Groups: The Secret Weapon of the Social Web
Social interaction online is not very sophisticated. The news feed model of conversation has taken over the social web, from Facebook to Twitter to FriendFeed to MySpace, but by itself it doesn't serve us very well.
That's where the creation of groups of sources comes in. Various services have different ways for users to separate their "friends" into different groups, viewable by topic, category or type of connection. Facebook is making changes today to make it easier to break your Facebook Newsfeed into groups. That's going to be very important. The best Twitter applications offer group functionality that the site itself doesn't. MySpace offers no such feature, yet. The Facebook news prompted us to try to articulate the value of group creation online. By better understanding the value that groups can deliver, we can better strategize our creation of groups.
First we'll discuss four ways that small groups separated from a full river of news can help you use the social web more effectively. Then, for context, we'll briefly contrast this with the value of the full stream of information. Using both together is more useful than merely limiting the full stream to a manageably small group of sources on a given topic or of a certain priority.
Forgive me if this is all obvious to you; I know it's not to everyone. Even if it is, I think there's value in discussing fundamental qualities of emerging methods of communicating. The assumption in discussing these values is that you're an ambitious knowledge worker. If that's not the case then this logic may or may not apply.
The Value of Groups
Prioritization
Pulling high-priority sources out of the full stream and putting them in a special place enables you to catch more of the high-value information those sources publish. Why lose valuable messages in the whole sea of marginally valuable information that we all have access to? High value sources don't always publish high value information, but the increased likelihood of their doing so warrants putting them in a special place so that the unusually high signal-to-noise ratio they offer is maintained.
Below: I follow thousands of people on FriendFeed but have about 100 people who often discover or make news early in their own group.
Context
Different words and links have different meanings in different contexts. When subscribing to a large set of sources it's sometimes easy to forget who or what certain sources are when their content comes barreling down a full stream of information. Placing sources into contextual groups helps put messages in context, adding meaning and offering insight into the significance of some content.
Right: I've got a list of 300 tech industry analysts on Twitter pulled into a separate group in Tweetdeck. It's good to know that when I read these messages, they are coming from professional analysts.
Intimacy
We've all got far more connections online than it's realistic to maintain closely. You may be familiar with the concept of the Dunbar number. Researcher Robin Dunbar argues that 100 to 150 is the approximate natural group size in which everyone can really know everyone else.
Serious users of social media often maintain far, far more connections than that, though. What can you do? Strategic creation of groups facilitates social contact disproportionately frequently relative to contact with the entire list of our social connections. That disproportionately frequent contact lends itself well to greater intimacy.
Left: The ReadWriteWeb writers' chat, an invaluable resource for us in a world swimming with social connections.
Speed
Some sources of information are more important to be up-to-the-minute with than others. Strategic creation of time-sensitive groups allows you to have those groups alone delivered in a way that fits their time-sensitive nature. You don't want to be interrupted by updates from every source of information you have any interest in - but some sources are worth being interrupted by.
Right: High-priority RSS feeds delivered by IM.
The Value of the Full Stream
Many people are tempted to solve information overload by cutting back on the number of connections and subscriptions they are signed up for online. We argue that this is a mistake; group creation can help capture some of the same benefits of cut-back without incurring the loss of benefits felt by restricting a well-populated stream of information.
Serendipitous Discovery
Do you cancel your cable TV subscription just because you end up not watching most of the shows that are on at a given time? (Maybe with Hulu you do now.) Probably not. Channel surfing is a way to discover new things.
So too with the web; it's better to have too many options than not enough. Subscribing to a source of information substantially increases the likelihood that you'll see something good from that source.
Just don't worry about reading everything. Scan what you can and let fate bring you value from a bulk of undifferentiated information. Problem solved.
Weak Connections
All of us have some social connections that are stronger than others. There's value in those weak connections, too. Welcoming people into your full stream of social information is how weak connections are built and maintained.
Reciprocity
Some people say that social media makes almost everyone famous, at least to a small group of people. One definition of fame is a circumstance where the number of people who care about what you're doing is more than you are capable of paying attention to yourself. Online, though, we can all pay a little passing attention to the people who are paying attention to us. People appreciate RSS subscribers; they like friends on Facebook and Twitter. If someone follows you, it only makes sense to follow them back. (I need to follow my own advice better on Twitter.)
If a person isn't terribly important to you, just don't include them in a high-priority group. Interact with them when you get the chance. They'll appreciate the reciprocal connection, though
That's one take on the strategic value of groups and the full stream of information. What are your thoughts on this topic? Have you come up with any other super-useful ways to build, manage, or find value in groups online? We'd love to hear about it!
Title photo: Your Days - December test Group : 31 Décembre 2006 by Nawal_ CC on Flickr
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I agree.. This is where it is going. Customized lists and groups.
Posted by: Drew Lucas
|
April 30, 2009 11:49 AM
I think you hit this one out of the park. Groups are the killer app/service on top of twitter. Even for the novice twitter user, the 'I'll follow you if you follow me' culture surfaces early on. Pretty soon the list becomes messy and that’s where groups come in. This is obviously one key reason for the phenomenal success of Tweetdeck.
I say this half jokingly, but Tweekdeck/groups may sell tons of monitors. From my experience, once you reach a few hundred users a second monitor becomes a necessity. I have migrated to 2 monitors at work and 2 at home – the second running Tweetdeck full time.
Excellent post. The strategic value of creating groups from the stream is often overlooked or understated. Additionally I would also pose that the move towards platforms where social networks and information sources offer open APIs is driven by the need for creating groups across a diverse set of streams. We are beginning to see this now in many clients. Hopefully this will accelerate.
Again great post!
Excellent post. You were saying what that many are now thinking. Groups is the new method for personalization. It emphasize again how choosing whom to follow and how to organize them into contextual groups is so crucial for filtering data. Tools like Twitturly and MicroPlaza are going in this direction.
I also agree with leaving the raw source as wide as possible to allow new knowledge gain and serendipitous discovery. This is why Twitter killed my RSS reader.
Maybe one day we will have a way to share group views (groups' feed streams).
Great points Marshall. This was proven in the web 1.0 era as well, with eGroups. Now what we need is a distributed network of well-focused groups - which must tightly integrated with your existing social assets (no duplicate efforts). That's what we're trying to achieve at GROU.PS - http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/groups-connections.png
The key is to prioritize. you can also end up with too many groups trying to organise everything. It takes time to think about where to put a source every time you choose to subscribe. Whether it's in your RSS reader, twitter, friendfeed or facebook.
I believe in few (very broad) topic specific groups, so you quickly can decide where the source belongs. PLUS an 'A-List' group where all the most important sources go. You could have an 'A-List' group within each topic, but I think that complicates more than it does good.
Love and care for your 'A-List', simply enjoy the rest. Even if you had a million subscriptions, you could get a way with just one group, as long as it was the 'A-list'.
Thanks for a great article, I have been waiting for something like this, brilliant.
"Just don't worry about reading everything. Scan what you can and let fate bring you value from a bulk of undifferentiated information. Problem solved."
This quote is pure poetry. Beautiful article.
Social media tools are great, they opened up our network and allow us to share thoughts and opinions in a sphere of influence that is much larger than we had once imagined. But our capacity to receive and process information hasn't really changed. I think it's wonderful to have the option of getting information from so many different sources and outlets. But at the end of the day, I think a aggregated pool of information -- from a trusted group of sources -- might be the perfect balance between the voices and the noises out there.
Yup, i agree with this. Groups is the old way people discuss some topic on the internet. Social media is good, but you will always find a good information when joining a group that being created to discuss certain topic, issues or a passion, like cars.
-Red-
Finding ways to take so much information and putting it into groups and smaller pieces that people can digest will be important.
Great article. Love the points you've brought up to counter the idea that the best way to deal with too much information in your stream is to just follow less people.
I like how the points give you the best of both world and let you give that bit of attention and credit back by following others and being able to interact with them when you want, and STILL be able to have a manageable stream by the use of high-priority groups.
Enjoyed reading the article. In addition to the four methods of creating groups, below are the methods that I use (or with I can use) to create groups.
Trends
"If many are interested in something, I may be interested in it, too!" This is what trends may serve us to sift signals from noises. Twitter now lists the most popular trends. There is also Twitter applications that just do that.
Interests
"I want to hear people's opinions on 'Cloud Computing'" Here 'Cloud Computing' serves as the mechanism for creating groups.
Just noticed the updated Facebook did to their feeds this past week. I like how they gently suggest breaking up your feeds into different groups. Ease has a lot to do with actually using the features.
@Chen, we do live in a world where a significant number of people that we interact with on daily basis are often not in the same physical space as us. Though personal cloud computers provide users ubiquitous access to their information, using Group Cloud Computers, users also have the ability to collaborate with a trusted group and share your creations.
For example, AirSet.com, it offers a web-based Group Cloud Computer that lets you form groups with your trusted private network. You will have a suite of applications -- forums, blogs, web content publishing tools, calendars, etc. -- that allows you and other group members to have your own platform on the internet to present, receive, and exchange information, privately, or publicly. I do want to be upfront and say that I work for AirSet, and we truly believe in the power of groups.
Bon article !
Merci !
Groups: The Secret Weapon of the Social Web http://bit.ly/9Nlho [from http://twitter.com/marshallk/statuses/1661663941]
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
May 24, 2009 10:36 AM
Sometimes social graphs ( aka "groups" ) are most important, sometimes not. Sometimes location has absolute priority over everything ( including groups ), sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's "time" ( calendar )...
What do all these have in common?
My Sister is not what you might call a social media expert. She was totally baffled by Twitter and didn't understand how people could use it UNTIL i showed her an aggregator that had the ability to sort by groups.
Not sure why anyone would create a social media tool that did not enable groups. And not just for what you're getting, but also for the information you send out.