Note: I interpreted the instructions as "get the required amount of points by Sunday" and "write your blog by Tuesday"??? I interpreted that as needing one blog, then read it again today and was confused. >_<
This is me.
From lurking the site I figured that the questions that garner the most interest in points and comments are:
1) about sex and relationships or;
2) very general ("Did your parents teach you to cook?")
It makes sense that more people would be interested in more general questions, since more people can answer those and be interested in them. My problem is that I'm generally interested in niche or helpful answers (a current issue is "how do I get these black marks out of my white counter?"). So I began by answering and asking questions about fashion and cosmetics and Japan and Hawaii and garnered a few points, but not really enough.
Then I started giving relationship advice. Since I tend to read relationship advice for fun, I know the most common tenets of that and manage to sound like I know what I'm talking about so I got even more points there. But it still wasn't good enough; I started feeling frustrated.
Surprisingly, the answer that gained me over 40 points was an annoyed one-off to someone who clearly doesn't want to give the new President a chance at all. I guess this surprised me because it wasn't a "helpful" answer to the question, but the way Answerbag is in practice it doesn't seem that the answer has to answer the question - it just has to be a response that people like.
Finally, I changed my strategy to start asking generic questions. My next best result was the question "Have you ever obsessed over something silly?", which gained 7 answers (one short, I know). This was one of my attempts at a more general question and didn't get as much activity as I had hoped for but at least got a little response.
I found the assignment very difficult, as I'm generally interested in niche or easy answers and those are the sort of questions that might get answered but won't have a lot of activity. It almost felt like I was in high school again and competing in some sort of popularity contest that I wasn't going to win, so I was overall surprised that one of my comments managed to get the required number of points.
Relating Answerbag to the readings:
In terms of Tedjamulia et al's article, Answerbag is a direct knowledge-sharing site where people ask questions and give answers about anything. So, unless there are other issues involving usability, marketing, or community relations, the site would have a difficult time not being a successful community. Forums based around questions of a single topic would have a more difficult time simply because they had less material to work with.
It is likely that Answerbag's community extends far outside the number of registered users, as one does not have to be registered to browse the site. Tedjamulia et al says that 80-90% of a community population are lurkers. We all were in that category as we studied the community and prepared for the assignment. It also made me ponder how many times I've been a silent member of a community as I looked up information on the web. Google took me to many places and communities I've never joined - Yahoo Answers, music forums, and blogs, among others.
It seems that many frequent users of Answerbag use it as a source of entertainment for themselves, which explains most of the outside the bag category. Answerbag encourages users to stay on the site by doing what Tedjamulia et al described: setting goals. On every member's profile page is a reminder of their level and how many points they have left to go before they reach a new level, as well as their number of points and comments. Basically, moving up a level is both a goal and a reward. And, users get institutional recognition when they reach level 100.
I ran across an example of Ling et al's paper in a comparison of my question "Why is "feminist" such a bad word in a lot of circles?" and my answer that garnered a lot of points. Ling et al's paper finds that there are far fewer comments when members have similar opinions (in this case about movies) than when members have different opinions. Of course I was tempted to argue with the people who gave inflammatory responses to my feminism response, and did, and they argued back. It seemed the vast majority of people just agreed with my response to the question "How [many] people who voted for Obama wish they could take their vote back?", and gave points rather than leave an agreeing opinion because they couldn't add anything to my answer.
Java et al's article I felt was really focused on twitter and didn't have much that was applicable to Answerbag. The question that article brought up in reference to user intention though was fascinating. It seems that Answerbag does have a place for idle chatter, as personified by the "Outside the Bag" category, but mostly the site's purpose is for information seeking. The user's information need could be about relationships, the best place to hike on Oahu, etcetera, etcetera.
I felt like I didn't have enough psychological background to understand what Schrock et al was discussing, but I agreed that any/all/the information is going to be freed in the de-massification, and it certainly is on sites like Answerbag where anyone can be your expert. (Standard disclaimer about validity of information that "expert" gives applies.) We've seen information in the form of mp3s and videos become free - whether you agree with it or not - and I think one could argue that through social networking our personalities, or representations of them, have become massified. And pseudonymously, there is no such thing as too much information on the internet, so even the parts of us that are normally private have become public. Look at the number of people posting questions about sex on Answerbag.
Finally, harkening back to my last paragraph in the first section, I completely disagree with Ridings and Gefen saying that using the internet for computer mediated discussion is like watching television. Television is a much more passive activity - the television is not going to give my question points. The television is not going to argue with me. Most of all, I've been involved in several online communities and the time one must spend to become a trusted voice if everyone is under pseudonyms is usually enormous. I linked earlier to Dr. Gazan's post congratulating a user for reaching level 100, and the first thing I could think of when I saw that was "How long did THAT take?" Online communities, if you participate actively in them, involve much time and energy, as they are inherently social. Not television at all.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
hobby-based social networking sites
On the Readings
I believe the Twitter disaster in the NPR article by Weeks reflects the dichotomy between "the often conflicting desires for autonomy and connection" that Galston mentions. The mother in the Weeks article wanted to have some sort of connection to others during her trials of motherhood, so she used Twitter, but she also wanted to have enough autonomy that a non-serious remark made in a fit of anger wouldn't send the police to her door. This is also an example of the surveillance Albrechtslund speaks of, although the majority of what he discusses involves positive forms of surveillance that let you know what your friends are doing without those long, reviled Christmas cards.
LaRose et al concluded that the internet can provide information and connection through emails that can help depression, but issues like computer malfunctions can make it worse. They do not mention issues like cyberbullying, which could make depression worse.
As an arts education advocate, the Hague blog struck a chord with me. We, as a society, are so obsessed with meaningful (= monetary) production that we barely give ourselves time to rest, myself included.
Investigative Question
My main investigative question comes from Bigge and Rosen's discussions - are hobby-based social networking sites purely devoted to narcissism and market (business) surveillance? I picked last.fm to explore, but there are others, such fashion-based sites PoupeeGirl and Chictopia.
I've been a member of last.fm for a long time, but I've been mostly a lurker other than the software's silent tracking of every track I listen to in iTunes and an unknown person friending me every once in a while. Last.fm itself claims to be a "music service that learns what [music] you love", but the fact that it allows you to friend other users and join groups, some personalization, and playlist creation among other features leads me to put it under the "social computing" umbrella. I would call it a music-based social networking site.
Screenshot of my last.fm homepage
So after looking interacting with the site a little more, do I find it a place of market surveillance and a reflection of individual narcissism?
Sometimes, but mostly not. Like most activities both online and off, you can take the narcissism aspect of membership in a social networking site to the extent that you want to. I've seen flame wars on other message boards about someone tagging a new track incorrectly. (This is important because last.fm recognizes tracks automatically and the first metadata placed on a new track sticks.)
Recently, I put a note on a wiki page indicating that the artist information for this live track was incorrect.
Last.fm has a friending mechanism, but is not quite the center of existence as in Facebook or MySpace - the music is. Rosen's article claims that today's social networking sites organize themselves around the person, but I would disagree, as the home and start pages of last.fm both are about music.
Screenshot of the last.fm main page
There is a community aspect, however, and last.fm certainly is committed to Rosen's "self-exposure", with every intricacy of your music listening exposed. (You can delete tracks you're embarrassed about, if you're really concerned.) With every other user's page that you visit, you get a "compatibility rating" based on the music that both you and the other person have listened to.
Example of compatibility rating
This could allow you to make new friends, as well as joining groups with others. There is undoubtedly Albrechtslund's kind of surveillance, where you can see what your friends are listening to. You can also see what kind of music people you've never met before like, and recommend new music to them.
The site advertises itself as a place to "stream free music", and there certainly is a good amount of free streaming music available from various record labels - both public and private. There is also the commercial presence that Bigge discusses, with links to purchase tracks and albums from Amazon and iTunes and announcements of nearby concerts. These could be helpful, however, depending on how one looks at the issue. Many independent bands offer their music for streaming through last.fm along with the major labels.
The potential relaxing creative factor in hobby-based social networking sites such as last.fm is that they are not "something everyone does" like MySpace and Facebook and do not require the "forced volunteerism" that Bigge mentions - they are something a user participates in because the user is an aficionado. Last.fm, and other hobby based social networking sites, seem to be isolated from the real world as sites like MySpace and Facebook are not, since they do not require the use of one's real name (Facebook and MySpace do not technically require this, but it is expected) and may therefore not attract levels of narcissism and surveillance that "pure" social networking sites have.
I believe the Twitter disaster in the NPR article by Weeks reflects the dichotomy between "the often conflicting desires for autonomy and connection" that Galston mentions. The mother in the Weeks article wanted to have some sort of connection to others during her trials of motherhood, so she used Twitter, but she also wanted to have enough autonomy that a non-serious remark made in a fit of anger wouldn't send the police to her door. This is also an example of the surveillance Albrechtslund speaks of, although the majority of what he discusses involves positive forms of surveillance that let you know what your friends are doing without those long, reviled Christmas cards.
LaRose et al concluded that the internet can provide information and connection through emails that can help depression, but issues like computer malfunctions can make it worse. They do not mention issues like cyberbullying, which could make depression worse.
As an arts education advocate, the Hague blog struck a chord with me. We, as a society, are so obsessed with meaningful (= monetary) production that we barely give ourselves time to rest, myself included.
Investigative Question
My main investigative question comes from Bigge and Rosen's discussions - are hobby-based social networking sites purely devoted to narcissism and market (business) surveillance? I picked last.fm to explore, but there are others, such fashion-based sites PoupeeGirl and Chictopia.
I've been a member of last.fm for a long time, but I've been mostly a lurker other than the software's silent tracking of every track I listen to in iTunes and an unknown person friending me every once in a while. Last.fm itself claims to be a "music service that learns what [music] you love", but the fact that it allows you to friend other users and join groups, some personalization, and playlist creation among other features leads me to put it under the "social computing" umbrella. I would call it a music-based social networking site.
Screenshot of my last.fm homepage
So after looking interacting with the site a little more, do I find it a place of market surveillance and a reflection of individual narcissism?
Sometimes, but mostly not. Like most activities both online and off, you can take the narcissism aspect of membership in a social networking site to the extent that you want to. I've seen flame wars on other message boards about someone tagging a new track incorrectly. (This is important because last.fm recognizes tracks automatically and the first metadata placed on a new track sticks.)
Recently, I put a note on a wiki page indicating that the artist information for this live track was incorrect.
Last.fm has a friending mechanism, but is not quite the center of existence as in Facebook or MySpace - the music is. Rosen's article claims that today's social networking sites organize themselves around the person, but I would disagree, as the home and start pages of last.fm both are about music.
Screenshot of the last.fm main page
There is a community aspect, however, and last.fm certainly is committed to Rosen's "self-exposure", with every intricacy of your music listening exposed. (You can delete tracks you're embarrassed about, if you're really concerned.) With every other user's page that you visit, you get a "compatibility rating" based on the music that both you and the other person have listened to.
Example of compatibility rating
This could allow you to make new friends, as well as joining groups with others. There is undoubtedly Albrechtslund's kind of surveillance, where you can see what your friends are listening to. You can also see what kind of music people you've never met before like, and recommend new music to them.
The site advertises itself as a place to "stream free music", and there certainly is a good amount of free streaming music available from various record labels - both public and private. There is also the commercial presence that Bigge discusses, with links to purchase tracks and albums from Amazon and iTunes and announcements of nearby concerts. These could be helpful, however, depending on how one looks at the issue. Many independent bands offer their music for streaming through last.fm along with the major labels.
The potential relaxing creative factor in hobby-based social networking sites such as last.fm is that they are not "something everyone does" like MySpace and Facebook and do not require the "forced volunteerism" that Bigge mentions - they are something a user participates in because the user is an aficionado. Last.fm, and other hobby based social networking sites, seem to be isolated from the real world as sites like MySpace and Facebook are not, since they do not require the use of one's real name (Facebook and MySpace do not technically require this, but it is expected) and may therefore not attract levels of narcissism and surveillance that "pure" social networking sites have.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
on social computing
Social computing is an umbrella term for technologies and virtual spaces that allow users to create, describe and share content, and for the communities that arise around them.
The term "computing" in social computing is problematic because it indicates that the users are only using computers, which they may not be. The introduction of the iPhone in US has brought a "do-it-all" phone trend that started much earlier in Asia; individuals can upload photos to Flickr, videos to YouTube or type replies to blogs using their phones or other personal digital assistants. While yes, these objects technically are computers or the vague "technologies" of the definition, the term "social computing" itself is misleading as our computers get smaller and smaller, and fall into the "phone" category.
Speaking of the social in social computing - just who are the "users"? Tenopir expresses fear over an anarchist information world, where we never know who we're talking to or what their expertise really is. Dibbell confirms the problem in the tale of Mr. Bungle: the Lambda MOO thinks there is one person behind that keyboard, but it is truly a number of undergraduates, turning serious online community matters into offline fun in their character's behavior. Users tend to behave with a semblance of how they behave in real life on Facebook and MySpace if they use their real name, whereas on other Web 2.0 applications they may act differently or engage in activities they would not tell their real life contacts about under a pseudonym.
We think that just because a blog or a content sharing site can be social, that it is social. Nardi, Schiano, and Gumbrecht found that most informants used their blogs to keep in touch with family, friends, fellow academics or the odd visitor, but a few had half-private or all private blogs. Herring's data indicates that most blogs do not receive comments, marking a lack of social interactivity and making it very much like the radio analogy mentioned in Nardi, Schiano, and Gumbrecht, where a few dictate the information and a very select few are able to respond. Today LiveJournal - which I count as a hybrid blogging-social networking service, even if Herring does not - has a "private" function - you can make your entire blog only accessible by you if you wish. You can add games, notes, and photos on Facebook that are only accessible by you as well.
In terms of other phrases that may be conflated with social computing - Web 2.0, social software, social networks, and social computing all share aspects in common. Beer and Burrows defines Web 2.0 as a "cluster of new applications and related online cultures". The term tends to define web applications that rose during and after the more popular social networks. Social networks where people post profiles of themselves and friend other people (example: Facebook). Social networking is relatively new, and as boyd and Ellison point out has an offline component as friending generally occurs between users who already know each other offline. Social networking shares other aspects of Web 2.0 as lately, at least Facebook and MySpace have added video and/or photo sharing components and MySpace allows aspiring musicians to stream their songs. Boyd and Ellison claim that last.fm, YouTube, and flickr have become social network sites due to their friending capabilities, but I would disagree as the three of the sites' primary capabilities are still related to content (music, videos, and photos), not friending or profiles, and are instead a hybrid content-presentation/social networking site. Second Life is often included inside the Web 2.0 umbrella, although it is a standalone program and not browser-based at all other than links to places in Second Life.
Social software, a new term to me, seems to be analogous to social computing and indicates a place where users exchange or create any sort of information, including social networking. It includes Massively Online Multiplayer RPGs, or MMORPGS, such as World of Warcraft and many others.
Social computing and social software are a somewhat older phenomenon than Web 2.0, as pre-Web 2.0 users were already chatting on message boards, over IRC, over AIM, downloading content over Napster and Audiogalaxy, roleplaying on MOOs and MUDs and creating personal webpages before that. Certainly, the group of new contenders such as YouTube and Facebook have thrown Web 2.0 into real life, with such examples as Barack Obama's change.gov with videos, and forums and the online Rickrolling phenomenon reversing with a live surprise Rick Astley at the Macy's Day parade. Truly, of all these terms, social computing is the umbrella term - but its name exclusion of mobile phones and other small digital assistants is troubling, as that seems to be an area where social computing is expanding.
My revised definition of social computing would therefore be:
Social computing is a term for technologies (including mobile devices) and virtual spaces that allow users to create, describe and/or share content, and for the communities that sometimes arise or already exist around such content.
The term "computing" in social computing is problematic because it indicates that the users are only using computers, which they may not be. The introduction of the iPhone in US has brought a "do-it-all" phone trend that started much earlier in Asia; individuals can upload photos to Flickr, videos to YouTube or type replies to blogs using their phones or other personal digital assistants. While yes, these objects technically are computers or the vague "technologies" of the definition, the term "social computing" itself is misleading as our computers get smaller and smaller, and fall into the "phone" category.
Speaking of the social in social computing - just who are the "users"? Tenopir expresses fear over an anarchist information world, where we never know who we're talking to or what their expertise really is. Dibbell confirms the problem in the tale of Mr. Bungle: the Lambda MOO thinks there is one person behind that keyboard, but it is truly a number of undergraduates, turning serious online community matters into offline fun in their character's behavior. Users tend to behave with a semblance of how they behave in real life on Facebook and MySpace if they use their real name, whereas on other Web 2.0 applications they may act differently or engage in activities they would not tell their real life contacts about under a pseudonym.
We think that just because a blog or a content sharing site can be social, that it is social. Nardi, Schiano, and Gumbrecht found that most informants used their blogs to keep in touch with family, friends, fellow academics or the odd visitor, but a few had half-private or all private blogs. Herring's data indicates that most blogs do not receive comments, marking a lack of social interactivity and making it very much like the radio analogy mentioned in Nardi, Schiano, and Gumbrecht, where a few dictate the information and a very select few are able to respond. Today LiveJournal - which I count as a hybrid blogging-social networking service, even if Herring does not - has a "private" function - you can make your entire blog only accessible by you if you wish. You can add games, notes, and photos on Facebook that are only accessible by you as well.
In terms of other phrases that may be conflated with social computing - Web 2.0, social software, social networks, and social computing all share aspects in common. Beer and Burrows defines Web 2.0 as a "cluster of new applications and related online cultures". The term tends to define web applications that rose during and after the more popular social networks. Social networks where people post profiles of themselves and friend other people (example: Facebook). Social networking is relatively new, and as boyd and Ellison point out has an offline component as friending generally occurs between users who already know each other offline. Social networking shares other aspects of Web 2.0 as lately, at least Facebook and MySpace have added video and/or photo sharing components and MySpace allows aspiring musicians to stream their songs. Boyd and Ellison claim that last.fm, YouTube, and flickr have become social network sites due to their friending capabilities, but I would disagree as the three of the sites' primary capabilities are still related to content (music, videos, and photos), not friending or profiles, and are instead a hybrid content-presentation/social networking site. Second Life is often included inside the Web 2.0 umbrella, although it is a standalone program and not browser-based at all other than links to places in Second Life.
Social software, a new term to me, seems to be analogous to social computing and indicates a place where users exchange or create any sort of information, including social networking. It includes Massively Online Multiplayer RPGs, or MMORPGS, such as World of Warcraft and many others.
Social computing and social software are a somewhat older phenomenon than Web 2.0, as pre-Web 2.0 users were already chatting on message boards, over IRC, over AIM, downloading content over Napster and Audiogalaxy, roleplaying on MOOs and MUDs and creating personal webpages before that. Certainly, the group of new contenders such as YouTube and Facebook have thrown Web 2.0 into real life, with such examples as Barack Obama's change.gov with videos, and forums and the online Rickrolling phenomenon reversing with a live surprise Rick Astley at the Macy's Day parade. Truly, of all these terms, social computing is the umbrella term - but its name exclusion of mobile phones and other small digital assistants is troubling, as that seems to be an area where social computing is expanding.
My revised definition of social computing would therefore be:
Social computing is a term for technologies (including mobile devices) and virtual spaces that allow users to create, describe and/or share content, and for the communities that sometimes arise or already exist around such content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
