On Communities and Content(contrast.ie)
contrast.ie
On Communities and Content
http://www.contrast.ie/blog/on-communities-and-content/
31 comments
All the way back in 2006, Joshua Porter wrote a really good article illustrating this principle using the example of Delicious: http://bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/
The gist of it:
The one major idea behind the Del.icio.us Lesson is that personal value precedes network value. What this means is that if we are to build networks of value, then each person on the network needs to find value for themselves before they can contribute value to the network. In the case of Del.icio.us, people find value saving their personal bookmarks first and foremost. All other usage is secondary.
The gist of it:
The one major idea behind the Del.icio.us Lesson is that personal value precedes network value. What this means is that if we are to build networks of value, then each person on the network needs to find value for themselves before they can contribute value to the network. In the case of Del.icio.us, people find value saving their personal bookmarks first and foremost. All other usage is secondary.
That's a nice restatement of Smith's 'Invisible Hand' concept.
No, it isn't. While widely quoted, out of context, Smith did not believe that a market was guided by an "invisible hand". In his book, he only mentions it once, and in a fairly limited context. His text does point out a number of situations where regulation is interfering with the optimal market state, but the bulk of the book is a description of the kind of market that would self-adjust to an optimum, and the form of regulation that would be best for creating that kind of market. So yes, organizing a community so that personal gain leads to community gain is very much in line with Smith's beliefs, but keep the "invisible hand" out of it. (If you are curious, the full text, long out of copyright, is available at several locations online, with various forms of commentary. I highly recommend the book.)
Your comment is unnecessarily condescending. I have the unabridged text of The Wealth of Nations on my shelf, next to books by virtually ever other major political economist: Locke, Malthus, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Engels, Keynes, Veblen, Polanyi, Hayek, Friedman, Schumpeter, and a collection of institutionalists, rational choice theorists, post-Keynesians, neo/post-Marxists and so on.
The very simple fact is that Elepsis's post is quite literally a restatement of the 'invisible hand.' Here is the one passage from The Wealth of Nations where Smith uses the term:
"He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. …[H]e intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never know much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good…
"…[E]very individual, it is evident, can in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
Elepsis's comment highlights a quote from an article about del.icio.us saying that personal benefit comes first and without personal benefit del.icio.us not only would not work, but there would be no substantial public benefit produced. If anything, this is an even stronger statement than Smith's statement of the 'invisible hand.'
Your comment is somewhat of a non-sequitur. You seem to be attacking the thesis that the market should exist entirely free from the activities of the state. This has nothing to do with my original comment. It's irrelevant if the 'invisible hand' metaphor was only used once—the fact remains that Elepsis's quote is a very straightforward restatement of the 'invisible hand' metaphor. Trying to turn that into some ideological flamewar about free-marketers is unnecessary and unhelpful.
The very simple fact is that Elepsis's post is quite literally a restatement of the 'invisible hand.' Here is the one passage from The Wealth of Nations where Smith uses the term:
"He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. …[H]e intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never know much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good…
"…[E]very individual, it is evident, can in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
Elepsis's comment highlights a quote from an article about del.icio.us saying that personal benefit comes first and without personal benefit del.icio.us not only would not work, but there would be no substantial public benefit produced. If anything, this is an even stronger statement than Smith's statement of the 'invisible hand.'
Your comment is somewhat of a non-sequitur. You seem to be attacking the thesis that the market should exist entirely free from the activities of the state. This has nothing to do with my original comment. It's irrelevant if the 'invisible hand' metaphor was only used once—the fact remains that Elepsis's quote is a very straightforward restatement of the 'invisible hand' metaphor. Trying to turn that into some ideological flamewar about free-marketers is unnecessary and unhelpful.
Reading it a day later, I agree, it was unnecessarily strong, and your interpretation is correct. I am attacking the use of the "invisible hand" to mean "greed benefits everyone", a quite common (and frustrating, to me) abuse of the concept, but you are quite right that the specific use in the book does match the context - that users seeking their own benefit, unwillingly and unaware contribute to the good of the community. I am no longer permitted to edit the comment, but I offer my apology.
I agree that the article is, to some extent, an extension of the principle... I do think, though, that most people wouldn't intuitively make the leap to applying the 'invisible hand' concept to software design. Restating a known principle in terms that make it more applicable is still valuable.
I agree wholeheartedly. Users will contribute content if they have or already create content that you will help them do something with -- present it, organize it, get feedback on it, analyze it, whatever. I signed up for Goodreads thinking I would use it for social networking, maybe find cute girls who read the same books I do, and show off my writing skills to them, but I never actually used it that way. I use it as a place to put my thoughts down about the books I've read. It turns out I don't want anybody to read my embarrassingly shallow and rushed notes, nor do I want to read the embarrassingly shallow and trite ramblings of other normal people like me. I just like the way the site lets me organize my notes and records about what I've read.
And these guys had well-established competitors! But one competitor was a lot less functional, and another had a business model of "provide a free version with incredibly aggravating ads so that users buy a premium version." Instead I immediately moved to RideWithGPS when I heard about it & tell everyone else about it.
But I don't think they're making money off of me. I should probably donate now that I have a real job, since I'm a pretty heavy user. Another cool way they could make money off of me would be selling ads tailored to the kind of riding I do and the kind of bikes I ride, since I've given them that information. That'd actually be pretty cool.
But I don't think they're making money off of me. I should probably donate now that I have a real job, since I'm a pretty heavy user. Another cool way they could make money off of me would be selling ads tailored to the kind of riding I do and the kind of bikes I ride, since I've given them that information. That'd actually be pretty cool.
We are exploring non-ad based revenue models primarily, but, are open to tastefully done ads like you have described. We have plans on greatly enhancing our gear section (can you tell it hasn't been touched in two years?) to encourage more detailed inputs. This will let us do more relevant targeting. If we do ads, I want to attempt to only show ads that are beneficial to a user. Since we are location based, that means maybe only allowing local ads for users, or maybe any ad as long as it is a sweet deal. Users might not be turned off on ads if they are for 25% off stuff the want anyway.
As far as donating, I am working out how I want to handle early donors considering we are nearing the launch of paid accounts. We will be treating our early donors well, they will receive much more than they might otherwise for a normal paid account, but we haven't put any actual "policies" in place. I am constantly surprised by the levels of donations. We received a $200 donation at the end of last week from a single user! The average has been around $22.50 - I have intended on writing a blog piece on it, but haven't managed yet :)
As far as donating, I am working out how I want to handle early donors considering we are nearing the launch of paid accounts. We will be treating our early donors well, they will receive much more than they might otherwise for a normal paid account, but we haven't put any actual "policies" in place. I am constantly surprised by the levels of donations. We received a $200 donation at the end of last week from a single user! The average has been around $22.50 - I have intended on writing a blog piece on it, but haven't managed yet :)
Dude, the user has just asked for advertising :) why are you even mentioning donations?
Giving the user access to stuff they want to buy, when they want to buy it and where they want to buy it, without giving them anything they don't want, when they don't want it, etc is a great value offering for both user and advertiser, it's great that you've got the attitude that advertising has to be beneficial for the user, but remember that it's also beneficial for the advertiser as they don't have to waste money or time on people that wouldn't buy.
If you've got access to your users bike choices, mileage and location, just contact all the bike servicing shops you can manage and offer them a deal, I will bet money the majority will take you up on it.
Giving the user access to stuff they want to buy, when they want to buy it and where they want to buy it, without giving them anything they don't want, when they don't want it, etc is a great value offering for both user and advertiser, it's great that you've got the attitude that advertising has to be beneficial for the user, but remember that it's also beneficial for the advertiser as they don't have to waste money or time on people that wouldn't buy.
If you've got access to your users bike choices, mileage and location, just contact all the bike servicing shops you can manage and offer them a deal, I will bet money the majority will take you up on it.
I still believe that advertising will be a small source of revenue in comparison to paid accounts. But, within the context of advertising, I am pulled towards local, value added advertisements like you mention. It also helps that we have maps on which we can show markers of nearby bikeshops while someone plots their route!
And, I mentioned donations because he directly referred to donating money to our site! I was just giving him the headsup on what we are thinking in terms of donors and our premium accounts, since we should be at that point within a month.
And, I mentioned donations because he directly referred to donating money to our site! I was just giving him the headsup on what we are thinking in terms of donors and our premium accounts, since we should be at that point within a month.
I find myself torn around the value of content in web businesses moving forward.
On the one hand, there's the observations put forward (most strongly, in my encounters, by Scott Adams on his dilbert blog) that content is essentially in a race towards free. The value in this situation is those companies that can sort, aggregate, or point you in the right content direction (HN fits this group; so does Google).
But then there's the fact, and this article makes the point, that without content there's no value. Whether user-generated, expert-driven or otherwise, we do need some content, and no doubt some content is far more valuable than others.
My strength is undoubtedly in created meaningful content. Does that make me valuable, with the right connections, or a sucker with skills that are soon to be comparable to blacksmithing in NYC or making cars in Detroit?
On the one hand, there's the observations put forward (most strongly, in my encounters, by Scott Adams on his dilbert blog) that content is essentially in a race towards free. The value in this situation is those companies that can sort, aggregate, or point you in the right content direction (HN fits this group; so does Google).
But then there's the fact, and this article makes the point, that without content there's no value. Whether user-generated, expert-driven or otherwise, we do need some content, and no doubt some content is far more valuable than others.
My strength is undoubtedly in created meaningful content. Does that make me valuable, with the right connections, or a sucker with skills that are soon to be comparable to blacksmithing in NYC or making cars in Detroit?
It is a big problem, there needs to be content created but in the majority of cases this content can't be produced in an economical fashion, so it's down to people that love what they do, those using it to cross promote something else and the second rate cheap content farms.
You wouldn't believe the number of calls I got when I worked at an agency every day asking us to build facebook, but better in some tiny way. For free. The really generous prospective clients would offer us a share of the potential, expectedly limitless, profits. Critical mass of users is hard enough when launching real tools, social networks are the one in a million perfectly timed shots and follow up with great response to users' needs. You can't manufacture that kind of success, just hope to ride the wave well if and when it comes.
This is well written, and the biggest takeaway is probably the content precedes design line, which I think is pretty key.
On a side note, noticing that this is .ie, I can't help but try to read the article in my head with an Irish accent. But I've been watching a TV show set in Scotland recently (The Book Group, on Hulu), so I'm pretty sure I'm actually reading it in some bastardized Irish/Scottish accent that would surely get me killed in either place.
On a side note, noticing that this is .ie, I can't help but try to read the article in my head with an Irish accent. But I've been watching a TV show set in Scotland recently (The Book Group, on Hulu), so I'm pretty sure I'm actually reading it in some bastardized Irish/Scottish accent that would surely get me killed in either place.
Accents in some parts of Scotland are similar to some accents in Northern Ireland and vice versa, there's a lot of mixing. But a Glaswegian accent (Book Group) is nothing like a Dublin accent (Contrast).
Thanks for your kind words. The content precedes design point is borrowed from Zeldman.
As earnubs pointed out, my accent is Dublin, so if you're thinking scottish you're way off :)
Maybe we should press on with the Contrast podcast :)
As earnubs pointed out, my accent is Dublin, so if you're thinking scottish you're way off :)
Maybe we should press on with the Contrast podcast :)
Oh man I would love a podcast. And I was only thinking scottish because of the TV show I was watching...
The only way to start a legit social network is doing so among a small number of people first and once you get some network effects in that group slowly expand out. Social networks aren't usually very good at bringing random people together, they are good at facilitating relationships that already exist.
The comment about empty input boxes brought forth a possible UI idea. What would happen if you showed users a profile page full of information taken from other random users and asked them to correct it?
Erroneous profile data.
It would probably be pretty confusing, especially considering most people don't read much text on the page(like the text that might say "Correct this...")
you mean assume what they would fill in? most users are lazy. always assume they are willing to put in the minimal amount of effort to get past your friction points (signup)
The initial thought is to see if users are more likely to correct profile fields from incorrect values than they are to just leave a field empty.
To avoid incorrect profile data, it might be implemented so that if a field is never given focus, it would be treated as blank.
To avoid incorrect profile data, it might be implemented so that if a field is never given focus, it would be treated as blank.
That article totally describe me. Really realist and interesting read. However, it's kind of normal to have no content if the goal of the site is to let you share things with your friends.
But that will only work if you (creator of the site) have a direct connection with the group of friends.
Do you think there are more sites that say they are "like Facebook, but..." or more blog posts saying that "your site that's like Facebook, but... won't work?"
[edit: wasn't clear]
[edit: wasn't clear]
[deleted]
You know what they call a content driven site without any good content? A load of bollox.
This.
This.
We have about 21k users on ridewithgps.com. The focal point of the site is the mapping functionalities for planning and logging bike rides. Users create this content by either drawing a prospective ride on a map, or, by uploading a log file from a trip they took. There are very few accounts that have no routes or recorded activities on them, because the site exists to provide utility to a user. With 134,000 maps, that's 6.4 maps per user. By creating an account, users are compelled to start creating maps because it is directly useful to them to do so! However, users can also add less important content: a mini-profile for their bike, photos, comments etc. The amount of this less utilitarian content that users create is significantly smaller. Photos, for example, are 0.3 per user. Comments are 0.1 per user.
What does this mean? Make sure your site provides a strong utilitarian aspect for your users! Provide them with value, not just another place register and store generic content.