Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (3115.1)
    (insert half-baked response about social networks and satellite relationships as R&D partnerships programs outside of the wiki paradigm)

    Go on, then.

    (and are you talking about private hubs (Ning etc) in there too?

    -- W
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008
     (3115.2)
    Hahaha. And I'm trouble, yeah?
  2.  (3115.3)
    is the internet going to be the end of civilisation?

    (that's just a yes/no answer)
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008 edited
     (3115.4)
    (and are you talking about private hubs (Ning etc) in there too?
    Well, I'd argue Ning is no more an exclusively private hub than LiveJournal was. Emphasis on the was, that comparison is for early LJ, obviously...

    You go on with: (insert lengthy half-drunk ramble about the rise of the live desktop app and the tuning of channels), too, troublemaker.
  3.  (3115.5)
    Hahaha. And I'm trouble, yeah?

    Yeah. Come on, then. Doing this in public will make a change from the hundred or so emails that usually leave us both with our brains on the floor mewling for mercy.
  4.  (3115.6)
    Well, I'd argue Ning is no more an exclusively private hub than LiveJournal was. Emphasis on the was, that comparison is for early LJ, obviously...


    Well, Ning can make private hubs. I don't know that LJ can make private communities. And if it does -- well, let's face it, it's LJ, it's pretty crippled and stumpy compared to the functionality of a Ning site.

    Ning can facilitate you and your friends building a private messageboard, probably with a private IM backchannel, that you can load up with mp3s and videos and other files -- and if you and your friends are a tight bunch, then that's your home page, and possibly even your desktop.

    That's something that's actually been very hard to build, in the past, and not cheap, either. I think people are passing by Ning as an idea -- while message boards may be, in the historical flow of things, on the way out, I don't think it's insignificant that a large company is offering people the web equivalent of free houses.

    And that alone has to tie into "self-filtering," right?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008
     (3115.7)
    (insert lengthy half-drunk ramble about the rise of the live desktop app and the tuning of channels), said you, and I know about half of what you're thinking about there, probably. Which is great for push-pull from a Hub to a Membership. And makes me start thinking about channels, which makes me start thinking about Networks. Actual Networks -- not MySpace -- that exist to push data based on some over-arcing theme. Or not. Anyway, it's "tuning" that made me start thinking about television, and how you don't pick up a cable channel just because you like one show (although, these days, you kinda do -- but run with me for a minute) -- ostensibly you're picking up a channel because you like the content --

    Well, Cartoon Network, let's say, since that's an easy one to look at -- it's just cartoons. Yay. If you like cartoons, you'll like this channel.

    It's the think the web-rings of olde did -- "If you like this page, you'll like the pages in this network." Making, essentially, a channel of information back in web 1.0. It's what, to a degree, I was pushing for when I made the metanetbar you've got on warrenellis.com and I've got as half my site -- and what, to a really crappy lesser degree a blog/linkroll on the sidebar of many web 2.0 blogs is going for.

    But that's just winding off the thought process I got off your natter, which led me to wondering what you do when your network is Not A Channel. Because mine isn't, obviously -- it's the Ariana and Friends Channel, and that's you and some other futurists, and a couple of artists and some musicians and photographers and travelbloggers... and you get where you'd have a hard time calling that Channel -- it's a Network, yes, but not a homogenous one.

    What it _is_, though, is a research and development partnership program, when I need it to be. Because where I'm an expert in my field of Talking Too Much, my network is made up of experts in their own fields, many of whom I hit up for essential information when I need it.

    (which is where the "outside of the wiki paradigm" comes in -- because where wiki is great for collecting and organizing a mass of information, it's not, in itself, a Creative partnership. It's building an information repository, not creating New Content) But, say you take the Wiki ideal -- a bunch of registered user that are, to varying degrees, experts in some field (or just have done a lot of reading, or are actually completely wrong)...

    This is getting long. I'll post and continue.

    (I do this sort of nattering to Warren ALL THE TIME, yes. It'll be a miracle if I get a complete thought out here, too, yes.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008 edited
     (3115.8)
    Well, Ning can make private hubs. I don't know that LJ can make private communities. And if it does -- well, let's face it, it's LJ, it's pretty crippled and stumpy compared to the functionality of a Ning site.
    Sure, that's why I said "was." You were an early adopter over on LJ, you remember when it was private by default, because you only got in if someone invited you, and then you really only knew the person that invited you and the network bolted on to them. But it's not (and neither is Ning) necessarily a private network. People are passing it by because it defaults to public, tells you to invite all of your friends, and moderation is hidden three menus back in the admin panel.

    And, these days, the conversations are all about "Join all your information together whether it makes sense or not! Take your Facebook ID everywhere, even places where you don't actually know anyone in real life, essentially kicking the whole idea of Facebook as a network for real people in the nuts!" Private networks... well they're popping up, but they're popping up because people are amending existing tech to make them walled gardens again.

    Which is three entirely different conversations. That's why we never do this in public...
  5.  (3115.9)
    you should do it in public more often. it's interesting! especially as i don't know a great deal about it.

    so, the future of some aspects of networking are going to be more along the collaborative rather than the sharing vibe?
  6.  (3115.10)
    Private networks... well they're popping up, but they're popping up because people are amending existing tech to make them walled gardens again.

    Yeah, remember when everyone was saying "no, walled gardens bad!" ? Pretty much the same people jabbering about The Social Graph and Facebook Connect and OpenID and fucking FriendFeed and, just occasionally, wondering why no-one cares. Which ties into lifestreaming, and basically just a huge fucking firehose of contextless "information."

    I'll be back. I need to get food. Otherwise you will shout at me (again).
  7.  (3115.11)
    Because mine isn't, obviously -- it's the Ariana and Friends Channel, and that's you and some other futurists, and a couple of artists and some musicians and photographers and travelbloggers... and you get where you'd have a hard time calling that Channel -- it's a Network, yes, but not a homogenous one.

    What it _is_, though, is a research and development partnership program, when I need it to be. Because where I'm an expert in my field of Talking Too Much, my network is made up of experts in their own fields, many of whom I hit up for essential information when I need it.



    Aha, though -- the R&D doesn't happen in a centralised place with crosspollination, though, does it? That has to happen through email, and, if you're lucky, trackbacks and call-and-response blogposting. The channel remains a broadcast medium, rather than a conversational medium.

    Yes. Food.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008
     (3115.12)
    Okay, lemme try to, HA HA, Self-Filter.

    A network, let's make it Ning, just for s&g (although it could even be twitter, could be anything at this point.).
    Ning can facilitate you and your friends building a private messageboard, probably with a private IM backchannel, that you can load up with mp3s and videos and other files -- and if you and your friends are a tight bunch, then that's your home page, and possibly even your desktop.
    Sure thing. It can also pull in RSS feeds off your public blogs, if you want it to, so the let's say ten of you can see what's being said out in the world, too.

    (But your profile page isn't really that important, is it? I mean, it's a mostly static page that, sure, has the bulk of your outbound links, maybe even a wall so folks can talk just to you when it's not relevant to the group. The part of Ning (and most SNS out there) that's the _least_ useful is the profile page. It's -- well fuck, when's the last time you updated your profile page, here, other than the automatically updating flickr part. And yet that's the frontpage on MySpace. Anyway.)

    So ten of you have a shared homepage. It's half Netvibes (just because, if you're all work-mates or net-mates or in anyway interested in each other, may as well share what you're doing with each other), and half messaging system (because posting a picture, or a note, or a conversation -- that's all messaging), and half whiteboard -- whether that was your intention or not. Because although what you've basically made is the Wikipedia page of your circle -- everyone contributes and edits the frontpage, everyone appends new facts and information as it comes in -- where it deviates from Wiki is that constant contact with other creative folks will start to to turn into and inform your new content instead of you all just logging your current events (or worse, your past ones).

    Where you've got an R&D group, if you're lucky, is where if you're a guy that makes boats and your friend is a guy that paints houses, and you want to know if there's a bright blue paint you can put on your boat to make it prettier, your friend might just well know of some cobalt all-weather stuff. Or, less vaguely, if you're a writer, and your friend's a city photographer, and you're looking for reference shots of a building downtown...

    ... And I see, refreshing the thread, that, ah, food. Yeah, I should do that, too...
    •  
      CommentAuthoroutlawpoet
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008
     (3115.13)
    Is there any obvious evaluation we can apply to the differing types of networks? Engineering accomplishment? Artists moved from hobbyist to living the life? User satisfaction surveys?

    The problem with the open/closed, push/pull, self-filter/editorfilter debates is that I can't find any way to separate a particular social construct from it's members,implementation, and purpose. email lists and usenet got a lot of cons and projects and objects built, and they also buried a bunch of people in white noise. I know several people who joined the Extropians email list at just the wrong moment, and walked away thinking it was a bunch of messianic dweebs with nothing interesting to say, just as I know a bunch of people who have used things as horrific as AOL Groups and orkut to run very interesting little communities.

    Have any communities you two know of migrated between web substrates and changed substantially? or better, started in multiple places at once?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008
     (3115.14)
    Aha, though -- the R&D doesn't happen in a centralised place with crosspollination, though, does it? That has to happen through email, and, if you're lucky, trackbacks and call-and-response blogposting. The channel remains a broadcast medium, rather than a conversational medium.
    But it doesn't have to be. I use my homepage to keep up with the blogposts of my network, and if I've got something I want to say about what they've just writing (and they've got comments open), yes, I'll pop over to their site and say so. (Trackbacks are a broken system, nearly as much as comments). If it triggers some other, unrelated thought, I've got to pop over to email and send that way.

    If my page were a public page with a private backend, or if Ning allowed the front page to be publicly visible and the back pages (forum, messaging, etc) to be members only, that would be a public channel with a staff-only back room for centralized R&D.
  8.  (3115.15)
    But your profile page isn't really that important, is it? I mean, it's a mostly static page that, sure, has the bulk of your outbound links, maybe even a wall so folks can talk just to you when it's not relevant to the group.

    Aside: it's more useful in a private garden. because on a private garden I have fewer compunctions about posting all my phone numbers, near and future travel arrangements etc. End aside.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008
     (3115.16)
    Have any communities you two know of migrated between web substrates and changed substantially?
    Well... you're in one right now. This is the manyth incarnation of a group of folks that show up because Warren built someplace to be. But it's significantly different from Bad Signal or The Engine or DPH or the WEF or Telepho.ning or the comments section of warrenellis.livejournal, although we've got a lot of the same faces, and the same guy on the masthead.

    Yes, yes, food.
  9.  (3115.17)
    Go and eat, damnit.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008
     (3115.18)
    Aside: it's more useful in a private garden. because on a private garden I have fewer compunctions about posting all my phone numbers, near and future travel arrangements etc. End aside.
    That's not actually a full aside, because one of the things I really liked about 30boxes and... what was it, neeetz? One of the Ning clones... was the calendar feature.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2008
     (3115.19)
    Go and eat, damnit.
    ... eep! All right...
  10.  (3115.20)
    (insert lengthy half-drunk ramble about the rise of the live desktop app and the tuning of channels), said you,

    Yes I did, because it's 2008 and I no longer want to go looking for stuff all the time. So I run lots of desktop apps that are sometimes called "web-facing." I'm running Twhirl for Twitter and FeedDemon for websites and Diggsby to keep an eye on Facebook and MySpace messages and Gmail Notifier for Gmail. And they're all on timers, and poll their respective sources every few minutes.

    Now, I also have Bloglines, but I don't run an app for that. FeedDemon is "tuned" -- I selected only friends and crucial news sources for FeedDemon. Everything else I'm interested in but don't consider minute-to-minute need-to-know is on Bloglines.

    This isn't a hard setup to get. It could be easier, but it'll do. And what it means is that I can get on with whatever I'm doing while these systems bring my friends directly to my desktop. Now, I could use Friendfeed and the desktop app Alert Thingy. But, really, there's bugger all reason to, and Friendfeed does turn into a firehose. And the thing about Friendfeed is that I can hotrod it so that Alert Thingy brings me updates from other blogs using my account. Which means that I've made Friendfeed useless for anyone wanting to follow me.

    The upshot of this bit being -- you can't use Social Graph-hugging "social news" applications like Friendfeed for a properly turned informational filter.