Complexity and Social Networks Blog

Interesting article. Especially the observation that a core group of people drive the community.

In fact, the observations I make now support the findings of my research on online communities where I argue that emotionally committed and active individuals are most relevant when it comes to attracting novel members.

It is the same in the triody.com community. There is a core of people that is motivated to keep information exchange in the "online world" and activities in the "offline" world alive which thus encourages novel members to join.

Let me know in case you have additional questions!

If we go back to Alexander's March posting of the DLD conference 2007

http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/2007/03/digital_life_and_design_conference_social_network_panel_discussion_asw_xing_facebook.html#comments

one proposition suggests that online communties largely support existing real-world communities. Thomas' Team.Triody seems congruent with that proposition. (Of course you may not agree with that.)

Of course, then the question becomes: So what new is added by online tools?

That is a very interesting question which I would answer with the following thoughts/ideas:

- First of all, the internet is a great place to play with. Since many of us are spending so much time on the web, it is very easy to interact with "offline" friends on an "online" basis
- Second, finding out about friends of friends becomes much easier and thus more interesting. Browsing through a friends personal networks can bring up some interesting insights about friends you do not know yet.
-Third, online communities are (more or less) effective places to store "collective knowledge". In the case of our triody.com community, the website allows others to get insights about training & race planning as well as social events which might remain undiscovered otherwise.

In summary, I think that online tools offer a lot of convenience when it comes to creating, maintaining, or even abandoning personal ties.

A pleasure to have a dialog. Re yours:

- First of all, ... it is very easy to interact with "offline" friends on an "online" basis

The dark side: The Interrnet means we have even less time for everything, so 'interacting online' becomes even one more onerous demand on time

- Second, finding out about friends of friends becomes much easier

That serves curiosity. Does it make new friendships? Not in my experience. The 'business connection' sites, such as Xing or LinkedIn, depend on these second-order referrals to locate busniess partners. But, at least in the first instance, that is a separate matter.

-Third, online communities are (more or less) effective places to store "collective knowledge"

I must say this strikes me as a compelling add to the community mix. My sense is that 'information sharing' is what communities are, in a key part, all about: Together, we understand something better. So, to be able to visualize shared knowledge physically should make a big step ahead.

Then, of course, we get to questions of tacit versus explicit knowledge. And we cannot ignore that, in my view anyway, communication, ongoing, about the 'shared object of attention,' is really the essential feature. It is the dynamic of ongoing interaction that makes the community lifeblood, in my view of course.

All my view, needless to say, which may merit some 'annotation.'

(And oh yes, what is the html to show yours more like quotes, indents for instance ... ?)

Good news. I can suggest you also to create a geo-targeted adwords campain to get more members for your network. This will bring you interested users.

The dark side: The Interrnet means we have even less time for everything,
so 'interacting online' becomes even one more onerous demand on time

** agreed, especially when thinking about the time you need to work on blog posts or comments to forums. It just takes so much time ...

- Second, finding out about friends of friends becomes much easier

That serves curiosity. Does it make new friendships? Not in my
experience. The 'business connection' sites, such as Xing or LinkedIn,
depend on these second-order referrals to locate busniess partners. But,
at least in the first instance, that is a separate matter.

** I would not say that browsing one's network of friends is always aimed at finding new friends. More likely, I would argue, as you do, that it is driven by curiosity. It is just cool to find out who is hanging out with whom.

-Third, online communities are (more or less) effective places to store
"collective knowledge"

I must say this strikes me as a compelling add to the community mix. My
sense is that 'information sharing' is what communities are, in a key part,
all about: Together, we understand something better. So, to be able to
visualize shared knowledge physically should make a big step ahead.

** I think this is a very strong point. However, my biggest concern here is not really the tacit vs. explicit knowledge question. I have much stronger concerns with respect to "finding/storing information". Although social networks//online communities accommodate so much knowledge, it is sometimes extremely difficult to find it. We know it exists but it is sometimes really hard to find it.

I don't think its much of a surprise that a site can grow substantially out of 3 to 5 core members, forums specifically rely on this. Watching a forum or social networking site with just the owner keeping things fresh is almost impossible.

The other thin that core members of any community will do is (normally unknowingly) market the site.

This is how the likes of facebook, myspace, flickr have snowballed into the successes that they currently are. Facebook is probably the best example as it isn't aimed at getting traffic from search engines (you have to be signed in to view anything).

Maybe a second thing to look at in the experiment is what percentage of users that join A) use the community regularly e.g. don't just sign up then leave (this happens a lot on one of my sites as there is nothing engaging or interactive for them to participate in) B) What percentage of members become 'core' users?

I'll stop mumbling on now lol.