Online Community -- Your Take
March 29, 2005 | 
40 Comments
Summary: Gathering information, complaints, praise, stories, recommendations (pretty much anything) regarding online community and social software.
Over the last few months I’ve done a whole bunch of research into online communities and the social networking software behind them, and I’m still in the thick. I’ve looked at services like MySpace, Friendster, Tribe and Tickle. I’ve been reading blogs, subscribing to news and following developments. Wikis and more have been on the brain almost every day. I’ve chatted with people online, talked to people in the streets and have been pretty much just trying to get my head around it all.
So, now it’s your turn. I hope you can help. I want to know what you think about online community and/or anything that goes along with it. Are there services you like? What do you use? Which technologies are your preferred when it comes to social networking?
What works? What doesn’t? What would you most like to see in a social network? I want to open a dialogue to talk about this stuff from just about any angle y’all are interested in.
Tell me your stories about your experiences with online community.
Some specific questions to get you started
- What do you think about the new Yahoo360 if you’ve seen it? What would compel someone to switch from say Friendster? (Also — I could use an invite if anyone has one).
- What are your impressions of Drupal, WordpressMU and other multi-user publishing systems?
- Do you think focused online communities (those who don’t try to be everything to everyone) work well? What are some you know, use, love or hate?
- How do you see online community “meshing” with the real world?
- Have you met someone online in real life? How’d it go?
- What about privacy?
Thanks in advance if you choose to join in on the discussion. Feel free to forward/link this along as well, the more information I can gather the better!
Filed under: Web General
Comments
1. Mike D. said:
One of my friends put it best the other day:
I don’t want to be part of any social networks. I want to be part things which happen to create social networks.
Posted on March 29, 2005 08:04 PM | #
2. Craig Simons said:
That’s a bit vague Mike, care to elaborate? Seriously, I don’t get it. Do you mean you want to create social networks?? Or…what? My head hurts trying to figure it out, heh.
For myself, I use MySpace because that is what my friends are on. I log in everyday and while I find it hard to use, it has introduced me to some great new people. I think I’d avoid some of the bigger one-size-fits-all services, prefering to have multiple services related to communitys I have interests in.
It would be nice to have a service that somehow connected various services, but I doubt thats going to happen. I would switch from MySpace if something better was available…and bring friends too.
Posted on March 29, 2005 08:29 PM | #
3. Ryan Latham said:
Online communities are great for one thing; profit. To the narrow minded, non-analytical person; an online community is the perfect source of wasting time on the Internet. Because when it comes down to it, it’s “am I attractive enough for people to be-friend me.” And shallow America wants no more than that.
Now I don’t mean to bash all of those who are members of these fascist online communities, I am in fact a MySpace member. However, the main reason I joined was to roast my friends who have enjoyed. I am not one of those guys who ask the opposite sex (or same sex based on there preference), and post comments to pictures, such as “hey baby, you have a nice [insert large, round, or curvaceous feature here].”
But when it boils down to it, it aims to promote the negligence of a person based on what they look like. I can count the times I have read a persons blog entry on MySpace, and someone replied to it, on a single had. Whereas, I cannot even begin to count how many times I have seen comments under that members photos, remarking on their physical appearance.
When it boils down to it, online communities are a front for shallowness. However, if you, Keith, are considering an online community, I refuse to be your deciding factor. I will say this, if it is open to the public, it will turn to shit faster than prune juice. But if you narrow it down to a topic, and manually review applicants; an online community has the potential of being a very useful tool (but then again, didn’t I just describe a forum?).
Posted on March 29, 2005 08:36 PM | #
4. William Doyle said:
hey keith…
love this blog here. i am also interested in the community aspect of the web though probably in a less technical sense than you are. if there was one thing that i would like to see in a community is free contact. i have met some very close friends online (though never in person) and it was only by chance. whenver you go to community sites, they want you to pay to contact the other members of the community (well, not in all cases), but the places where i have been where the people i probably have the most in common with have had the greatest barriers from actually getting in touch with those people. it has really turned me off, not so much to the community itself, but rather to the people who run the community. isn’t community all about the sharing of thoughts and opinions? anyways, i am also interested in community because i think it is the future of the web. it is kind of like what paul graham was talking about in how to start a startup, only applied to a different model. there are so many community sites out there that just suck and a lot of innovative people are starting to catch on that if they greatly improve on things that have sucked (i.e. photo sharing and Flickr) they will not only aggregate a community of people willing to join in something good, but also have the potential of making big business. anyways, these are my two cents….
Posted on March 29, 2005 08:43 PM | #
5. Keith said:
Craig – I’m not sure I get Mike’s comment either.
Ryan – I’m just curious is all. But I think I can argue your claim that open online communities all turn to shit. You’re part of one on this site and it’s been pretty good so far. But I think I get your gist.
Posted on March 29, 2005 08:51 PM | #
6. Mike D. said:
Craig: What I mean is that something like Friendster *exists* to be a social network. When you sign up, you are signing up expressly to be a part of a social network. This sort of thing isn’t of much interest to me… I have my own social networks.
Something like Flickr, on the other hand, is a photo hosting/sharing service that just happens to create a social network based on how the interface and feature set are set up. This is a lot more appealing to me. I’m there to deal with photos, but the collaborative aspects of the site just happen to create a social network as well.
Posted on March 29, 2005 08:53 PM | #
7. Jason Marble said:
I just saw some of the Yahoo! 360 sites today, as Scrivs pointed them out in FG. From what I’ve seen so far, I’m extremely dissapointed, extremely. I really thought Yahoo!’s team would get this one right. Oh well.
I think Drupal or any other multi-user publishing system is a good idea. From what I’ve heard, Drupal is nice. I think they’re more niche towards club or maybe group websites. Definitely a stand-alone, and not something I’d entirely incorporate in any Social Networking Software.
Specific, or more niche social network sites do work well, when it comes to certain things, like sharring photos. MySpace provides a great way for people to keep in contact with friends, find new peeps, listen to new music, take part in groups, find events, play games, and waste time. MySpace really did a pretty good job at covering all the things that could be included into a social networking site, but they weren’t very innovative when it came to developing them. They kind of just threw a bunch of things together and hoped for the best. But like I’ve said before, their success was mostly due to the customization of profiles.
If I were to talk about how I see online communities meshing with the real world, I would be talking for hours. The biggest thing social networking sites, like MySpace, have going for them is how they make it easier for people to communicate with those 150 people us humans are limited to knowing (mind the link, I read about this in Shermer’s The Science of Good & Evil p.40-42). Social Networking Software is attempting to make it easier for us to keep in contact and share pictures or other things with the 150 or more people we might meet or know. Meeting new people or dating or discovering new music or whatever is all just a pluss.
Haha, I’ve met many people online in real life. I mean, it’s not hard at all for me to meet new people offline, it’s just a hell of a lot easier sometimes to find peeps online. I don’t think I’ve met any guys online, besides business contacts, from which my experiences have been good. But as far as the ladies that I’ve met online, I’d say it’s been like a 60/40 kinda shot, where most of the time I’ve met a pretty cool chic.
As far as privacy goes, it’s definitely an issue, if not the biggest. First, most people keep most things secret, but, from what I’ve seen with MySpace, more and more people are writing blogs and letting their true personality out sooner. I guess some people are afraid of embarassment or they want to maintain a professional image. But, I have seen a lot people seemingly saying “This is who I am, fuck off if you don’t like it”.
I’ve been fascinated with Social Networking Software for years, with having looked into it very seriously from a professional point of view for the past one and a half years or so.
I hope this all helps you out Keith. But I am curious. Why the sudden interest in Social Networking?
Posted on March 29, 2005 09:03 PM | #
8. Keith said:
Jason – Why the interest? (and it’s not really sudden, just intensified lately) Well, mainly because for a long time I’ve been looking for a good online music community and I’ve just recently realized they all suck. Now, granted, I’m not the kind of person who is going to spend a whole lot of time dinking aound an online community. Mike D.’s explaination jives with my own feelings a bit closer. I use flickr because I like the service.
I think community is important, online or no, and I’d like to see a service that incorporated community aspects in a way that made sense and didn’t try to do too much.
I dunno, it all stems from the fact that I’m sick of shit being unusable, over-designed, ugly, boring and difficult. MySpace was all over SXSW touting itself as this end-all-be-all site for music fans and it’s crap. I interviewed all sorts of people down there and they all agree. So why does it succeed? The million dollar question.
I see opportunity there as well, to do something fun, to do something good and actually help people while making a living. I’m not sure if I’m going to do anything about it, but, hey, I’m curious.
Posted on March 29, 2005 09:24 PM | #
9. Akash said:
It is a natural progression for people spending time online to go and find others with similar interests and be able to share all kinds of digital information with friends / relatives and these virtual friends. Is it a ground breaking idea? I don’t think so. But its not a passing phase either. It all boils down to the need everyone has to communicate, express, network for business, pleasure, companionship or whatever helps them sleep better at night.
BTW have sent you an invite for Yahoo 360
Posted on March 29, 2005 09:31 PM | #
10. Joel said:
Psychology of the Internet, a book I read a few years ago, gave me some of the greatest insight into social networks and humanity on the internet as a whole.
The only real word I can use to describe my own experience on the Internet is: Disinhibited.
(and depending upon my mood, “morons. all of them!”)
Then again, I follow places like SomethingAwful and their forums, Livejournal Drama, and likewise groups. (Warning: Neither site may be friendly to the work crowd, depending upon the recent stories.)
The young and cruel, mostly. Mob mentality, etc etc.
Not sure if those are directly related to social networking, but anything with a Post button can constitute as a social network.
I think that there are two (or three) sides to the social networks on the internet: Professional, Subculture, and the aptly named “those who make fun of said subculture.”
Adults vs kids, almost. =)
Posted on March 29, 2005 09:32 PM | #
11. Jason Marble said:
Yea I hear ya. Your website, pluss Flickr, is just about all you need. In fact, you’ve already got what everybody on MySpace wants. Users like yourself, Mike, and Ryan don’t really need a community like MySpace.
Haha MySpace is so shity. I’m not sure if you’re aware of it or not, but the Music section on MySpace came after they already had about two or three million users. I’m sure you could tell how it was simply a hack from the original system they developed.
MySpace succeeds for a few basic reasons. There’s really no million dollar question.
I can imagine a need for a better community for music. There’s a lot of decent ones out there, ie. PureVolume, Launch, GarageBand, 15MegsOfFame and of course MySpace. PureVolume is doing really well. Launch is awsome for music. 15MegsOfFame is pretty sweet. MySpace is a piece, but like the rest of the site, it works (now less often), and people like it. I still haven’t seen a complete solution on the music side of things.
Haha, yea, it’s time.
Though, there’s an extra element that makes music comuntities especially more difficult to create rather than any other community.
Posted on March 29, 2005 09:54 PM | #
12. Keith said:
Jason – I’ve checked into all the sites you mention and I feel they’re good on various levels. I met one of the guys for PureVolume at SXSW and I like what they’re doing. It’s much more focused than, say MySpace. Still, they’ve got some issues…like I can’t sign up because of errors. But anyway, I do like what they’re doing. I also like 15Megs (gotta love skinnyCorp) which to me is a very focused community.
It’s sites like those that make me thing a “complete solution” for music maybe isn’t the right way to look at it. I’d like to see great content (someting many sites are missing) paired with good community features.
I realize people think to have a great music site you need to share music, but I don’t know about that in every case. Most enthusiasts know where to go to listen to music if they want to. Some people are just looking for recommendations, stories, people to go to shows with. Hell, lots of people I know who use Friendster, for example, do so to meet people for shows.
Upcoming.org is another good one. Focused and useful.
Posted on March 29, 2005 10:09 PM | #
13. Jason Marble said:
OK, I see exactly what you’re talking about. You’re right. Rather than think of it as a feature to draw more users into a complete site, there needs to be more focus on what certain users need, that larger sites like MySpace fail to deliver. Great content paired with good community features.
I’m actually working on that same concept, but in a different avenue. Haha, I wish it was music.
Posted on March 29, 2005 10:22 PM | #
14. Rick Maher said:
Forgive me if I’m the immature college kid that no-one really wants to hear from, but an example of an excellent social network in my mind is TheFacebook.com. While it is fairly immature in nature as it centers around college campuses and is searchable according to high school and high school graduating class, it is incredibly simple to use.
Features for messaging someone privately are included as are features for creating a group about anything you can imagine, posting a quick comment (or a novel) on someone’s profile is a cinch, simple social networking components and so on.
While I am still in college, I am eagerly awaiting a more “mature” version which I have heard rumors that thefacebook.com creator Mark Zuckerberg is working on.
As a web designer, a college kid, an intern, a baseball player, a music afficionado, and so on, my group of close friends is fairly different from a lot of groups. So, what I am continually on the lookout for is a platform (be it a cms, bulletin board, or otherwise) where my computer inept baseball buddies can share their favorite songs, beer reviews, etc with my “geek” friends who spot every time a pixel is out of place.
Ironically BlackBoard which is used at Arizona State where I goto school, as well as many other universities, has many of the features that I like, but is terribly obtrusive, not even remotely standards based, and not exactly in my budget range.
Sorry for the extended rant. Keith, I hope we both find/create something cool to fill this void!
Posted on March 30, 2005 12:29 AM | #
15. Ischa Gast said:
I have looked at some of the social networking sites but they all make me crazy. All the twinkling smilies Aaargh…
A couple of months ago a business networking site suprised me very possitive. Take a look and maybe it’s something for you too?
Posted on March 30, 2005 04:20 AM | #
16. Peter Flaschner said:
I’m not a member of any social networking sites per se. That’s not due to any particular aversion, but rather to a stunning lack of time.
I suppose I get my social networking kicks through bloglines. RSS allows me to keep in touch with friends (both real and make-believe), meet new people (through links, blogrolls, etc), and profile myself (via my published feed).
Subscribing to rss feeds allows me to create my own personalized community. Sure, this self-selection process limits my exposure, but only to a limited degree. As many above here have mentioned, current online “communities” often run towards the “here’s a picture of poo” end of the spectrum. I change diapers. I get to see enough poo, thanks very much.
Posted on March 30, 2005 06:19 AM | #
17. Richard said:
Many years ago I started an online “community” for a company I’m involved with. I had in mind to try to create, online, the same feeling I got when I went to monthly computers users’ group meetings in the old days (and I find it interesting that various online communities and threaded tech support areas on commercial sites have almost killed the traditional users group).
We experimented with various software and a friend who had some experience with Ultimate Bulletin Board helped get it installed and we were up and running.
That was over four years ago and UBB is now quite long in the tooth and there are many more modern ways to go for things like this but we have over 5000 registered users and a community of regulars who are on the site 24/7 as well as a group of ten moderators who work gratis just to be part of it, none of whom I have ever met.
Later, of course, extended “communities” of weblogs like this one with comments and trackback and then sites like flickr and other social networking related sites have changed the paradigm, or extended it.
But, the fact remains that in order for flickr to work, in order for this comment string to be meaningful, in order for any UBB or other threaded discussion board to work, people have to show up and contribute. I would also argue that a community spirit or civic mindedness needs to be in place, either through a tone set by the weblog author or through gentle moderation in the case of successful threaded discussion boards.
This idea overlaps with an earlier one Keith wrote about here: what makes a successful weblog or how do you get people to show up and keep showing up and comment?
If memory serves, some of the replies in that comment thread were all about what might be called a big popularity contest based on design skills, who knows who, word of mouth, etc. but there were other comments that were much more nuanced and interesting and touched on what makes a successful community.
In fact, Keith has a community right here: anyone tracking this site and participating in his comment threads is part of it and for one reason or another, he produces posts that generate really interesting comment threads and that keeps me coming back as much as the posts themselves.
In that sense, I think this paradigm is a better one than the closed, friendster, threaded discussion on a theme one in that depending on the broadeness and credibility of the author and post, it have more potential to pull in a broader range of readers, and hopefully commentors.
Thanks again Keith for a most interesting post and comment thread.
Posted on March 30, 2005 06:26 AM | #
18. Allen said:
It might be the introvert in me, but I dont like the non-specific type of networking sites… I am on friendster and myspace… but do I use them? no. I was invited to them by friends, ones that I have met a long time ago via interest specific means.
I’m somewhat old school… I’ve met alot of my good friends via a mailing list that I used to run and I was a regular on v-rave, an old chat system ran by hyperreal that you would telnet into. They were rave specific formats that I met some great ppl through, and would met them in person at parties/raves.
I just dont see the point to these massive social networking sites… maybe they appeal to the younger aol’ites that are used to this type of structure. I’ve been on MySpace for about two weeks, and I’ve gotten dozen of requests from either 16 kids that live in my town or from “women” with large breasts that are obviously guys just trying to get me to join so they can spam thier pr0n sites via the message board system MySpace has.
I’m on flickr and do love it, but more for just its imaging/photo features and not its social networking. I have one person in my contacts, and hardly ever look at “Everyone’s Pictures”. I use it to upload pics from my phone and have it tied into my blogs.
But like I said in the begining… I’m a 30 year old, married, introvert. My time for social butterflying was 5-10 years ago :)
Posted on March 30, 2005 06:29 AM | #
19. Boyink said:
I’ve been involved with online communities for years - starting with list serves and moving to discussion forums and now blog-based groups.
I’ve met countless people in the “real world” that I first got to know on-line.
I’ve taken a small number of vacations entirely planned with folks from online communities.
I’ve given money to support the healthcare needs of a parent of a friend that I met online. I’ve given money to help an online community purchase a vehicle for one of it’s members.
I’ve agonized and prayed for other online community members when they lose family members, jobs, and homes.
I’ve celebrated with “online friends” when marriages happen, kids are born, and new jobs and homes have been found.
The crazy part? All this community has happened around old Jeeps. The list serves and discussion forums are all Jeep-related, and as the internet has grown the related communities have become more and more focused to serving the owners of specifc model and year-range Jeeps. But the Jeeps serve mainly as the starting point and the common ground - over time most of the activity is “off topic”, just talk and BS among people who are now friends.
As a web developer, I think the tools are *almost* irrelevant. From what I have seen, what any good online community needs is a core group of people who “Get it”, and can provide moderation, focus, and a core group personality/identity that other people either find attractive and stay, or disagree with and leave.
But only to a point - there is an aspect of online community that seems akin to gardening. You can provide the environment, the right sunlight, the right fertilizer, and the right soil conditions. But there comes a point where you have to sit back and see if “community” grows. I’ve seen it fail where it shouldn’t have, and I’ve seen it take root where I didn’t expect.
Posted on March 30, 2005 06:34 AM | #
20. Sally Carson said:
Hey Keith, I just sent you a Friendster invite in case you’re still interested in checking it out.
I’ve only used Friendster to reconnect with old friends that I had lost touch with since college. I don’t really use it to make new friends. I think it’s a good tool for what I’m using it for. A community is only as good as the people that it is comprised of, so I think I’ve had a good experience with Friendster because all of the people that I’m interacting with have some level of accountability. I might run into them on the street one day, so I don’t have to worry about them turning scumbag online. Plus, they’re my friends, so I already know they’re good people from hanging out with them in person.
I also use the Bulletin Board feature to post something like “Hey I’m going to be in Richmond if anyone wants to go on a Mountain Bike ride”. Another example, a friend that we all went to college with is one of the stars on Life on a Stick, some new Fox show, so I’ll probably post about that and get everyone to check the show.
Posted on March 30, 2005 06:43 AM | #
21. elv said:
I hate the word “community”. To me it has mixed echoes of “club” or “duty” or even “marketed friendship” :) Oh well, let’s use it anyway.
I think why community websites -I mean sites explicitely built to create communities- ultimately fail is because it is and should remain a natural process. You can’t force, market or sell it. You can’t open a website about Science Fiction and say “Hey, come and be a part of our SF community”. Nobody cares. What you can do is open a SF site, open a forum, and then maybe a kind of community will emerge. A natural community, no strings attached.
What would you think if people in your neighboorhood asked you to sign a form to be a part of the “neighboordhood community”? You don’t need this, you’re probably already a part of it, and it doesn’t need a name. It’s intangible, like friendship and love.
“Sign up to be our friend”? No thanks.
Posted on March 30, 2005 06:57 AM | #
22. Gordon said:
Late to this but isn’t part of the point the fact that “social networks” can’t really be created but grow organically? Sure you can point people in the right direction, but, to use the oft quoted example, Flickr wouldn’t work as a social network if it did nothing but hosts ‘friend’ lists.
What of blogrolls and the like, are they more indicative of social networks precisely because they are at once individual and both inclusive (if you are listed) and exclusive (getting listed isn’t under your control but the blogroll owners)?
I’ve only looked briefly at Yahoo’s 360 and I think they are missing their own point. Allow me to combine the way I want to organise my contacts, sites, and interests. Let me pull in my MSN and Skype contacts, my Bloglines subscriptions and my blogrolls, and let everyone on those lists be aware of the fact I have them listed. Participation in any discussions can then be handled across MY sitewide forum.
And here’s the killer - I don’t think the ideal social network will ever be created as it simply doesn’t exist, there are too many expectations and requirements to meet for any middle ground to work.
Note: take the above with a large pinch of salt as I’ve jumped headlong into this. More thought may bring clarity (one can only hope!)
Posted on March 30, 2005 07:07 AM | #
23. Scott Cropper said:
I’ve been running a few small (250 to 1500 users) communities since 1998. Here’s what I’ve learned :
It has to have a main topic. Example; Flickr has photos, Ars Technica is computer tech etc. The Yahoo360 thing will flop. People will use various pieces but not the service as a whole. To me its no different than the portal thing they’ve done in the past. Trying to be everything for everyone. Yahoo, Google and others should pick a few services and be really good at them.
There has to be a set of rules or guidelines and someone must enforce them. I get kudos all the time from users in the communities I operate about how enjoyable they are to use and not like other communities with a bunch of junk. I have things in place and I don’t let it get out of hand. I have no problem removing someone if they start waves in the community.
Lastly, it has to be easy to use for the basic computer user and should have help available via FAQ’s and moderators. I’ve started with various tools but always ended up writing my own and/or customizing things a lot. Opensource packages are nice but with bugs etc. its easier for hackers to look at the code and figure out vulnerabilities. Then you are always patching things. Having your own code or a heavily modified version of an opensource package works best to keep the clowns away. That is unless your service becomes huge and then they’ll attack it anyway until they figure out something.
Posted on March 30, 2005 07:11 AM | #
24. Lea said:
Ah, online communities. The longest running one I’ve ever belonged to had never been specifically under a “service” like Friendster or what-have-you. That’s the funny thing. We stuck together specifically through forums and some IRC. Sure, some have myspace accounts that link everyone together, but the main backbone was through forums and chatting.
In short, communities thrive when there’s a focused audience and intent, open but firm regulation, activities based on the community are organized, and where genuine friendship and collaboration are openly encouraged. It doesn’t matter what “service” they’re under, but the above principles apply.
Posted on March 30, 2005 08:09 AM | #
25. Zelnox said:
Do forums and message boards count as “social network software”? They may not be as elaborate as the famous social networks (I still refuse to join Friendster and co.), but seem to work.
Personally, I am interested in Japanese music, so I am part of several forums oriented towards that subject (they have several thousands of registered users with a few hundred concurrent users at peak hours). From what I have noticed, there is always a group of hardcore users (usually moderators themselves). They have become stakeholders in the community so they work hard for it (and can become protective of the community as well). One forum in particular tries to do more by adding friend lists, journals (like a weblog I think), picture galleries, etc. But not all discussion is based around music. It branches out into anime, games, even topics like world news, politics, and things like “what are you listening to now?”. Some of these forums also have a chat software built-in or an IRC channel. I feel the community does well enough with perhaps “primitive” technologies. I’ve made some good friends, that I probably would have met in real life if they were closer. The friends earn a promotion to join the IM list. Those who do not use IM (or a compatible IM client), well, there is e-mail. ^_^
I don’t have a camera, so I never felt the need to use Flickr, but I finally caved in especially since I missed Game Never Ending (another project by Ludicorp that was shelved). GNE was a social game and it was fun sometimes (actually FlickrChat is built on the GNE UI). You have fun, and meet people in the process.
My experience with Flickr started out slowly. I didn’t know anyone and didn’t have pictures to share. I would just browse random pictures and sometimes stumble on some great ones. From the comments, sometimes, I’d follow new paths. It was interesting to see some of my contacts all be connected somehow. But a downside to having too many contacts is I feel a pressure to actually check all the photos they post. It requires a lot of work (I’m usually behind by a week or more). Some contacts, I really like what they do, so they get priority ^_^. There is a member in particular that I count as a friend. We end up discussing on many photos. It’s not the usual “wow, nice photo” and “thanks”. Oh, and some members feel they have to return the favour. I post many comments pertaining to the photos they post, and they are happy, so they want to thank me somehow. They find the latest image I have up and post “thanks for the comments”. Hehe, I guess I am picky, but they could have FlickrMailed me about it.
I hope that helps. ^_^
Posted on March 30, 2005 10:01 AM | #
26. Sean Voisen said:
I think Mike D. hits the nail on the head. Communities like Friendster are interesting experiments, but ultimately they are communities that exist to be communities. Nothing more. They’re hollow. There’s no sustainability, which is why I don’t think they’ll last more than a few years.
The reason a “community” like the loose association of a few web designers’ blogs works well is because there’s some common interest - something to rally around that generates and sustains a community. Flickr works for the same reason - at its core is the love for photography that keeps it going. Boyink mentioned his Jeep community - same idea.
Virtual communities need to follow the same rules that physical communities follow: a core group of dedicated people who rally around a common interest, and as a result draw in more members. In any community you will have a core group of dedicated folks, and those folks that live more on the fringe but keep things fresh. Without both I think any community will eventually just fade away.
Posted on March 30, 2005 11:04 AM | #
27. Steven Clift said:
Here is E-Democracy.Org’s take on how real communities can be real online:
http://e-democracy.org/uk/guide.pdf
Also see:
http://e-democracy.org/groupserver
Steven Clift
Posted on March 30, 2005 01:00 PM | #
28. Alex said:
I am a member of many automotive forums:
www.audiworld.com with over 80,0000 members is one of them. The main reason I am there is knowledge and help with my car repiars and upgrades, but I have already met severl like minded people in my area and we became pretty good frineds. The Off Topic forum is pretty addictive as well. A new topi is created every 10 seconds with something new. Of course it is mostly a waste of time but I dont regret it as I still learned quite a bit from there. I am also on myspace.com but this is more of a women interaction practise playground for me. I doubt I will ever get any worthy professional networking out of there.
Posted on March 30, 2005 02:33 PM | #
29. Stefan Visser said:
When I think of online communities, I think of forums. General ones like the SA forums or based around one topic, like Bit-101’s forum. All forums are different, and have their own standards. But more importantly: everyone on a forum is there to share information on the same interests.
When I think of online communities, I don’t think about those massive online sign-me-up places like flicker, livejournal, etc. because they feel less personal. Also, the people you meet there you already know in real life, just don’t have the time to get to know oneanother (they have a busy real life and all), or are just not your cup of tea. There is no distinction between people. IT’s like riding a bus: all kinds of people, but how do you know if those other people like to talk about the same stuff that you do? Maybe they don’t even want to talk at all.
Most communities are more set up by the founders (JOIN! FREE! ACCESS!) than people wanting to meet eachother and share interests and knowledge. Those types of communities are ultimately doomed, once the FREE! wears off. It is not a common base to start relationships from. Substitute FREE! with any marketing term, if you wish. It amounts to the same bland potpourri of nothing.
Reading through the comments, it seems that people agree.
Posted on March 30, 2005 02:53 PM | #
30. Timothy said:
I’ve been using audioscrobbler for a while now (uses a plugin to your music player to build stats on your listening habits). You can listen to a radio station (via last.fm) based on the music stats of a particular user. This helps me find new music. Plus, since I’m an enormous music snob, it gives me statistical proof that I listen to better music than everyone else.
I like this as a social networking program because its connections are based on something more than what people say they listen to. I can say I love Tom waits all I want on my myspace profile, but if you look at my audioscrobbler profile, you will see that he accounts for nearly ten percent of all the songs I have listened to since I signed up. But like Mike said, my reason for signing up is not to build my social network. My reason for signing up is to find suggestions for music I might enjoy.
Posted on March 30, 2005 05:31 PM | #
31. Jakob Heuser said:
Figures that things have been so busy at work that I neglected my RSS reader and almost missed your article on Online Communities.
I work for the company Gaia Interactive, creators of the social forum/community web site Gaia Online (http://www.gaiaonline.com). This website, targeting a 50/50 split of males to females and a target age range of 13-18 has during it’s peak hours of 6pm to 9pm pacific time almost 30,000 simultaneous users. (1.6 million registered) Before I dip too far into my experiences, let me go ahead and touch on your questions.
@ Mike D.: It seems that the most success in an online community derives from something that is first a service, and second a social community. To draw on my professional experience, Gaia Online is a game. Users collect gold and create fully customized avatars which they can then use on the site and games. This process though creates a community of users who work together to accomplish this common goal.
@ Cropper: Building off of the base of open source is not always the greatest idea. I can’t count the number of times I’ve woken up at 3 am in a cold sweat because we haven’t rewritten some aspect of phpbb’s core that might be exploited or something terrible. Open Source can indeed give you a foundation to build on, but you should definitely inspect for cracks frequently.
It has always seemed the secret to a successful online community is that it has to be fun. It doesn’t matter if this fun is custom avatars / games, or perhaps blogging and getting comments from friends, or even just hanging out and talking about cars. If it is fun to do the activity, you will return to the source of the community and, over time, will become a part of it and enjoy everything it has to offer. Moderation always plays a large role in helping to keep a community oriented and upright, but a well done community actually becomes self-supported in many ways. For Gaia, there are only 110 moderators to the 30,000 active users- and the community members help enforce their own area’s rules and guidelines. It’s amazing to watch.
So then, with all of these people, how does Gaia Interactive as a company actually pay for servers, bandwidth, and staffing? With the help of the “game” that is very much a part of our community, the Avatar System on Gaia has a once-per-month Donation Item that costs a member $2.50 to obtain. Since this is an item only available for a specific month, it becomes a “rare item” and drives the economy for the site. Additionally, these donations are enough for Gaia to cover all of its server and bandwidth needs. Add in an ongoing story, special holiday events, and the ability for members to create their own private forums, and you have one massive social project.
I think I’ve babbled enough, though I’m curious if anyone else has had experience with creating smaller topic-specific communities within a larger global community. Cheers!
Posted on March 31, 2005 07:48 PM | #
32. Joe Leech said:
There’s no such thing as online communities - communities online only work when there is offline community to support them.
Posted on April 1, 2005 01:46 AM | #
33. Lea said:
Ha! Jakob, what a huge coincidence. The community I had been referring to in my post is based on some of the people responsible for the beginnings of Gaia Online (i.e. FAHQ and OCAD community, specifically) Truly, this is a small world. :-D Ah, the good ol’ days…
Posted on April 1, 2005 08:02 AM | #
34. jason said:
I belong to Friendster, MySpace and Flickr. I rarely visit Friendster or MySpace because I simply don’t have the interest to dedicate the time that it takes to truly be a part of those communities. Flickr, on the other hand, is wonderful.
I have high hopes for Ben Brown and Adam Mathes’ Consumating site, which has just entered public beta. Yes, it’s a dating site, but it’s bound to be a different kind of animal.
Posted on April 2, 2005 09:33 AM | #
35. Lea said:
> Have you met someone online in real life? How�’d it go?
Well, I first met my husband on a mailing list, and he was interstate from me. Obviously that worked out quite well - our 4th anniversary this year.
He has travelled overseas and met quite a few people from the same community, but I’ve only met the few of the more local ones. All good people.
Posted on April 3, 2005 12:20 AM | #
36. Vitaly Friedman said:
It might be quite hard to find the right person in a online-community, but if you find one - having spent squillions of hours posting reasonable and unreasonable - you certainly feel happy to be the part of it.
Online-communities definitely have their bad and good bits. But - speaking from my experience - it’s hard to find good bits, unless you’re quite good at finding right people.
With best regards and warm greetings from Saarbruecken, Germany,
Vitaly Friedman,
http://www.alvit.de/vf/
Posted on April 4, 2005 12:50 AM | #
37. Rob said:
Kieth - interesting first read of your blog. In particular - this entry about online communities is a particular favorite subject of mine. I have used online communities to waste time as well as to foster a strong sense of community within an organization. I currently consider myself an ‘online community evangelist’ as I do my darndest to encourage any of my member-based clients (marathon training programs, churches, etc) to embrace community-based technology. I have more to add - i’ll bookmark and come back later.
Posted on April 5, 2005 01:20 PM | #
38. Paula Robinson said:
I have to say that some of the negative comments on online communities (Ryan Latham) seem to stem more from low self esteem, then a general disinterest. I love Myspace. I joined from an invite from a friend- a real flesh and blood- have known for 10 years friend. I then found about 10 others that I have known in real life, but havent seen in years, and we now chat on a regular basis. We post new pics often, and it is almost like seeing them everyday, and getting to be involved in their day to day, much like when we lived in the same town.
I didnt join to find a date, or have someone tell me how sexy I am. I joined myspace to have another line of communication with my friends. The blog entries are for expression, like a journal and I dont care if someone responds to it, thats not what it is for in my opinion. Those who want to use the online community to promote themselves, show enticing photos, and collect comments on them, have their right to do so, unless the photo violates policy.
In short, online communities formed in good taste are an excellent way to meet new people, keep in touch with those you already know, and get in touch with the outside world. Its safer than email since there are no attachments, and privacy settings enable you to only be contacted by those you want to approve. Myspace rocks!
Posted on June 9, 2005 05:17 AM | #
39. James said:
Wow. I didn’t realize so many people were for online communities. I was under the impression that most adults thought that it ‘rotted the minds of out youth’!
I’m a teenager, and a member of Gaia Online, the community Mr. Heuser (who I’m assuming is the famous Jakobo) mentioned earlier. Frankly, I think that online communities are wonderful. They give you the chance to meet and talk to amazing people that you wouldn’t be able to without. I’ve also gotten help with my prose writing from a few people I’ve talked to in the Writer’s Forum section of Gaia, which has in turn improved my English grade!
Posted on September 21, 2005 05:45 PM | #
40. Natasha said:
Keith
I think you are the best, you have good looks, sing good. I have your,’Keith Urban Living Right Now’ and I love it, I also love how you don’t just sing but you talk to the fans and tell them to sing wth you.
Talk later natasha x0x0
Posted on October 16, 2005 04:01 PM | #
Comments are now closed