What properties separate a good usable social network from a failed one? What is the magic in Flickr, Facebook, and YouTube?
I am summarizing the key points made by Jyri Engeström (Co-founder Jaiku) in his 2 long posts Why some social network services work and others don't — Or: the case for object-centered sociality and On The Future of Participatory Media
- Well Defined Social Objects (explained below)
- Photos - Flickr
- URLs -- Delicious
- Well Defined Actions
- Upload – Flickr, YouTube
- Add Comment / Tag – Flickr
- Buy / Sell - eBay
- Social Objects Are Shareable
- Videos - YouTube
- Files - Slideshare
- Photos - Flickr
- Invitations Are Gifts
- Exclusive Invites -- Orkut
- Charge Publishers not Spectators for Social Network Participation (explained below)
- Ads in Facebook
Social Objects -- Are Social Networks made of People Only?
Jyri explains that Social Networks are not merely collections of connected people. Rather, people on social networks get connected via "objects" like jobs, dating, pictures etc.
Objects are the reasons for which people affiliate with each other:
The fallacy is to think that social networks are just made up of people. They're not; social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object...Social Networking makes little sense if we leave out the objects that mediate the ties between people...This is common sense but unfortunately it's not included in the image of the network diagram that most people imagine when they hear the term social network.
Social Networks are multi-sided platforms as I had elaborated in my post How to Build Online Marketplaces and Tech Platforms -- and there is a science in knowing which party to charge while building such platforms. The difference in charging the right group of participants on a Social Network can make the difference between success and failure.
Very interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing.
Michael Hickins
Executive Editor
eWEEK
Posted by: Michael Hickins | February 7, 2008 7:51 PM | Permalink to Comment