Group items tagged

"On Karma: Top-line Lessons on User Reputation Design In Building Web Reputation Systems, we appropriate the term karma to mean a user reputation in an online service. As you might expect, karma is discussed heavily throughout the more than 300 pages. During the final editing process, it became clear that a simple summary of the main points would be helpful to those looking for guidance. It seemed that our first post in over a month (congratulations on the new delivery, Bryce!) should be something big and useful... This post covers the following top-line points about designing karma systems, drawn from our book and other blog posts: * Karma is user reputation within a context * Karma is useful for building trust between users, and between a user and the site * Karma can be an incentive for participation and contributions * Karma is contextual and has limited utility globally. [A chessmaster is not a good eBay Seller] * Karma comes in several flavors - Participation, Quality and Robust (combined) * Karma should be complex and the result of indirect evaluations, and the formulation is often opaque * Personal karma is displayed only to the owner, and is good for measuring progress * Corporate karma is used by the site operator to find the very best and very worst users * Public karma is displayed to other users, which is what makes it the hardest to get right * Public karma should be used sparingly - it is hard to understand, isn't expected, and is easily confused with content ratings * Negative public karma should be avoided all together. In karma-math -1 is not the same magnitude as +1, and information loss is too expensive. * Public karma often encourages competitive behavior in users, which may not be compatible with their motivations. This is most easily seen with leaderboards, but can happen any time karma scores are prominently displayed. [i.e.: Twitter follower count] "

"POiU is being created because the world is changing. The recent expansion of social media platforms shrank our world and broadened people's ability to communicate and connect regardless of physical location, cultural or even linguistic barriers. In addition to immense opportunities, we face significant challenges as a community. If not addressed and decisively tackled, these challenges could jeopardize the quality of life and even our very existence as an evolving human civilization. There are warning signs already: the widespread economic and financial instability, unclear energy future, uncontrollable environmental changes and growing gaps and failures to deliver adequate food, water, healthcare, education, and other resources and services that support society wellbeing and development. These warning signs could lead to acute and systemic crises resulting in general misery and destruction. Our best chance at overcoming this outcome is to utilize the tools we have today to tap into the collective wisdom and together select the best solutions and together put them into action. History teaches us that war has been the way in which countries could achieve total coordination to pull out of massive economical crises. But today, social networks present an alternative, allowing total coordination of the masses. This is a tool that, for the first time in our evolution, offers a constructive way to unlock the power of our collective mind and unite us under a common purpose of finding answers to our current challenges. Our future is at stake. Focusing on the opportunities and solutions, POiU will capitalize on the power of social networking to enable positive change. Together, we are building a fully functioning online society with governance and commerce, fostering a personal sense of place and belonging. This effort is empowered by POiU's launch of a collaborative platform that aims to become one component of the new coordinating system we need. The answers to our cha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems does look like the general idea. I do think that the world is entering a period of 'collectivity' but it's not formed in any place that's far enough along to know what to do with it except to 'volunteer' at this point.

ok... this is eerily like what we were describing yesterday in: http://message.diigo.com/message/so-i-will-now-try-a-bit-of-blogging-my-aunt-observed-today-that-social-networking-is-the-21st-cen-723705 Also, they say it is a country. VERY interesting. Kinda reminds me of Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong franchises in Neal Stephenson's "Snowcrash" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash Of course by the time set in the story private countries are physical and not only virtual.

"My next project with Open New Zealand is to build a community of data users. I want to see users supporting each other, I want to build a tight feedback loop between those who want data and those who can provide it, to create an environment where the data users can support each other, and to make it easier to assess the value created by government-released open data. Henry Kissinger said, "each success only buys admission to a more difficult problem". I look forward to learning what the next problem is." We have this ... let's build it!

"First, figure out what you want the world to look like and why. It might be a lack of corruption, it might be a better society for citizens, it might be economic gain. Whatever your goal, you'll be better able to decide what to work on and learn from your experiences if you know what you're trying to accomplish. Second, build your project around users. In my time working with the politicians and civil servants, I've realised that success breeds success: the best way to convince them to open data is to show an open data project that's useful to real people."

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc said on Wednesday it would build a super high-speed broadband network for up to half a million people around the United States in order to experiment with the possibilities of a network running at 100 times current speeds.

It'll be even better when the guy in the holo-chair next to you can get up and slap you silly while you're napping in the meeting.

hey another use for haptic body suits!

excellent article on how to build the next generation of infrastructure and what some key themes are.

"A few weeks ago, I noticed a contest on Stowe Boyd's site to receive a free entry to the Social Business Edge conference coming up in April in NYC, and a chance to share the idea on stage. I just found out my entry is one of four that was selected. I'm copying it here, but I'd love to build it out with you: How can the power and scope of social networks, combined with a human capital inventory, be used to facilitate shared creation and innovation? It wasn't that long ago that society was a byproduct of an industrial era, characterized by assembly lines, processes, and efficiency. Like the machines they operated, people were not expected to think, but to conform and become a cog - a replicable, interchangeable part of a machine. The problem is, humans weren't designed for mechanization. We were designed to create."

Did I miss this one in the group?

This is an example of how NOT to build a social network. I did a search for 'twine' on this page, and couldn't find one example of it - but, all of his tweets are surfaced in a column on the right. Oppsss.

In Mac OS X, control-command-D. Let the world be literate!

@François - +1 on "Voodoo and all mysticisms, but things change fast nowadays" - They are changing fast, and we can look forward to these things changing faster than ever now and into the future!

anyone ever heard of this place?

nope. anything interesting? (beyond the unique view that content creators should be paid)

My first quick glance appeared to show a bunch of hopeful storefronts with nobody shopping. Not very apparent how money is made either. I think it's ad click throughs, but I didn't stick around very long. I fear it's another of those 'lacking momentum' issues.

FishMan - this sounds a little bit like Ning, a socnet for all folks (build your own!) Why do you think there is no monetization by any one of these efforts? That's a key part to what I'm imagining for HBSN. Hmmmmm

Checking into ad.ly, their pay rate and advertisers aren't based on your attention, they are based strictly on the number of followers you have. Their whole model is wrapped around slight-of-hand diversion. They figure that by dropping an ad tweet into your own personal twitterstream on an every other day basis, will appear innocent enough on the surface, that some (>1%?) will mistake it for something you personally tweeted and since they follow you blindly like hooded lemurs in Jonestown, they;ll drink your koolaid and make a buying decision. Seems a bit underhanded to me. And they aren't paying me because I might be a good target, they are paying me because I have a high enough unwashed masses quotient to justify the exposure. I set my rate for $5000 figuring that even though I have fewer than 100 followers, they are quality followers and not bots (except for Kurt) and that my endorsement to them is worth a great deal. So far, the till's empty.

if you advertise to me I will recycle it on an hourly loop and feed it back to you

perhaps we should look back at this?

I do not see the point in moving to ning, less capable than diigo

Never liked making money very much - too much trouble - I'm a retired professor, for God's sake! But, I love working with people that get in my head and stay there (a paraphrase of one of your remarks, I believe!) And, I like doing good things ...

Install it tonight ...

Interesting. Looks like Nova's moved on from T2.

I think Nova has contributed greatly, and will continue to do so. His gifting is not in finishing, but in starting - starters and finishers are seldom the same person. What is unusual here is that a starter is given large amounts of capital but the vc's don't know enough to pair him with a finisher. One of my business partners said a business needs a dreamer, a doer and a sob. To which I asked, so that makes you.....? T2 is based on what I know of it (unless they've come up with some scaling algorithm, which isn't a product, and should be sold based on the patent to MS or google) fails on differentiation, and is entering a market against formidable incumbents. Hence Nova's thoughts that the next 'google' needs to differentiate itself further are actually quite valid. If I were Nova's vc on T2 I would pull the plug. Never talk about your next project.

Not so long ago, in fact just a couple years ago, Twine (T1) was far ahead of the competition in the area of interest networking (building of communities around interests). I think Nova and T1 really did a good job in *pioneering* the idea that social networking should not just focus on people connecting to each other but rather on the topics that people share an interest for. For some reasons, Twine did not try to stay ahead in this field and didn't integrate improvements that seemed quite obvious. I would have liked to see T1 evolve towards real semantic tagging, connecting Twine tags and topics to linked data entities. I would have liked to see a T1 with stronger collaborative filtering: even the "like" button that was - i believe - introduced by FriendFeed, is now everywhere, except on Twine... I don't think that what Nova is discussing here has much to do with T2, just like I don't think that the semtweet project that he tweeted about a couple weeks ago has much to do with T2 either. I agree that so far Nova has been a dreamer, an inventor, more than a "doer", but I still like to check what he is dreaming about. Sometimes his dreams seem very deep and interesting: I don't find the current T2 dream (faceted search based on Apache-Solr technology) very exciting, unless something big comes out of it with respect to RDF. I am not that excited either about Semtweet, unless again it brings along something big with respect to RDF. And now Nova is sharing some new thoughts about some new user-machine interaction that wouldn't be based on search but on something else... I agree it's still pretty vague and not very convincing yet...

Ya'll come and give us your opinion.

Agree with Frank. There is no use in letting Barney tell us where he lives, if we want to use the map gadget to choose a good place for a meatspace meeting. So this particular wave, given its intent, should have been restricted to the group. In many cases, I think it could be harmless to open a wave to the public: the crowd can contribute good things, we all know that... But I still think that, by default, wave access should be restricted to group members. It would maximize the sharing of relatively private or "sensitive" information within the group. It would also help keeping the discussions on topic (side-tracking is very easy in all forum discussions and the more people you have in the conversation the more side-tracking you get). Now of course anyone in the group can invite anyone, even "Public" into the wave: just like anyone who has access to a private document can copy it and paste it on a blog or any public place.

Yes F1 (Francois, I will be F2)!! i think we can use the wave structures to keep things private and the fact that any of us can add anyone can be moderated by convention and the trust we have begun to build with each other. plus the reinforcement from the system, in that we all can see who has added whom. Plus the ability to delete participants will come along eventually. Thanks F1!!!