Data And Discovery

Image courtesy

One of the happy corollaries of starting to do more running has been the other runners that I have connected with online. Thinking back, it wasn't as a result of a deliberate effort , it just kinda happened. I'm not a serious runner, nor a running blogger, so I guess I'm somewhere in the fringes of this community, in the same way that I touch on other communities of interest to varying degrees (art, architecture, design, psychology, journalism etc) . The bulk of my reading, interaction and conversation still happen around advertising and media but, like most of us I suspect, I don't only read ad blogs. I never have.

Several points about this.

ONE is not to think about online communities as fixed, defined groups but instead as fluid, overlapping, ever-changing. People have multiple areas and degrees of interest, so why do we expect their online connections to be any different?

TWO is about the benefit of being open to what Kristine Lowe (a journalist) calls the "grand serendipitous adventure" of the whole thing: "Sometimes you miss out on vital things and opportunities by being too obsessed about where you're going".

THREE is the opportunity of a unique combination - of connected networks and the kind of passive data that flows around those networks every day - to augment discovery. I agree with Bud Cadell - no-one has quite cracked this yet and it has opportunity written all over it:

"Discovery...is ripe for exploration. Most of our favorite sites still do a poor job of suggesting new stuff our social graph is digging. The web is rich in passive user data, and we’ve done a thorough job of self selecting groups of people that share common interests – combine the two and you get an instant intelligent content generator."

Comments

[Rob @ Cynic]

Great post ... and putting aside the issue about whether networks are effective in the distribution of interesting information ... don't you think part of the reason the 'system' works is that people attract those who are like-minded?

There is good and bad in this ...

Good in the fact that the digital network has allowed people to have a sense of belonging to others who they may never physically meet ... where they have a willingness to help out another for the simple reason of wanting to see an idea they believe in, germinate and potentially be something bigger and better than they thought possible.

Bad because this sort of digital landscape operates with almost no objective level of input. I'm not talking about the freaks who launch a diatribe of shit behind the curtain of secrecy, I'm talking about people who are smart, have a genuine interest in a particular category but have a different point of view.

I'm probably not explaining myself well [I'll blame it on the fact its VERY early here, haha] and it's no doubt off the topic you were writing about - but I've done quite a lot of work on the negative aspects of the digital network and one of those is the fact the ability to debate is seemingly getting worse than better.

Of course the global network has many positives and advantages - I'd be lost without it - but I do think it can suck people into becoming more myopic, not because of anything inherently bad, but because as I said, the popular sites [like this] tend to attract a likeminded person.

As my father once said [an ethics barrister] the opposition can provide more insight into how to move forward than your team.

God I'm talking shit - forgive me and I'll try and explain what the hell I'm attempting to say when I eventually get to meet you ... though I wouldn't blame you for saying you're always going to be 'washing your hair' when I call.

[Mikej]

we have just done a huge amount of analysis on the forrester ladder and how they all play different roles

creators and critics seem to be quite specific and drive the intelligence of the overall group by quite long form writing, posts, videos they really break down a specific topic.

collectors are the ones with a huge amount of interests. They tend to take the information from all the creators and shorten it or summarise it which then connects with the Joiners/Spectators

I guess your a collector neil

[neilperkin]

Thanks for the comments both.

Rob - really interesting. Thinking hard about the myopia bit - I can definitely see how that happens, but then I wouldn't describe my own experience like that. Opinion sources seem to come from all over - some attracted, some serendipity, some is deliberately sought out. So I guess I'm surprised you've found the quality of debate is getting worse. Be great to meet up when you're in the UK BTW - I don't have much hair to wash so there'd be no excuses from me! Let me know when you're going to be in town. :-)

Mike - really interested in that Forrester work you've been doing (have you written about it?). Been thinking a lot about this sort of stuff recently. Mostly because it annoys me that some seem to be making the mistake of generalising about levels of participation, or lumping groups of people together and assuming they're all the same.

Re the creator/ collector thing, I'd say this blog is not short on opinion and I've certainly written a lot of pretty long form pieces where I blather on about something or other to mean I'm probably a bit of both...?

[Rob @ Cynic]

Oh bugger - I didn't mean the quality of debate on your blog has got less, but I am saying that as much as technology has given people a 'voice' ... it also has meant people that those with more 'niche' views can come together which can cultivate a culture of 'single view' which has all sorts of ramifications - both positive and negative.

We've actually been doing quite a lot of stuff on this with our friends in Mountain View but as much of it is confidential, I'll have to discuss it with you when we're having a drink while you wear my ex-shirt.

I think I'll shut up now.

[neilperkin]

Yep, really interested to hear about it. Not sure I'm brave enough to wear 'the deckchair' again in public, mind - only just recovered from the last time ;-)