Taking a Bird's-Eye View of 'Social Cyberspaces'

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK2.story&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2003/0001991184&EDATE=TUE+Jul+29+200' target='_blank'>http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...=TUE+Jul+29+200</a><br /><br /></div>"Have you ever joined an online message board or newsgroup discussion only to find yourself struggling to decide which participants' advice to heed, whom to ignore, who are the experts, and who is simply making noise or "flame-bait?" Trust and identity are at the core of any well-functioning community, online or in the real world. Researchers at Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) are creating tools to help computer users understand these dynamics -- and get real value from what research sociologist Marc Smith calls "social cyberspaces."<br /><br />According to Smith, social cyberspaces include e-mail, e-mail distribution lists, chat rooms, buddy lists, instant messages, message boards, weblogs "blogs"), and discussion groups such as Usenet. Today, most of these virtual spaces offer little or no "social accounting" data or information that helps users get a big-picture view of the community they are interacting with. Yet the role of social cyberspaces is becoming increasingly important.<br /><br />"Technology no longer consists just of hardware or software or even services, but of communities," said Howard Rheingold, author of "The Virtual Community" and "Smart Mobs." "Increasingly, community is a part of technology, a driver of technology, and an emergent effect of technology."

[Crystal Eitle]

I'm not sure if there is a need for technological fixes for this problem. To me, it seems like online spaces such as forums and blog comments (the two with which I am most familiar) function much like real life. Users build up a reputation, one which is not marked by anything tangible, but with which one becomes familiar as one becomes better acquainted with the group involved. I'm sure we can all think of PPCT forum members who regularly make helpful and/or interesting comments, as well as those who merely add noise.

I think the fewer rules or technological fixes, the better. Communities without such rules tend to become "self-policing" and give regular drubbings to their less-helpful members (I'm thinking specifically of Metafilter).

The role of human moderators also cannot be underestimated. (Thanks Kati and Steve!)

[GoldKey]

I don't know that I want Microsoft telling me who it thinks I should trust on a message board. "Social Accounting" just has a bad ring to it, very big brotherish. Trust is can only be earned through the social interaction that is required to reach that comfort level.

[fmcpherson]

What about something like eBay's evaluation system? For newbees I can see where message board or newsgroup postings can be intimidating.

[Jason Dunn]

What about something like eBay's evaluation system? For newbees I can see where message board or newsgroup postings can be intimidating.

Indeed. And sometimes the number of posts a person makes doesn't mean they're helpful - it just means they like talk a lot. :roll:

[T-Will]

What about something like eBay's evaluation system? For newbees I can see where message board or newsgroup postings can be intimidating.

Indeed. And sometimes the number of posts a person makes doesn't mean they're helpful - it just means they like talk a lot. :roll:

*cough* Mr. 6664 posts *cough* ;)

[schergr]

As someone who reads a lot and doesn't post much, :roll: I have something to add to this discussion and I'll keep it short.

It seems to me that the value offered by the more frequent posters, who provide useful information (not the ones creating noise), should be recognized. However this recognition should not and I think will not come from M$. Everytime M$ does something such as propose a system like this, the conspiract theorists come out of the woods to yell and scream, "BIG BROTHER".

Lets face it, the scheme on E-Bay works (to a certain degree). On the other hand, users who often get bad ratings come back and sign up with new name. So, in order for this to really work, there has to be some sort of solid identification scheme behind it all. In my mind, thats the real sleeping dragon that M$ wants. Passport!

There are very few organizations who can successfully pull of something on this scale. The US Government (read the US Post Office with their identity mgmt initiatives) and Microsoft. Because they are the only ones with enough visibility and enough users regular users. There will always be people who say passport like services = BIG BROTHER. But if we can agree that conceptually it is a good thing, than I think we're off to a good start.

[Don't Panic!]

All people have to do is read the boards. This whole push for instant gratification/validation is just lazy. What's wrong with plain old research?

Don't Panic!
Bobby

[Jeff Rutledge]

I think this is overly complicated.

I think this analogy fits for most social situations (not just those in cybersapce): Lurk for a while and get a feel for the group, who the players are, etc. and then jump in!

Or:

:lurking: -----------------------> :soapbox: (which of course invariably leads to :nonono: )

[Don Tolson]

I have to agree... this sounds a bit like a 'white tower academic' with far too much time on his hands.

As in real life, communication and experience with people will tell you pretty quickly which ones you go to for information, which ones you can 'just socialize with' and which ones to avoid. Trying to put technology in place to do this basic social skill seems a bit Orwellian to me.

Reading through the forums, contributing when you can, having some innocent fun when appropriate -- seems to be the whole point of the venture. Let's not turn this into someone's doctorate thesis social engineering project.

[Jimmy Dodd]

Make sure you read the entire linked article. It discusses more than one endeavor. Of particular interest (not so off-topic afterall) is the AURA project. n another project, Smith and his colleagues are exploring how online
information can play a role in the physical world. Advanced User Resource
Annotation, or AURA ( http://aura.research.microsoft.com/ ), demonstrates how
people can bridge the gap between online information and the offline world.
Using a wireless Pocket PC outfitted with a bar-code scanner, users can scan
any bar-coded object -- such as food, books or even works of art -- and find
relevant information in real time from newsgroups, Web sites and message
boards.

[Crystal Eitle]

Make sure you read the entire linked article. It discusses more than one endeavor. Of particular interest (not so off-topic afterall) is the AURA project. n another project, Smith and his colleagues are exploring how online
information can play a role in the physical world. Advanced User Resource
Annotation, or AURA ( http://aura.research.microsoft.com/ ), demonstrates how
people can bridge the gap between online information and the offline world.
Using a wireless Pocket PC outfitted with a bar-code scanner, users can scan
any bar-coded object -- such as food, books or even works of art -- and find
relevant information in real time from newsgroups, Web sites and message
boards.

WHOA! 8O That's kind of cool.

I have to admit, I didn't read the whole article. The font hurt my eyes.

Ow! My eyes!!!!!

[scottmag]

I don't see where anyone is getting from the press release that Microsoft is going to determine individuals' worth. It's about the use of enabling technology and the study of group dynamics.

There are already mechanisms in place that can quantify a group's opinion of individuals. Ebay's feedback system aids potential buyers and Slashdot's moderating system evaluates individual contributions. Those aggregate ratings can be used to determine the relative value of a given member.

Those are certainly imperfect systems but are better than the mob-mentality that sometimes protects and supports popular group members. Let's say for example that a new member here on PocketPCThoughts posts a strong rebuttal of something Jason posts - something quantifiable and not just a personal opinion. The group response would tend to support Jason's point of view because he has contributed greatly to many discussions here (obviously) and because he is well liked by the membership. In other words, his contributions are pre-determined to be of higher value. That system is fair enough and mirrors that way we operate in the real world. The downside in an online environment is when over-zealous members react harshly to contrary opinions. Reasonable debate can be stifled and fresh voices and views are crowded out. The ultimate downside result is a groupthink cult of personality where popular members post something and everyone else responds with, yep yep I completely agree, you are the greatest.

(I don't see that as the case here, by the way. But since this site has a narrow core focus most member tend to have strong shared opinions already. Neither good nor bad, just a differentiator from other types of communities)

So think about PPC Thoughts as an example. Would some form of moderating solution help in determining how much value to give each member's contributions? In the above case what would happen if the newbie was ultimately determined to have been right and Jason wrong? Would the damage already be done if an argument had broken out or could you objectively review what was originally said and place value on both the contributions and the behavior of everyone involved. It's interesting to think of how such a system could work. Right now I suspect we all make these determinations mentally right now. After all, I might value someone much different than the group does so a group evaluation system is not necessarily that helpful. Although it could be a guide for new users.

Personally I use a relatively simple system of devaluing any post employing the rolling eyes emoticon. But that's just me.

Scott

[Jimmy Dodd]

WHOA! 8O That's kind of cool.


Of course such a tool (AURA) that deals with pulling information from disparate groups (USENET, blogs, websites, etc.) makes it very hard to cull the noise from the signal by individual research (as others have suggested doing in this thread).

I think the net community needs some way of verifying the credentials of the poster when the poster wants to prove who he/she is, much in the way that downloadable components can be "signed" and authenticated to prove that the originator is whom he says he is. This could be done in a way so as to not restrict anonymous posting at the same time.

Currently, for example, if I find a website that our own Ed Hansberry doesn't frequent I can create a user ID of "Ed Hansberry" and extoll the virtues of the current implementations of BlueTooth connectivity and how it is going to save the world. People doing a search for info on BlueTooth will read my posts, google Ed Hansberry and find that he is a famous editor here at Pocket PC Thoughts and, as such, is an expert, and might take my phony posts as Ed's opinion.

Of course, I don't have an answer to it all, so I guess this is all noise and no signal at this point. :wink:

[FredMurphy]

I don't really think these sort of forums where there is a particular subject to discuss really need users to be independently "rated" by a third party. You can normally tell who the informed and helpful users are fairly quickly. The rare occasion where things get heated seem to be fairly well controlled by a few moderators. This forum is a good example of things working well without Microsoft's intervention.

With larger scale and less focused groups (e.g. eBay) the rating system seems to work reasonably well. Rare instances of abuse seem to be managed.

My own website has shown me how it's a little more difficult managing the expectations and behaviour of 25,000 members joining in a year. (If this seems like a plug or too off-topic feel free to give me a slap.) We require users to confirm who they know and trust and we only let thread propagate past an isolated area of the community once it's been approved. The community can manage itself to some degree (and with a little guidance) and people generally find themselves amongst those they get on with.

I don't want to waffle on too much and take the thread off-topic. If you wondering what I'm on about check out http://www.everyonesconnected.com. Once again, if this seems a bit self-promoting I apologise. (And if anyone says "Friendster rip-off" - we were first. :wink:)

Fred

[scottmag]

With larger scale and less focused groups (e.g. eBay) the rating system seems to work reasonably well.


And the key there is that people have to jump in and make a financial transaction. There's considerably more at stake than posting an opinion on an advocacy site. The only downside here is either wasting your time reading worthless rantings or getting your butt flamed off. Not quite as serious as being the victim of fraud.

But still there's something to be said for a system that will give you a better idea of what's going on when you first arrive. Most people won't have time to examine many online discussion venues for long enough to get a good sense of who's helpful and who's not.

Scott

[TrojanUO]

This forum is a good example of things working well without Microsoft's intervention.

Again, where in the article does it say that Microsoft will be doing the "intervention" and rating people's contributions?

The article is about Microsoft Researchers developing Tools to allow a community to do that sort of rating, conceptually similiar to the way in which Slashcode allows a community to rate the contributions of other members.

It says nothing at all about Microsoft rating people.

[FredMurphy]

This forum is a good example of things working well without Microsoft's intervention.

Again, where in the article does it say that Microsoft will be doing the "intervention" and rating people's contributions?

The article is about Microsoft Researchers developing Tools to allow a community to do that sort of rating, conceptually similiar to the way in which Slashcode allows a community to rate the contributions of other members.

It says nothing at all about Microsoft rating people.

The article says:
At Microsoft(R) Research, Smith leads the Community Technologies group, which is developing tools that can help people make more informed decisions on which community members they can trust
You took this to mean tools for the community to use, which would be OK. I took it to mean a tool which automatically provides a rating for each user according to preprogrammed rules. (See Netscan's "Author Profile" which seems to work more this way.) I certainly didn't mean to imply that Microsoft checked out out and graded you! Ooooh - that'd be pretty scary! 8O

The article isn't really clear on this and neither of the tools referenced really seem to do much to rate users very thoroughly anyway.

[davidspalding]

What about something like eBay's evaluation system? For newbees I can see where message board or newsgroup postings can be intimidating.

This can go terribly wrong. I was maligned in a telnet channel by someone telling stories behind my back. It came out when someone new told me that a "good friend" had assured her I was a "creepy creep." Ick. She then began berating me publicly on the channel for "being a creep," based on this hearsay, not on anything I'd said or done to her. Double-ick.