What You Smell Like, versus Your Features and Functionality.
"Ever watch dogs social-networking ?
They cut to the chase pretty quickly"
(A comment I left on Teledyn the blog)
"ROTFL !"
(the response by Gary Lawrence Murphy - mrG)
Gary has written an excellent analysis of why this first wave of what is called social-networking software is badly flawed.
I can't help thinking that a default mindset to the mental models of engineering, and the seeming male predilection for things, gizmos, linear thinking, whatever - is one of the key reasons why this first wave won't work.
This was recently brought home to me very clearly. I belong to a small group of seven guys roughly 40 to 50 years old. We formed this group ostensibly to help each other with business opportunities and such like, although to me it's clear that the main value of this group is in providing a place where these fledgling men can talk about things that matter to them. I don't think most of them see it that way - whenever the interaction gets rich and useful, they want to get back to business and money stuff.
However ... recently we have discussed (again) whether to use email, forums, a bulletin board, a blog, and so on to keep in touch - we've tried them all, and the group wants some clarity on this.
But ... what I found interesting about this back-and-forth conversation was the impatience that came through when talking about the *process* - contrasted by the fervour and enthusiasm when a question in one of the emails led to a flurry of emails about what was best - a smartphone, a Treo, a Sony Clie, etc. All of a sudden, several emails were full of the minute details of this feature or that functionality or the per-month price or what kinds of software were available.
Like young boys with new toy cars.
Have there been any women involved in designing social-networking software ? I think there should be.
Here's a tasty excerpt from mrG's musings on social-networking:
the failure of the social network sites
And yes, I do think they will fail, it's inevitable. Whether by intentional design or by blind emulations, these new black-book stop-shops all share several dubious characteristics:
- they are not social networks, only flat-taxonomy directories of questionaire replies, and badly designed questionaires at that.
- because they do not interoperate, because they cannot share data or interchange or allow identity migrations, they are essentially anti social, building protectionist walls around people (called 'clubs' or 'communities' but really meaning the opposite)
- they don't work.
So why don't they work? Because they are not social networks.
A social network is a network with a social cause, a social reason for being. Social networks fill a niche need for interaction. Church clubs, business clubs, square-dance clubs, these form natural, anthropologically sound social networks with the intelligent self-organization moving from the local (chapter) out to the regional and then clustering still beyond. They are also self-governing, electing their executives from grassroots, organizing on the need to expand the social network.
[wirearchy News]
1:44:21 PM 
|
