Design of an Open Social Interaction Network: Human needs

After I posted some of my observations about flaws in web 2.0, I received a lot of positive and smart reactions. Becoming a bit overconfident I suggested that we might be able to aid future service design by exploring with more people how to move on to the next level of social interaction. I called them Open Social Interaction Networks (for lack of a better name, any takers?) where the value for the user is central in design, not the value of the network which has been the most important monetizing scheme in almost all current social networks such as Facebook or MySpace.

Since I asked for it I might as well start up the discussion by looking at perhaps the most important aspect of such services, the needs of the people using them. Rolf Skyberg wrote a really excellent presentation on this and took Maslov’s Hierarchy of needs as the basis to explain, that the market puts safety, prosperity and socialisation first.

I would like to look at it from another perspective and see what we can distill when we look at the behavior now on the Internet. It occured to me that there are many opposing beliefs. Some feels the social network is defined by the value and size of the network, while others looks more at quality. Some want their interaction to be public and stretched to the limit of what a human could possibly cope with (See Robert Scoble wanting to handle more than 5000 Twitter and 5000 Facebook relations. That is pretty amazing to me), while others will only be interested in a few qualitative friends. Some feel the network is the value, but it lacks ways to leverage it, others think that separating content form people will do the trick. There are people out there creating content like crazy, while others only consume it. Some want to gain celebrity status while others like being anonymous.

Lets see where this gets us. If I would draw two axes with a few of these parameters and look at what seems to be important to the user, I get:

I’m not in any way pretending to be complete, but it does provide some insight in that people will act differently under different circumstances and in different communities. We might aim to support just one type of interaction in a specific community, and design the possible interactions only for that specific community. But, as we are looking at an improvement for web 2.0, we would also need to look at the boundaries and unification of these interactions. It would need open networks and possibilities to use them privately as well as public.

For me, the following items might be important to a user (not complete I am sure!):

1. The user would need excellent and easy to use controls to set privacy in a contextual manner. In one occasion he might not want anyone else to know about his interaction with another person, in another he might want to let the whole world know about it. Same thing goes for a user profile. I don’t just mean the Facebook profile we have carefully constructed to be better than reality, but instead a user profile is defined by his interaction with others. Being able to switch between private and public interaction, thus forming both a private and public profile would be a powerful tool.
2. In some occasions the user might find simple interaction forms sufficient enough, while in others he might want to use more complex forms of interaction. Two things seem important here. The user can have access to all forms of communication without a “Geekness”factor. So Mobile Internet as an example will only do, if the user experience and handling are simple and intuitive enough to match some of the on-line interfaces available to me. And second, communication and interaction are basic services for all. So no forced Twitter account on the Twitter network, but a Twitter-like service across any network I chose to use.
3. There would be a need to be able to organise my friends and family, and distant or unknown relations into different categories. Again, simplicity is the key here. Allowing smart categorization of the people in my network will help me focus my energy on the type of interaction I want. I personally would like to get rid of the current practice of “asking permission to be your friend” It is awkward and defaults to limit my possibilities to interact. I’d trade it with better blocking options for abuse.
4. We would also need new ways to connect, explore and find information and people across many different networks. this calls for OpenID being implemented across the networks. While we might use conventional browsing and searching techniques for that, I am personally intrigued by the work of Jonathan Harris, who has done some amazing projects which allow total new ways of organising and exploring people and information on the Internet.
5. We need some sort of decentralization of services and social networks in order to be able to leverage them all as a user. this will also ensure the value is user centric, not network centric. One way of dealing with that might be to integrate services into our web browser. This immediately makes the Internet evolve around me, instead of me having to go to all these different portal destinations. DISCLAIMER HERE: I am involved in a (currently stealth) project that integrates cool interaction services into your web browser (more on that some other time) so I am positively biased to such solutions. Current integration on the web (take NetVibes or Facebook as examples) is not sufficient yet as they are essentially destination based making the destination more important than myself.
6. If my profile is created by interaction with others, then using it contextually during my explorations could be a powerful functionality. User controlled of course, but I might be interested in locating people, content or even advertisements while exploring the world based upon my current actions and previous interactions. It seems to me this would be a better matching factor than for example tagging or previous surfing behavior only.

Got to stop here as the story is becoming too long already. Let’s hear what you have to say on this. More to come in the next weeks on supporting such needs with tools and technology, and possible monetizing schemes.

The flaws in web 2.0 and how to correct them part 2

After I wrote my earlier post called “The flaws in web 2.0 and how to correct them” I was surprised by the really positive replies and also the quality of the discussion that seems to have been triggered by it. There are some really smart people thinking and writing about the current state of web 2.0. Let me provide a quick summary of the responses and then proceed into deepening this discussion.

Chris Clark told me I was missing the point as he correctly points out that web 2.0 isn’t just about Facebook or MySpace. Web 2.0 has provided companies a way to have meaningful discussions with their customers leveraging technologies such as Wiki’s, Blogs. He also mentioned that user generated content is becoming to rival the quality of in house productions.  Chris, you are right of course. I focused in my post on the user perspective, but if you turn it around and look at a company’s perspective, then things have definitely become better.

Kirill Bolgarov agreed with most of the things I said and states that “those who rule the party of social networking are smart enough to somehow force the evolution of the networks into something more like what you have described..”. Kirill, I believe that these changes will evolve from users turning away from closed networks to more open networks, and by service creators that will ultimately understand what’s really important

Jordan Mitchell states that “my sentiment is that the problem is that social networking really ought to be a feature of the Web rather than a destination”. He also feels that the people web should be a different layer from the content web. Jordan, I like that thought. It enforces openness, instead of walled garden social networks.

Rian agrees with me on my statement that we aren’t getting as much value out of a social network but has a very different approach on why that is the case. He argues that the network is the need, but that current user experiences doesn’t allow them to tap the full potential of their networks. He suggests that in an open social network the trick becomes how to identify the most important actors and tap into the benefits related to them. He writes smart things, check out his earlier posts on the matter. Rian, although I agree with your analysis that it would be beneficial to let users become more aware of relationships in order to tap into the useful resources, I also feel that it still addresses only one aspect of the equation, me finding other interesting people. But true interaction is not just about me finding things, it is also about me giving something valuable to the network. Professionally I might be interested to find many smart people that think about changing web 2.0 into something better, and interact with them (as we do now!).  At home I will be more interested in interaction with my friends and family, a much smaller group of people. No need here to have a large network, just simple and elegant ways to be interacting with them across all the possibilities on the web.

Rolf Skyberg wrote an excellent post in reply to mine called “Trancending my human limitations through the web“. He not only wrote very nice things about my blog (thank you!), but also stresses the point that humans love to interact. Internet supports that with things like relative permanence, instant perception and near-boundless audiences. But social networks suck at it. Why? Rolf states it’s money. If you give a product away for free there is always a monetizing scheme which provides the companies with a strong incentive to build a closed large network. The solution for the user of course lies in a large OPEN network. Rolf, I agree with you on this. It is precisely for this reason I find the possible Microsoft investment in Facebook a very risky strategy. it will increase ad pressure on the user, and they won’t like it a bit.

So how about taking this discussion one step further? Can we use the positive energy and smart thinking around us to draw up a high level design of a new web?  I’d rather not call it web 3.0 (tacky right?).  It would be an interesting experiment to see if we can come up with some great idea’s that might help service creators to develop services that are adding true value to the user. We would need to consider human needs first, then go into the ways of supporting those needs using tools and technologies. But we also should be thinking about  monetizing it in such a way that the user and the service creator and advertiser benefit from it (there is no such thing as a free lunch right?).  If there is enough need for it I would suggest we all start writing some articles about it the coming weeks. Let’s see what happens with it. I will give it a go and try to write a post on it once a week.  Now all we need is a catchy title, something that will inspire us to write. How about “Design of an Open Social Interaction Network”? I’m open to better alternatives, post them in the comments section and we can see if we can improve on this.

Good luck, and let’s surprise each other with some excellent posts on the “Design of an Open Social Interaction Network”. Hope some of you out there like this experiment and join in.

The flaws in web 2.0 and how to correct them

While there is lot’s of enthusiasm and sometimes over hyped investors reactions to what now is commonly known as web 2.0, there is also serious warning that it is flawed. I have written some earlier posts on it (here, here). Rolf Skyberg wrote a very nice article in which he basically states that social networking platforms such as Facebook and MySpace are really crappy interaction platforms. A quote from Rolf: ““Social networks” are the crappy proto-versions of a coming integrated “online” communication system. The future is not in social networks, but in the type of communication they represent. Social networks are just one form of that communication.”

And this morning I saw an interesting article by Seth Porges, called “Will Human Laziness burst the web 2.0 bubble“. In this article he states that although initially everyone is enthusiastic about setting up profiles in social networking applications, this enthusiasm wears down due to laziness. In the end people will not put the effort into these platforms.

I agree with Seth up to a certain level. People are spending far more time on their profiles, than on what these networks should be about, communication. We all have experienced this laziness once the initial “coolness” factor wears down.

There is also an interesting sidestep to this. I was pointed to Andrew Keen by this article in Emerce (in Dutch). Andrew argues that “the Internet is killing our culture and assaulting our economy”. He basically objects to the enormous amount of anonymous additions to the content of the Internet (Wikipedia as an example). The sources are not verifiable and the crowd that fills Wikipedia, Digg and other sites is essentially very small.

But,I don’t think that is the only reason why web 2.0 is flawed. A much more important reason why most web 2.0 platforms will not be sustainable in the end is that they were essentially not build to provide true value to its users, but instead they were build to create en leverage the value of a large network! The larger the network, the more value it creates to the platform owner in terms of advertisement revenues and of course the possible take over by one of the larger companies which have too much money to spend anyway. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t really help the user. Users are putting much more energy and creativity into the networks than they get out of it. Be honest, have you really gotten as much value from other (often unknown) “friends” on Facebook, Myspace etc than the amount of effort you have put into this?

So, what to do about it? Well, for starters, creating services that are truly centred around the user, instead of the network itself. Easy to say, very difficult to do.  I don’t really believe in the yet another social network start-up in all kinds of niches. The efforts of service creators and the user should be focused on interaction, communication, not on profile building. Your profile is your communication and interaction with others.

I believe that next generation services will provide the user easy ways to do just that. Be in touch with their friends whenever they want, in which way is convenient to them. With open interfaces to all services (check out this article on developments here). No walled gardens on social networks, which basically enforce the seeking value in the network, instead of providing value to its users. Communication with true friends should be private, interaction with larger groups may be public (but only if the user chooses too). Sharing emotions, stories, pictures, real-life events will remain the main driver of such platforms. But not necessarily public, more e-mail like (but better). Social networks are not the main issue, Social interaction should be. It is this social interaction that creates value for the user, and in the end will also create value for the service provider and advertiser!

What do you think, what will next generations services be like? Do you agree that the current services will not survive once the dust clears, or am I missing the point?

I don’t want anymore so-called “Friends”

Just signed up to another social network news site Mashable. After the usual screens in setting up a profile I was ready to start. Turns out I have three friends already? Totally excited I looked at the pictures. Who the hell are these people? I know a lot of people, but I’m quite sure I have never met these three. Looking up their profiles it turns out I have become instant friends with the guy “who runs the joint”, and two writers for the network.

I keep on being amazed about the way social network sites have evolved to personal glory sites. There are basically only two relevant things to do on those networks:

1. Set up an incredible profile, spent hours and hours on it to make sure it does not in any way represent the real you (well face it, are you really all that exciting in real life?). Actually, sometimes the people I see are so good looking, they must be professional models. Makes me look really “average”
2. Make sure you got more friends than anyone could possibly shake hands with in a lifetime. It ’s not the quality that matters, but the quantity!

we definitely need new terminology here. “Facebook friend” instead of “Friend” is already some improvement. How about one of these:

• distant acquaintance
• network  friend
• on-line  friend
• unknown friend
• Google juice
• One-of-my-I-am-more-popular-than-you-links

Anyone have better suggestions?

A Professor’s impressions on Facebook

Just came across a very good and elaborate article by Ian Bogost, professor at Georgia Tech about his impressions and analysis of Facebook. Calling himself a web 2.0 cynic, I think he did a very good job describing objectively is impressions using Facebook. He describes for example the way relationships between Facebook friends often work. When reading his post I get the feeling that Facebook (and other social networks) in its current form doesn’t provide real value in friends relationships. At best it provides the opportunity to peek at what others have been doing on Facebook (you seldom get to see what they are doing outside of Facebook as Ian points out nicely). Friends and relationships need to be symmetrical, and the communication possibilities of Facebook are meant to be used as a publishing tool to the network of so called friends. Personally I do not dislike Facebook for these characteristics. But I do object to the positioning of the service. To me it is a good publishing tool, and an easy way to keep track of many “Facebook friends” (for a lack of a better description) without much effort. But, as I have stated before, you do not nearly get as much value out of such a network as is often put into setting up and maintaining your user profile. If you want to share things with your true friends stick to physical contact, phone, e-mail, SMS and IM. See my earlier posts on that.

Yahoo News: Facebook not for close friendships according to researcher

Picked up a short message by Yahoo News from research done by Doctor Will Reader, from Sheffield Hallam University. He says that face-to-face contact is absolutely imperative to build a close relationships. I think he hits the spot right on, do you? Sort of ties in nicely with my previous post “Getting permission to be a friend”. He is also being quoted saying “Social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace are unlikely to help users build close new friendships”. I agree on that, but I also think that Social Networking sites might be able do a better job at supporting and enriching existing friendships. Friendships which mostly started off in the physical world anyways.

Getting permission to be a friend

I have been wondering about the way Facebook, Skype and many other social networking or communication tools enforce a 2- way handshake in order for me to start communicating with friends. I assume the reason for it is to ensure that a user is not being harassed by people he or she doesn’t know. But it feels like the wrong solution to a non-problem to me.

A personal example sort of illustrates the point. When trying out the possibilities of Facebook as a new user, I started adding some friends so that I could start keeping track/communicating with them. Turns out that the first friend I tried was away on vacation. And I was waiting for his reply that it was “OK” to be friends. That was somewhat disappointing during my first impression of Facebook. And it feels really weird that, in order to communicate with a friend, I first need his permission.

Why not turn it around. You can directly be friends with anyone you want (like with e-mail). Spamming or harassment can then be halted in at least 3 ways. Firstly, if you are harassed by someone you don’t want as a friend, simply block him or her out. Secondly, Facebook can do all sorts of (privacy respecting) checks in the background to see if a user is spamming other users. And thirdly, if you don’t want to do it this way, then you can always set the “always ask” option that seems to be the default now.

This would make Facebook and other social tools much more personalised and friends based to me. Techquilashots wrote some nice idea’s down to make Facebook more “friend-friendly”. There are probably loads of good ideas floating around. Are there good reasons why it cannot be implemented this way? Am I missing a point? Do you have other solutions? I’m interested to hear what you think about it.