Spirited Thought

One of the magical things about grassroots computing – grassroots anything probably – is that any success is decided by the participants. This basic rule is what ensures support but perplexes companies who want to make money from the productive application of technology. Users of technology do not overtly care about the monetary value of technology which is what makes it even harder – we are all quite content to use something we deem useful even if – and often even more if – we are delighted by it.

One of the challenges companies fall into is trying to create a community or an online social experience where there is no compelling groundswell. Online community development and certainly grassroots computing are not about technology, so building something rarely begets either.

Web 2.0-ifing existing applications is often a sure way to move further away from productive. The only time it helps is when the existing solution has a decidedly undesirable experience and the aspects of grassroots activity might result in better outcomes. Adding a set of widgets tells people you acknowledge and recognize the movement, designing or conceiving business with social computing as a core heartbeat tells people you are the movement. If you are successful, you did it right otherwise you learned a lot.

If the barrier to progress focuses on a framework articulating the values of the past or present, then the outcome will be one that follows instead of leads. There is plenty to be done meet the expectations of traditional returns on investment, but they will necessarily either limit innovation or shape the potential successes. To be really leading edge new measures and values are required that articulate the future state. Without this it is all smoke and mirrors.

Clippinger turns to Robin Dunbar and colleagues to show that there is a correlation of neocortex development (thinking and problem solving) and membership size in social groups.

…the evolutionary success of Homo sapiens can in large measure be attributed to its ability to manage complex social relationships.

Page 57 from A Crowd of One

Clippinger pulls a great passage from Dunbar that describes the notion that what challenges an individual animal is tracking the societal groups in which it partakes. Dunbar then offers another view that maybe it is not the quantity, but the quality of the relationships. The following page explores the famous statistic that people successfully organize informally at groups of 150-200.

This book continues to have botox on the brain moments with the occasional brilliant series of pages. It is as if Clippinger started with a fantastic 80-page paper that inflated to fill a book. Regardless, the gems make you want to commit concept to memory.

One behavior that continues is the incessant friending activity on social sites, regardless of the site’s purpose. Sites even suggest other people you might know and connect. As interconnections grow, the network inherently diminishes in quality. The notion of identifying a connection with another person, community or organization is a simple enough activity. Maybe adding the need to classify those connections beyond a binary state was an inhibitor to adoption. Was this something FaceBook noticed, or was it simply that the creators never had higher intentions?

Moving beyond high-level classification, the next useful articulation is quality – how connected are we? There is plenty of work and math that can analyze these issues, however it all presumes having access to the data. Moreover, are my behaviors in online social spaces reflective of connected I am to my network? The data analysis is inherently reliant on the accuracy and relevance of the data. Might I love someone dearly that I hardly interact with online? Again, this level of analysis introduces yet another step to organizing our view of the societal graph and might be prohibitive to adoption.

On a related but separate note, some interesting user experience work is being done in the MIT Media Lab around visualizing and managing the adhoc face-to-face social network. Check out the project called Snap N’ Share by Nadav Aharony, Andrew Lippman and David Reed.

This brings us back to the point that humans are able to execute each of these tasks – identification, classification and qualification – without trouble. Short of disease, it is safe to assume that forgotten people accurately reflects their status on our societal radar. The hope of the articulated social graph being leveraged by technology is that maybe we will finally see what we are missing.

What is beautiful about the notion that humans have been so successful because of our ability to manage relationships is that it is startlingly not about being an individual. At an individual level, it is the quality of the relationships we create, but it is the group that benefits. What would we even do with an optimized view of society and is that discussion really absent from society?

The success of social spaces rests in their ability to create and support meaningful relationships. The proliferation of week ties in the social graph is noise in what could be a high fidelity signal. In the end, meaning is embodied in the people and the technology is just an enabler. What might these spaces be like if the only goal was to support meaningful connections?

Photo albums used to be the family bible, visually recording the event of people, places and events. It required the acts of photographer, editor and album constructor. It was a labor of reminiscence and duty. As the holder of the photos and the negatives, only they had the artifacts to construct the story. As viewers we enjoy impressions among the context, artifacts of a trip are embedded, mementos of the event. The event of constructing the photo album is all but dead - it too has been abstracted.

The transformation of the photographic world to a digital reality moved the activity of album construction to the computer. Initially people focused on recreating what they had in the real world, the physical photograph. It turned out that it was more expensive per print than traditional means, but the rationale was that someone only printed what they wanted. Enter stage right, the photo editor who traditionally used contact sheets or prints now filtering with computer screens and postage stamp LCDs on cameras. Dramatically reduced, the cost to take pictures results in higher volumes of images for review, the editor continues to filter. Photos, now files, need to be backed up to CD, DVD or external storage. To work with photos beyond the basics requires software of all shapes and sizes that helps make the most of where we have evolved to be. We live in an age of visual abundance, requiring constant editing, leaving the activity of visual story telling to the dedicated few.

Forget not the magic of the Internet! Enter stage right, jogging next to digital cameras, photo-sharing websites. While the photo album continues to be nourished by older generations, the common people are looking to recover the social aspect of their visual record. The current state of the art is Flickr. Heavily edited, socially aware photo sharing, with family, friends and everyone. The construction of the Flickr account requires the same photographer, editor and album constructor, but add to it uploader, annotator, taxonomist, commentator, moderator and more. Image distribution casts a wider net. Instead of just family and friends physically present with the photo album, anyone can browse the gallery and experience a different kind of story, one favorited and commented by the known and unknown. This introduces two pressures. First, who has access to someone’s images what and do they care. Second, these photos are a representation of someone’s impressions and moreover their view – the editing they applied to select a specific set of photos for others to experience. Now that literally everyone sees them, what is it that they intended to say? Filter, filter, filter. Far fewer images are seen and when they are, they lack the context of the human touch that made photo albums something of reverence and reminiscence. Just over the hill, on the other side of the coin, everyone enjoys the endless visual content that the society has constructed, defining the societal view and the visual trend. The slow death of the analog photo album leaves us somewhere different.

Digital photo frames reintroduce the album in a Harry Potter device. Pictures often cycle through allowing the viewer to see more than a single photo. The i-mate Momento 100 is a ten-inch digital photo fame that is wifi-connected and mates with an online service to bring much, much more to photo frames. Any shortcomings are quickly forgotten when someone experiences the magic. Momento Live is the site that mates with the frame allowing the frame’s owner to subscribe to feeds, Flickr or others, and have those photos automatically downloaded and updated on the frame. In addition, the frame has an email address and MMS interface. Send an email with a photo attached and the image graces the frame. The owner is no longer the album creator. People of their own selection enter the mix. Add a Flickr feed generated from a search and view endless images of <insert keywords here> by people you may never know. The Momento points in the direction of recapturing and evolving society’s notions of the photo album, the photo sharing experience. The frame becomes the magical portal into moments experienced by the individual and others, remixed to impress upon the viewer. If only we were able to capture the human touch and replay that. The story is becoming more interesting, but lacks the meaningful connections people create when they share face-to-face.

Send a photo to my Momento!

FaceBook presents interesting fodder around a variety of topics including personal privacy, affiliation and community building. In some cases, those topics create interesting tension with each other. For example, in creating your profile you might add all of your intimate details (i.e. phone numbers, aliases, photographs). You then may join any variety of networks or groups where traditionally you managed your profile in how you socially engaged them. For example, in a work affiliated environment you might disclose something different from a support group or political action network. Furthermore, you might have tended to keep those affiliations to yourself. That photograph of your wild college experience probably is not something you were looking to share with your employer or your priest. Now, there are levels of access controls on elements of your profile, but participating means letting it all (most of it) hang out. To get the benefits you need to surrender your guard and jump in the ball pit.

Once you are invested in the space, your contacts begin interacting with you. Writing on your wall (e.g. like leaving a note on your door), sending hugs and looking to see how compatible you are with them by asking you to take a taste test. All fine and good if you understand what you are doing, where the data are being stored and how they are going to be used. With the constant creation of new FaceBook applications – components enable additional functionality – users are encouraged to add them to their profile. To receive a hug, you need to add an application like SuperPoke, which comes with both the terms and conditions of Facebook and the application developers. While FaceBook spells out their privacy policy and the limitation of personal information sharing (e.g. applications wont get your email address), what is considered personal is constantly evolving, as are terms and conditions. The invitation to join in the fun no longer shows up as an email, but as a hug that requires joining a network in the network to receive it or share it. Therein hides a bit of genius!

Instead of leading the interaction with signing up, enable participation to lead to the sign-up. This is powerful for three reasons:

• First, interactions initiated from people we know, we trust, at least to some extent.
• Second, the interaction is often context rich (e.g. I thought of you when I came across this book.) hiding the sub-context (e.g. signing up) in a genuine message and implicit endorsement.
• Third, joining in enables action and reciprocation, something people tend to do if only in polite acknowledgment.

Tie the goals of a primary task to the motivations of a secondary task, engaging the collective in what is of self-interest, while satisfying the true activity.

Yesterday morning while catching up on some email a Photojojo email from July 20 featured The Simpsonizer. My results were pretty good. Interestingly enough, I find this two dimensional avatar more accessible than my Second Life me, Vienna Lamourfou. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the couple of times venturing as Vienna I ended up immobilized in a teleport.

Given a set of Simpsonized friends, could our FaceBook, Twitter and IM chats have a little more character? What kind of cartoon might that be like? How about our interactions taking the form of a printed comic? How might it change our experiences and memories of what we are doing in virtual spaces?

The human relationship with music is an interesting one. For all of its meaning in my life, it is not something I consider a passion. I have always admired friends who are musicians or loved and immersed themselves in music. One of the projects my team has worked on over the last twelve months is an internal media library, a corporate youtube if you will. The parts that have me engaged are the social interactions and the implications of leaving tracks in online spaces.

I was listening to Regina Spektor, Lucinda Williams and Rickie Lee Jones this morning. The first I heard about from my mom, the latter two from CBS Sunday Morning. Both cases were high-touch interactions, my listening to the direct recommendation by sources I trust. Finding the music on iTunes to buy and then transfer to my iPod is actually a subtly intimate affair. I have to remember the artists, find them in the iTunes store, identify the album, part with my money and then transfer to my device so I can experience the music. iPods are inherently personal. They offer custom engraved messages letting the world know mine is mine. They communicate through an 1/8th inch jack and often into ear bud speakers directly into my head. That is the bridge from the artist’s inspiration to my brain. Now the music has access to my innermost ticking.

There is plenty of work done on the impact of music on the human being – playing classical to babies in the womb to Tibetan singing bowls. Listening to music is intimate in that we construct relationships both with those who share and we share it with but also the artist, the words and sounds that resonate with us. We time code life with it and connect with other people through gifts and gifting. In addition, we are now annotating it with ratings, tagging, comments and play lists.

Anyone living a Web 2.0 lifestyle – using applications like Flickr or Technorati – is sure to have seen a tag cloud. Typically tag clouds depict the frequency a tag has been used within a system. The larger the word, the more times that tag has been used. The idea is that tag clouds are a good indicator of community behavior, which is very misleading.

Tag clouds do provide a navigation interface which requires almost zero learning. Relative size seems like a universal concept for importance. Clicking on a tag usually shows a collection of items tagged with that word. The cloud is often contextual to a given page so digging into a collection is as simple as clicking tags in the cloud.

Tag clouds as we know them are actually not very useful. They are, in fact, a tease – so easy to use and communicating just enough to be interesting. The problem is that just because a tag is used in high frequency is not an indicator for what a community finds interesting. It is literally a display of how often a tag is used within a given context. In many cases the word flower is distinguished from flowers, even though they are obviously very similar in spelling and meaning.

A friend and colleague pointed me to a blog posting discussing how clusters were introduced to Flickr – groupings of related tags without the use of a high-level label or facet. If clustering can be done well, it offers a more interesting possibility for tag clouds. Instead of simply reflecting the use of a given tag, tag clouds could display the activity for a given cluster. It might very well be that the community is interested in food, but more people are using the tags “family”, “friends”, and “porn” so, as a user, you would never know. The use of clusters is an opportunity to reveal the higher level topics a community is actively working with. Flickr has chosen not to label their clusters. You can actually explore Tags / clusters / clusters. However, all you are really doing is browsing clusters of tagged images that are also tagged clusters. A less confusing example is exploring Tags / summer / clusters which limits the clustering to all images tagged with summer, which can be seen as a facet – a folk-facet. Certainly the URL convention makes it feel like a facet, but, is it really?

[digression starts]

Taxonomists seem to be fascinated with the emergence of folksonomies, but are quick to remind you that they are very different things. So, a facet that is applied by a user is different that one used by someone versed in the science of classification. Again, at first glance, Flickr appears to be automatically identifying facets, but is really just generating clusters from leftover tags. For example, look for clusters on Bergdorf Goodman and you get items tagged nyc, newyorkcity, newyork, etc. A typical faceted browse might show a breakdown within that category of clothing lines (i.e. mens, womens, childrens etc). Instead you are left with the breakdown of whatever the collection has been tagged. So, while it is possible to select a tag that might be a facet, for Flickr, it is not a facet, it is a tag. However, I would maintain that a user could intend to apply a facet through tagging, but the usefulness of that tag as a facet is lost because the system itself is unaware of the higher level categorization. Additionally, it would require that the tags, if clustered browsing was going to return a faceted collection would need to be limited to those expected from a faceted collection. (i.e. In the case of Bergdorf, mens, womens or childrens) Otherwise, the faceted browsing would be a mess, worse than not having the ability at all, because there would be no science to the tagging.

Taxonomies and formal faceted browsing are different activities from tagging and need separate user experiences. In that last example, it is clear that a user could intend a tag to have a higher level grouping property, but unless the system understands this then it is in fact, just a tag. If categorization was important in Flickr, I would expect a different interface from tagging to facilitate the classification.

I often ask what the difference is between content that is tagged or categorized “dog”. If I were surfing facets I might have different breeds under “dog” and maybe items tagged “dog” without a breed. If I were surfing tags, I would expect all dogs and if interested in a breed, I would enter it as a tag. Combine the two and I might browse a collection by facet, “dog” and then filter by tag, “flatfaced.” Is this any different than compound tagging, where one tag is ANDed to another tag? (i.e. dog AND flatfaced) Is the difference limited to the intention of the user who assigned “dog” as a facet and not as a tag? What happens when a user applies the same word to both the category and tag? Are they plugged into formal classification enough to distinguish the differences in meaning? Should they be? Should they care?

[digression ends]

Someone needs to birth version 2.0 of the tag cloud where the visualization is driven by the clustering of tags and not just the use frequency of a tag. Maybe someone has. I can even imagine layering user activity of browsing tagged items on top of the activity of users tagging. A fabulous side project!