Group items tagged

Some absolutely brilliant bits in here - especially ambient communities, I riff off of this that everyone starts anon themselves and to everyone else, interaction quality causes the 'other identity' to begin to crystallize and be symbolically represented, and that this 'other' need not be mapped to a natural person, this gets really very very interesting at this point so I go away and think - wildcat, your thoughts?

"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] "

Ready.

"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.

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

I think they are referring more to the kind of question. A query like "who is the oldest living American president?" is best suited for a Library paradigm, whereas a question like "is the current president of the US doing a good job in repairing the economy?" is really more of a village paradigm. I most likely will 'trust' the library answer on the first one, but will probably become en-snarled in endless debate with my Village on the second. The point is I think, that more and more, people are asking questions that the traditional library of knowledge cannot effectively answer, even with functional semantics in place. Long live The Village. Now, who IS Number 6?

Yet another social bookmarking service?

Jack, I connected with you on Strings. So, from now on, you'll get an email whenever I do something on my PC or in my bedroom... No, just joking: I haven't shared anything and don't really see the point yet. But if you share something, I'll probably get a notification :)

haahaaa...T.M.I. with strings. despite their assertion of multiple privacy levels, the mere fact that they WANT to follow everything you do in order to make personalized recommendations is what frightens me about the directions of Web 3.0. Who will watch the watchers? Goog is one thing with their 'do no evil' credo, but the idea of 24/7 active monitoring smacks of more than just altruistic effort to me. I'm gonna let someone else play with this strings...

As the TC guy concludes at the end of the video interview, this is "potentially controversial"... But it's an interesting idea. Could certainly contribute to a better targeted marketing. Still, the subscribers will need a damn strong spam filter...

Ouch, David Brin ...

his book is on my shelf, my wife started reading it but stopped as she found it too depressing - it will likely be right up my alley - if we accepted the premise that we would be in a surveilled state then it would be enormously helpful that it was a commons- I do not accept that we should allow this surveilled state to happen, nor that we should accept it as good, even if it is a commons. I also don't believe that it will be a commons. It should not exist, and should be fought every step of the way by people whose minds have not opened so far that their brains have fallen out. It is completely possible with technology to give individuals the power to set levels of privacy to particular counter parties. It is politically possible to regulate the use of surveillance. One can make the argument that people can simply surveil with their camera phones, but you do not see that happening as it would be culturally unacceptable (rude if you will). I find the acceptance of big brother as inevitable troubling.

David Brin used well thought out logic to make his argument. Zuckerburg is an idiot. He's the face of 1984's Big Brother, except at puberty.

while this is not a social network, MUCH to learn from here, architecturally, conceptually

Great video; substantially, however, much as we are thinking about using APIs from the various groups we're a part of in the socnet areas (we like this, but don't like that, this is useful, forget this, et al.) This is remarkable stuff! I'm on the SIRI beta list - maybe by June they'll release the beta.

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...

perhaps we should be checking out Cargo

really more *net than HBSN, but thinking ahead>>> architecture posted earlier with content producer literally keeping posession, serving out content with a pay and privacy wrapper to sites who do nothing but resolve to the content (ie don't keep it) sort of like video embeds that can be yanked remotely - I will be paying attention to this guy

incidentally though I have yet to clear through his blog, lots of interesting headings in there, it's not just the content that can be bought and sold, the metadata sets (aspects, object types, class types) can be much more readily sold as can the next level of indirection, presentations for those aspects - next item up for bids is the structure (or instance relations) when one 'adopts' a piece of someone's perspective it could register a microtransaction of value. paying for interest in a piece of content makes more sense than paying for reading it, though interest is a bit trickier to ascertain - value assignment can be done in arrears by tracking liquidity events through the corpus of material the person getting that liquidity has 'experienced' in their travels, ie they may have been 'influenced' by another piece of music in their composition and not even realize it, but the music analysis bot and history bot will suck that money down to the original composer, which takes me to a post wildcat shared about IP, will go find now... scuffle scuffle

so we are not the only ones discovering that it is the more of the social and less of the network...so, the network is the issue???

I think it's an issue more of human attention span and capability. It's much easier to keep tabs on and interact with a smaller group because we lack the ability to divide our attentions out beyond a certain point. There are already enough distractions in the world between family, work, neighborhood, town, city, state, country, etc. Adding another layer of interaction complicates everything else that is going around. In a small group, voices can be picked out from the crowd and heard--attended to. In a large group, a single voice gets drowned by the activity of everyone else, and the 'group' loses identity as a group, and becomes a mob. Besides, I like the bulletin board analogy--it really brought this idea. Time to stop looking at all the pinheads and pair down the clutter, right?