the growth of some groups and not others
The standard design philosophy currently being used in many social network systems is to encourage the user to sign into the site and duplicate functions like exchanging messages in different formats. For many users this is too much a waste of time in that most important things are carried out by the user in their current message environment. The addition of groups that social networks finally recognized (they existed in some systems in the 70's) as a key valuable addition to communication systems will spread and be better integrated in message services. I also note that some social networks are making it easier to handle social network functions without signing in and leaving your normal environment. Like many of you I currently am in 4 different network social systems and within groups within those. It gets to be a real mess when one cannot easily move through the different environments by being able to do the same function in one way in one place.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Information Systems, NJIT homepage: http://is.njit.edu/turoff
Murray Turoff wrote:
The standard design philosophy currently being used in many social network systems is to encourage the user to sign into the site and duplicate functions like exchanging messages in different formats. For many users this is too much a waste of time in that most important things are carried out by the user in their current message environment. The addition of groups that social networks finally recognized (they existed in some systems in the 70's)
Would you please give more details on this ? Which one, and how did they differ from today's ? - ft
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Information Systems, NJIT homepage: http://is.njit.edu/turoff _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I think Murray Turoff is referring to the system that he pioneered, called the Emergency Management Information Systems And Reference Index (EMISARI). See: Hiltz and Turoff, (1978), The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley), also see: http://www.livinginternet.com/r/ri_emisari.htm Murray Turoff and Roxanne Hiltz had a vision that was decades ahead of the times. Bill On 31 Dec 2008, at 09:39, Frank Thomas wrote:
Murray Turoff wrote:
The standard design philosophy currently being used in many social network systems is to encourage the user to sign into the site and duplicate functions like exchanging messages in different formats. For many users this is too much a waste of time in that most important things are carried out by the user in their current message environment. The addition of groups that social networks finally recognized (they existed in some systems in the 70's) Would you please give more details on this ? Which one, and how did they differ from today's ?
- ft
I wonder, whether the "Network Nation" is the first book on CMC? Alexander. William Dutton <william.dutton@oii.ox.ac.uk> писал(а) в своём письме Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:55:30 +0300:
I think Murray Turoff is referring to the system that he pioneered, called the Emergency Management Information Systems And Reference Index (EMISARI). See: Hiltz and Turoff, (1978), The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley), also see: http://www.livinginternet.com/r/ri_emisari.htm Murray Turoff and Roxanne Hiltz had a vision that was decades ahead of the times.
Bill
Thanks for the interesting link. - ft William Dutton wrote:
I think Murray Turoff is referring to the system that he pioneered, called the Emergency Management Information Systems And Reference Index (EMISARI). See: Hiltz and Turoff, (1978), The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley), also see: http://www.livinginternet.com/r/ri_emisari.htm Murray Turoff and Roxanne Hiltz had a vision that was decades ahead of the times.
Bill
On 31 Dec 2008, at 09:39, Frank Thomas wrote:
Murray Turoff wrote:
The standard design philosophy currently being used in many social network systems is to encourage the user to sign into the site and duplicate functions like exchanging messages in different formats. For many users this is too much a waste of time in that most important things are carried out by the user in their current message environment. The addition of groups that social networks finally recognized (they existed in some systems in the 70's) Would you please give more details on this ? Which one, and how did they differ from today's ?
- ft
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Hi Murray You raise an interesting issue that seems not to have been fully addressed since the early 70's with Caucus and EIES as early social networks coming from the old BBS systems. With increased connectivity and a proliferation of social networking sites, the problem has only become more complex. a) The expansion has, in many ways reduced the personal information density- more "stuff" to filter through to get to personally important information b) more fragmentation as each "group" remains conflicted between being open and wanting to keep value from dilution. One observation, here, is that many "groups" start out with high density and hopes and then gradually fade either as the old guard fades or moves on, taking its knowledge with it which either leads to no activity or a bunch of newbies starting over but from a different place c) small groups form and become private. thoughts? tom tom abeles
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:10:49 +0100 From: murray.turoff@gmail.com To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] the growth of some groups and not others
The standard design philosophy currently being used in many social network systems is to encourage the user to sign into the site and duplicate functions like exchanging messages in different formats. For many users this is too much a waste of time in that most important things are carried out by the user in their current message environment. The addition of groups that social networks finally recognized (they existed in some systems in the 70's) as a key valuable addition to communication systems will spread and be better integrated in message services. I also note that some social networks are making it easier to handle social network functions without signing in and leaving your normal environment. Like many of you I currently am in 4 different network social systems and within groups within those. It gets to be a real mess when one cannot easily move through the different environments by being able to do the same function in one way in one place.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Information Systems, NJIT homepage: http://is.njit.edu/turoff _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_12...
I find the questions about community and groups very similar (and circular - going back and around and back again) to the days of early listprocs when those of us who had listprocs on specialized topics would have backchannel conversations on how to foster discussion and what the value of having a discussing list was/is - and why the does the lurker stay a member etc. Design may be quite a central issue in relation to social network systems where discussion/connection actually is more dispersed and scattered and less focussed in the name of plenty and an imagined "further reach" and "inclusivity" but the questions come back to the same issues of what does it mean to participate or not in online forums - and what's at stake in collecting knowledge and discussion in archives where people can access and reassess and reaccess? Status messages (in SNS), for instance, have no real accessible archives for users - yet a lot of dialogue and exchange happens through those as well. The more I see of how online communication functions these days - the more I hesitate to use "community"... (as someone who has published using that term whether hesitantly or not ...) r On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:04 AM, tom abeles <tabeles@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Murray
You raise an interesting issue that seems not to have been fully addressed since the early 70's with Caucus and EIES as early social networks coming from the old BBS systems. With increased connectivity and a proliferation of social networking sites, the problem has only become more complex.
a) The expansion has, in many ways reduced the personal information density- more "stuff" to filter through to get to personally important information b) more fragmentation as each "group" remains conflicted between being open and wanting to keep value from dilution. One observation, here, is that many "groups" start out with high density and hopes and then gradually fade either as the old guard fades or moves on, taking its knowledge with it which either leads to no activity or a bunch of newbies starting over but from a different place c) small groups form and become private.
thoughts?
tom
tom abeles
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:10:49 +0100 From: murray.turoff@gmail.com To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] the growth of some groups and not others
The standard design philosophy currently being used in many social network systems is to encourage the user to sign into the site and duplicate functions like exchanging messages in different formats. For many users this is too much a waste of time in that most important things are carried out by the user in their current message environment. The addition of groups that social networks finally recognized (they existed in some systems in the 70's) as a key valuable addition to communication systems will spread and be better integrated in message services. I also note that some social networks are making it easier to handle social network functions without signing in and leaving your normal environment. Like many of you I currently am in 4 different network social systems and within groups within those. It gets to be a real mess when one cannot easily move through the different environments by being able to do the same function in one way in one place.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Information Systems, NJIT homepage: http://is.njit.edu/turoff _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_12... _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Radhika Gajjala
participants (6)
-
Alexander Semenov -
Frank Thomas -
Murray Turoff -
Radhika Gajjala -
tom abeles -
William Dutton