About Mobility

I thought this was well expressed by Fred Stutzman on his piece Social Network Transitions:

“To generalize, let’s consider two types of social networks: ego-centric and object-centric. An ego-centric social network places the individual as the core of the network experience (Orkut, Facebook, LinkedIn, Friendster) while the object-centric network places a non-ego element at the center of the network. Examples of object-centric networks include Flickr (social object: photograph), Dopplr (social object: travel instance), del.icio.us (social object: hyperlink) and Digg (social object: news item). The characteristics of ego- and object-centric networks are similar, and a human can certainly be considered a social object, but I delineate based on the significant experiential difference.”
:
:
:

“As I’ve stated, Facebook and the ego-centric social networks are the outliers in social software. And while its tempting to be the outlier (look, Techcrunch says Facebook is the 5th most valuable internet company ever!), its an ultimately impossible proposition. Object-centric networks, however, offer unlimited potential.”

ceo

I recently read the current definition of Social Graph at Wikipedia, and how it compares to the definition of a Social Network:

A social graph consists of who an individual is connected to based on the type of connections, such as work, friendship, interests, and location. It differs from a social network, which consists of who an individual is connected to based on the existence/strength of (one type of) connection, such as work. A social graph therefore conceives of connections in a typological way, whereas a social network does so in a binary/spectral way. I.e. a social graph asks what type of connection exists between individuals, whereas a social network simply asks whether the connection exists or how strong it is. Accordingly, a social graph is a more complex/higher-level model of a social system than a social network.
:
:

I find the above current definition to be confusing, extravagant, not right, and based on someone’s opinion (which shows why the current Wikipedia model is broken). For example, when you study social interactions and behaviors, you will find that there is nothing “binary/spectral way” on the way humans behave socially. Don’t confuse what a graph and network is, how it evolves/grows, with characteristics or how those are to be analyzed (i.e. degrees, levels, distances, and so on). On the other hand, I found the Wikipedia definitions of Social Network and Social Structures to be good ones.

I understand that the need to differentiate between social structures and networks is an important one, as they are related but not the same thing. For this below I offer a simple, clear and accurate definition for social graphs and social networks, based on observation, practice and accepted definitions:

A social graph:

…a social graph is a structure used for the representation (and implementation) of a social network.

A social network:

…a social network is a social structure that is typically represented by a social graph, that is defined as an instance of all its entities and the relationships between them at a particular point in time, and that is typically related to a particular category or target audience.

An example of a social graph is a traditional Rooted Tree or a Spanning Tree, which in the case of a social network, it would be a tree consisting of nodes that represent a particular kind (category or target audience) of social network. Social networks don’t have to be categorized but typically are, for example LinkedIn, which is a social network that is focused on the category of “individuals and their business relationships”.

The above definition (I hope) helps provide a clear and simple definition, separation and relationship between social graphs and social networks.

Related to this:

• Brad Fitzpatrick’s Thoughts on the Social Graph
• Google Social Graph API
• Social Graph: Concepts and Issues (ReadWriteWeb)
• Mobile Youth is a myth .. (OpenGardens)

ceo

[Source of image: Wikipedia page on Social Network. A modified version of source]

Danah Boyd (apophenia) together with Nicole Ellison, have published the introduction piece of a very interesting paper on social networking — see the announcement at danah’s blog, and also see the introduction to Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.

Abstract:

Social network sites (SNSs) are increasingly attracting the attention of academic and industry researchers intrigued by their affordances and reach. This special theme section of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication brings together scholarship on these emergent phenomena. In this introductory article, we describe features of SNSs and propose a comprehensive definition. We then present one perspective on the history of such sites, discussing key changes and developments. After briefly summarizing existing scholarship concerning SNSs, we discuss the articles in this special section and conclude with considerations for future research.

The paper is a good read. The authors provide a definition to social network, provide historical information/perspectives, work done in the area of social networking, and a set of references to their work.

ceo

Nielsen//NetRatings reports the top social network portals for September 2007:

ceo

(Via IT Facts @ ZD Net)

Update (Nov 1st): MySpace joins Google’s OpenSocial.

More updates: Adding more reference links at the bottom of this entry

Google has announced its open social API. Very interesting. This can be big and a leap forward, converging into one service all social information and activities currently spread out across many social portals and platforms.

Based on TechCrunch:

OpenSocial is a set of three common APIs, defined by Google with input from partners, that allow developers to access core functions and information at social networks:

* Profile Information (user data)
* Friends Information (social graph)
* Activities (things that happen, News Feed type stuff)

Note the inclusion of activities (such as Jaiku’s life-streams, and other).

It seems most social players, including Plaxo and LinkedIn are involved, but not involved is MySpace is not, neither is Facebook (which is the typical tendency of protecting their turf).

Related to this see:
* Campfire One: Introducing OpenSocial (YouTube) – good introduction
* Open Social: a new universe of social applications all over the web
* Details Revealed: Google OpenSocial To Launch Thursday
* Open Social: a new universe of social applications all over the web
* OpenSocial details coming out
* OpenSocial makes the web better
* Open Social: screencast and screenshots
* Report from the front: Tonight’s launch of Open Social

Is this another brick on the wall? on Google’s path to complete information “ownership” (see Google owns you (and me too) but now with central access of our daily activities and our friends activities, our profiles and our friends profiles, and how they all connect or relate to each other? Not that I’m paranoid, but it is something to think about. Update: based on Google, all information is not centralized and will reside on their respective containers (i.e. LinkedIn, MySpace, etc).

ceo

Shawn Conahan, CEO @ Intercasting, wrote and interesting piece titled Decoupling social networking, but his following statement is just strange:

“Simply put, Communication is more valuable than Search. ”

I was going to leave a comment in his blog, but couldn’t find how, so I am writing here instead.

I understand where Shawn is going with it, but he is comparing apples with oranges! Communication and search, both different, both as valuables, for different reasons.

ceo

In his post David Beisel covers potential methods for Social Media Monetization; a very good summary.

I personally believe that monetizing from social software is a very hard thing to do; everyone loves social networking, but few wants to pay for it.

Below are David’s potential ways to monetize social media, paraphrased as I’ve interpreted them:

1. Context-based advertisement, both social context and well as content-based (like AdSense) advertisement.
2. Advertisement via widgets (syndication), similar to #1 above, but via widget as a result of the syndication itself.
3. Social shopping/commerce, where the social context is leveraged into the shopping experience.

5. Pay for content such as ring-tones, wallpapers, etc.

I will add a few other approaches:

1. Promotions offerings
2. Directory Services
3. The good ole’ Search
4. New applications that improve the social networking experience, this is, how people communicate, interact, share…

The above also applies to mobile social software or media.

ceo

Very funny, and so true!

Click to Enlarge (go to The Gaping Void)

ceo

A very good piece by
Shawn Conahan of Intercasting Corp., makers of Rabble
- see “Social Networking” is a Construct (part 1 of 2). I share many of Shawn's concepts and definitions.

Related to this topic see Elements of Social Networks Software.

ceo

On his blog, Tristan Louis wrote 5 reasons why social networks can succeed. But what Tristan has described is much more than 5 reasons to succeed – he described the true essence of social networks software:

1. Viral Nature
2. Provides an Online Identity
3. Enhances Knowledge
4. Satisfies humans basic need to share
5. Satisfies humans basic need to connect and communicate

A very good summary of what social networks are all about.

Tristan also wrote 5 reasons why social networks fail:

1. Privacy concerns
2. No real reward or penalty system
3. Not granular enough
4. Not integrated with other apps
5. Walled Gardens

But I will add that there are 5 other reasons why social networks fail – all we have to do is negate the 5 reasons they succeed:

1. If not viral in nature
2. If it doesn't provide online identity
3. If it doesn't enhance knowledge
4. If it not good at allowing humans to share
5. If it not good at connecting people and letting them communicate effectively

I really like how Tristan has defined the above elements of social networks and software. All of these principles are applicable as-is to mobile-based social networks/software as well.

ceo

Interesting post by Nivi: Between Metcalfe’s and Reed’s Laws… He has triggered on me thoughts on the measurability and effectiveness of social software & networks … Hm…

ceo