Corante

Authors

Clay Shirky
( Archive | Home )

Liz Lawley
( Archive | Home )

Ross Mayfield
( Archive | Home )

Sébastien Paquet
( Archive | Home )

David Weinberger
( Archive | Home )

danah boyd
( Archive | Home )

Guest Authors
Recent Comments

Ericka on My book. Let me show you it.

www.bestdatingsitesreview4u.com on My book. Let me show you it.

gold pendant on My book. Let me show you it.

gold pendant on My book. Let me show you it.

Free Internet Marketing courses on My book. Let me show you it.

cutting on My book. Let me show you it.

Site Search
Monthly Archives
Syndication
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Many-to-Many

« social consequences of social tagging | Main | Cornucopia of Cooperation and Social Spillover »

January 20, 2005

it's the social network, stupid!

Email This Entry

Posted by Liz Lawley

Seems my post on folksonomic flaws is getting a lot of reading. Now that I’ve had a chance to sleep on it, and read other people’s comments (including the del.icio.us annotations, which I often find interesting—given only a line or two to comment, what will people pull out?), I’ve had a few more thoughts on the issue.

One of the things that I’ve tried to emphasize every time I’ve talked to people involved with search engines is the growing uselessness of ranking algorithms that take the search and linking habits of the whole world into account. I don’t want to know what the average eight-year-old calls an image. I want to know what my friends and colleagues call an image. Or a link. Or a photo.

Flickr and del.icio.us work so well for me not because they aggregte the world’s tags, but because they allow me to aggregate my social network’s tags, links, and photos. I don’t want to see everybody’s links on productivity, but I do want to see Merlin Mann’s. I don’t want to see everybody’s links on blogging, but I do want to see danah’s. I don’t want to see “research” resources from a molecular biologist, but I do want to see them from a sociologist studying online social networks.

Seb alludes to this is in his response to my piece. We need multiple ways to get at content. Global tagging and aggregation is great if you’re a non-expert trying to find resources on a subject where you don’t know the jargon. But what I want are tools that let me tap into my trusted network. That’s why the del.icio.us inbox is such a beloved tool, and it’s why I suspect that far more people on Flickr look at photos from their contacts than photos from everybody.

It takes me back to voice and authority again. This is why anonymous wikis are inherently problematic for me. It matters to me who wrote something. The more specialized your information needs, the more important trust and reputation and authority become. And while I value collective authority and reputation, in most information-seeking contexts I value it more when that collective is one that I’ve chosen, or that has self-selected around a specific topic or concern.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software


COMMENTS

1. Ezzra on January 22, 2005 4:11 AM writes...

every once in a while you hit a post where the guy "just doesn't get it" - this one meets that criteria. With all the evidence on how groups make better and more accurate decisions than individuals (remember the jelly bean count contest) , this guy embarrasses himself and gets it all wrong. Read more in my blog.

Permalink to Comment

2. Liz Lawley on January 22, 2005 11:20 AM writes...

Gosh, Ezzra. I'm not sure I got "it" quite as wrong as you just got my gender. :) And I can assure you, I'm not at all embarrassed by my post.

Permalink to Comment

3. Valdis on January 23, 2005 3:07 PM writes...

Ezzra has read a new book, or a review of it, and now thinks he/she is an expert.

Hubris is hilarious when it misses the obvious.

Anyway, back to reality... good post Liz! I am much more interested in how those close to me classify than how strangers do it. Yet, if I pay attention only to my network, I may miss new and interesting views/clusters. My rule of thumb: Monitor your core, but once in a while wander the periphery also. Technology only works for us if it pays attention to the sociology, otherwise it is a pain in the ass, like...

Permalink to Comment

4. David Dean on January 27, 2005 6:32 AM writes...

I would like to see something where we can set up special tags in del.icio.us so that we can indicate how much we think a certain page is worth (i'm using "rating/***" tags, but others use "5star", "4star", etc.), and some clever program will look through my bookmarks, and use some sort of Amazon-esque algorithm to find me links from people who have rated pages similar to me. I've written about this here on my blog.

Permalink to Comment

TRACKBACKS

TrackBack URL:
http://www.corante.com/cgi-bin/mt/teriore.fcgi/1814.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference it's the social network, stupid!:


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
"The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
knowledge access as a public good
viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"