical mass – the idea of finding new people to add to my network is often less than exciting (what MORE noise!). Avoiding these ‘adding’ tools though can mean that I’m missing out on people who would add real value to my network… so we need ways to overcome this.

Dopplr - People you might know

What am I looking to these tools to help me achieve? Basically, I want more information to help me ‘fine tune’ my social network so that I can make better decisions about who I include in my network so that I can continually fine tune it in a way that gives me the best ongoing value over time.

This is leading me to think that partly what is amiss is that for many social networks, ‘friendship’ is too much like an on/off switch.

When I get a message from Twitter to say that someone has added me, there is a very short routine I go through to decide whether to add them back or not:

1. do I recognise the name? (If yes then more likely to add back, assuming it’s a happy recognition)
2. do they have an obviously spammy name? (If yes, then ignore)
3. check out their twitter page – do they have interesting looking messages? how frequently do they twitter?
4. check out the following:follower ratio. The most appealing ratio is where there are more followers than following, but this isn’t a necessity. However, if your ratio of following to followers is anything more than 20:1 then it’s highly unlikely I’m going to be choosing to follow you.

And, that’s on a good day. On a really busy day where my inbox is very full, if condition 1 isn’t met then quite often it’s straight to the delete button.

This isn’t necessarily the best way to make these decisions. A few times, because people who are following me (who I chose not to follow back) have persistently engaged with me in conversations (that I’ve found through the @ tool, we’re talking Twitter again, sorry!), I have actually gone back and started following them – and my social network has been all the richer for it.

By and large though, once I make this decision, then that’s it. Done. The decision is never revisited again.

Something about this feels kind of wrong to me… really what I’d like is another place. A place where I can put those people who I don’t really know about or who I’m not sure about, or who I haven’t had the time to give enough attention to yet. I’m not quite at the point of thinking I have all the people I need in my social network… I’m still happy and excited about finding and adding new people, if they’re the right people. And I do kind of worry that I’m missing out on these opportunities because I don’t have another place where I can kind of monitor who these people are and whether they’re going to fit into my social network in the longer term… at the moment, they just kind of disappear completely off the radar.

Similarly, sometimes people just get really noisy or really irrelevant to me (it’s not you, it’s me, I’m sure!), and I want a place to put them too. I don’t to just cast them off completely, just a little ‘time-out’.

Is this as simple as ‘tagging’ or ‘categorising’ people, as some have suggested? I’m not sure.

My gut reaction is that having the ability to tag your contacts would be very useful and I’d definitely love to see it. I don’t think it’s the answer to this problem though because we know that people are not particularly good at tagging. If I hardly have time to bother finding out if someone is suitable to add to my ‘following’ list then am I going to have time to ‘tag’ them? I can see some people in my social network being very well tagged, and whole other sections being completely neglected. This is a broken, but it’s also terribly human.

I think that an approach that supports being human better is to provide gardening tools. I don’t know about you – I’m not that much of a gardener, so when I do it I set aside a chunk of time every now and then and I do what I can to get things back into some sense of order.

Similarly, I think we take a little time every now and then to look over our contact lists, our social network, and to try to get it back into shape. Some tools that help us cut through these lists in more helpful ways than ‘alphabetically’ (which seems to be the default.. not really all that helpful).

It makes sense, of course, that social design has been focussed, until now, on helping us add people and communicate with people in our network. Now, as our online social networking becomes more mature, a really interesting challenge will be how to maintain the value of these networks as they scale. I think that these ‘gardening tools’ could be really helpful in that regard.

Would you agree?

Ambient Intimacy at the Future of Web Apps

I was very happy to have the opportunity to hop up and share my thoughts on Ambient Intimacy at the Future of Web Apps conference in London yesterday. The slides are above.

This is a bit of a move on from the talk I presented earlier in the year at Reboot – a little lighter on the ‘theory’ and a little more emphasis on the practical impacts of designing for Ambient Intimacy.

There are still vast untouched areas on this topic that deserve a lot more attention (and perhaps we’ll give them some in the near future) – in particular, ideas around privacy and ‘containing’ ambient intimacy need to be addressed in much greater depth.

I’d be really interested to hear your throughs on this or anything you can glean from the slides above. (I’m really going to have to do one of those audio slideshare things soon… everything will make much more sense, I’m sure).

What’s in it for me? Why people participate in social networking websites

Now that we’re all super excited about social media, and every man and his dog wants to do *something* to do with social networking, it seems a pertinent time to ask… but why?

Why does the world need your product or service to include ‘something social’? Why on earth would you want to create a *new* social networking service? Why does the world need another place to go and try to find all of their friends online and to… well… share stuff?

Good question – and one that doesn’t seem to be asked quite often enough, as we all rush towards being ‘socially compliant’ with our blogs and our wikis and our user generated content and our buddy/friends lists.

If you’re thinking of joining the bun rush (or your client has insisted that they must), I think the first and most important question to ask is from your potential users perspective – what’s in it for them? What’s their motivation to sign up, to find and make friends, to participate, and to come back, ever?

What’s the motivation of your employees (in an enterprise environment) to start or contribute to a blog or to add or edit content on a wiki?

The best framework that I’ve found so far for thinking about it has come via Tom Coates in his presentation ‘Greater Than The Sum of Its Parts‘ where he talks about personal motivation for users in social network environments

Tom quotes Peter Pollack’s ‘Economies of Online Cooperation’ and says that there are four key sources of personal motivation in online social networking, being:

  1. Anticipated Reciprocity
  2. Reputation
  3. ‘Sense of Efficacy’
  4. Identification with a group

Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it. People participate in these things because they think they’ll get back what they put in (and perhaps more), it will enhance their reputation (making them more likely to be the go to person for the cool projects because they’ve established themselves as an expert in that area, for example), they can get things done faster (like using Twitter as Tech Support), or – because that’s where their people hang.

Of course, I’d add into that the Ambient Intimacy effect which I think is more about being connected and less about identification.

At the end of the day though, we *know* that people participate in social networks firstly because they get some value from it personally. The network effect that comes from that is a very welcome byproduct, but it will only come about if the prerequisite of personal value is met.

So, as you, or your client, are considering your foray into the world of social networking – please start by thinking carefully about what value you’re delivering to your user. What is their motivation for using your site? What’s in it for them.

If you can honestly and realistically overcome this first hurdle, then you might have a chance of creating something truly valuable and successful.

What we need, right, is a big volume control for Ambient Intimacy

If you’re designing a social application at the moment, think about how you can be quiet.

This is just one of a million pleas from socially networked people everywhere who are going to great efforts to manage the noise that their networked applications are generating at times when they really need some quiet time to focus.

Some systems (ahem, FaceBook) can be VERY noisy and make the process of quietening more difficult than it needs to be.

Facebook Notifications

Others seem simpler, but the lack of ‘friends management’ tools mean that you can be a lot noisier than perhaps you’d like to be.


But – perhaps the biggest challenge of all is that there are soooo many different systems we need to dial down – just when you think you’ve got them all, something else sneaks through to interrupt you.

Imagine if there was one panel somewhere that all of your noisy applications could hook into and then a big volume control that you can adjust based on how available you are to your network. (Is there some kind of a microformat we can make for this Jeremy?)

So when you’re super busy and you need to focus, you can, with minimal effort, dial down the noise to allow you to concentrate. And when you’re hanging out and are completely open to connections – dial it back up again.

Kind of like how you need different levels and types of ambient noise to match various activities in your day. (In my my presentation on Ambient Intimacy at Reboot I suggested an important challenge for ‘social designers’ was to think more about how to design for ambience in social applications).

In the meantime… until we get this great big volume control… let’s those of us who are designing social applications be thoughtful about this particular user requirement. Let’s make sure it’s easy for our users to quieten us down, and then pump us back up again.

Otherwise they’ll keep banging on about this attention scarcity thing even more and switch us off altogether.