Reading: Social Network Types, Motivations, and the Future

Social Network Types, Motivations, and the Future

比较有见地的一篇文章。

The best way to start is by looking at the different types of human networks and the motivations that drive them. I see two distinct types of motivation. One is, "I want to communicate better with the people that I already know and trust". The other is, "I want to increase my visibility so that I can connect with more people".
两大网络互动动机：

1. 更好的维持已有的信任关系；
2. 增加曝光，扩展尽可能的新关系；

This also fits in with classic consumer marketing theory around lifestage/lifestyle patterns (which simply says that you sell different things in different ways to students, new parents, retirees and so on). The danger in a lot of the current talk about Facebook is that it is all written by and about two consumer types - students and web 2.0 entrepreneurs, who seem to have forgotten that there are other people out there!
这符合一般的产品周期模式：用不同的手段卖给不同人群同样的东西。facebook的问题在于，只有学生和2.0的创业者被提及，其他人都被忽略了。

Open Networks vs. Gated Communities

开放的网络和有门槛的沟通
Students and web 2.0 entrepreneurs are much more motivated by increasing visibility;

In other networks, trust is more critical and these will therefore be more like "gated communities." Recently TechCrunch panned and ridiculed a gated community for models (geeks and models don't mix well?). However, I completely get why models might want a gated community and don't want other people lurking around. Is that a huge media play? No, but it does fulfill a basic need and it could be a viable niche business. This is classic "specialty enthusiast publishing" and that is a multi-billion dollar market.
在真实的网络中，信任是非常关键的，因而是有门槛的。（让我想起了数位之强的搭讪是需要理由的。）
The most obvious gated community/trust based network is the family.
But families don't want the whole world looking in while they communicate. I don't see a business here -- families will hack together what they need from existing tools; email and phone work pretty well, for example, even without blogs.
最明显的关系门槛时家庭。但是家庭的沟通不希望外人知道。所以我在这里看不到商机。传统的方式已经能够很好满足这种沟通要求了。

如果说模特群体的沟通没有意义，那么医生群体呢？他们占据1/4美国GDP的大市场，而且信任对彼此非常重要。他们需要能够不被药监和保险行业监听地自由沟通。

Trust vs. Openness

信任和开放性

Viewed from this perspective, companies are just one more example of a gated community.
Companies are now far more "porous" (open to the external world) at every level and so in our work life we may be part of many networks - not just the network defined by the organization chart.
从这个角度看，公司之间也是另一种有门槛的沟通。
今天的公司和外部的世界更为广泛，因此我们生活在各种各样的网络中，远远超过了组织结构图所定义的网络。

However, the trust issue for companies remains very real. You cannot simply allow everybody to see everything. The rollout of web 2.0 tools within the enterprise will be all about the push and the pull of these two forces. Technically this is all about security, rights and permissions control; which has been around in different ways for a long time. So this looks less like a technology opportunity than an implementation, consulting, professional services type of opportunity.
然而公司之间的信任问题依然真实存在。你不可能允许任何人看到任何东西。企业内的web2.0的工具无非是“推”和“拉”两种方式。从技术角度看，无非是安全、权限、访问控制之类，这些东西早已经以不同形式存在很久了。由此看来，这些机会更可能是实施、咨询、专业服务类型商业的机会，而不是技术商业的机会。

A lot of the debate about Facebook vs. MySpace or any other social network is just a question of choice. It's a question of "where do you want to hang out?" That's why the students in Facebook will move on if Mom & Dad join. This is simply an update to the old prviate club, which may mean that we see more club type rules emerging online. The two principle rules are a) a new member has to be proposed by an existing member and b) through some form of voting arrangement a member can be "blackballed" (thrown out of the club). These type of exclusivity rules help ensure trust through member/peer pressure.
关于facebook和myspace以及其他社会网络的争论无非是：你愿意在哪里呆着的问题。
这不过是传统私人俱乐部的一种形式。这意味着我们会看到更多类型的俱乐部主宰着新出现的在线社区。
这里有两个基本的原则：

1. 新成员必须由老成员推荐
2. 通过某种投票机制，能把某个成员扫地出门。

这种排他性规则保证了用户中间的信任和对等的压力。

Looking Ahead

Looking at all these types of social networks, I see 4 questions that will drive the evolution of net-based social networks:

前瞻

通览所有这些类型的社会网络，我认为4个问题的解决将驱动网络社会关系的发展：

When will the novelty of the medium recede and let the basic motivations come to the forefront?
The evolution of consumer behavior on the Internet has tended to go from "wow I can do that, way cool" to "so what, what does that do for me?"

何时新鲜劲儿过去，而让最根本的动机浮出水面？
相应的，用户行为的变化将会是从“哦，我可以这么玩？酷”到“然后呢？这东西能为我做什么？”

At what point do visibility and trust collide?
I think this is the critical question determining the business value of social networks.
曝光度和信任之间的冲突到什么程度？
我认为这是判断社会网络商业价值的关键问题。
There is an implicit assumption that Metcalfe’s Law applies. However if trust erodes, what’s the point of a network? The social network is valuable because it is exclusionary; MySpace is cooler/more valuable because older folks are not there, and that implies some optimal network size. However if this is true, it is a reverse network effect and that will have a crushing effect on social network valuations (but it may do wonders for social network enablers like Ning). So count me a skeptic on the Facebook "social graph" theory; it is a great pitch but I don’t buy it.
这里有个暗含的假设-梅特卡夫法则。但是如果信任没有了，网络还剩下什么？社会网络的价值在于它的排他性。MySpace越年轻越有价值。这也就意味着存在着最优的网络规模。如果这个成立，意味着网络价值的相反的决定性因素。因此我会怀疑Facebook的社会图形理论，他很大，但是我不会买账。

How can we be members of multiple networks?
我们如何在多个网络中存在？
Most of us need to be members of multiple networks and these change as we get older (school to college to work to parenthood, etc.). Something like OpenID is part of the answer, but also tools to transfer our digital stuff between networks and decide what stuff goes in what network. This is where Alex's recent article describes the issues very well.
我们中的大部分人在一生中会作为不同网络的成员存在。OPenID是一种解决办法，但还需要工具来在不同网络中进行数字化身份转化和决定谁能进入什么样的网络中。
How do we preserve the "strength of weak ties?"

我们如何保持弱连接的优势？

A network that is only strong ties (everybody knows everybody very well) is not valuable on its own. Genetically that can lead to birth defects, in companies it leads to stagnation, in social circles it can lead to snobbery/prejudice. The outsider with a new perspective is valuable. This is why blogging comments are so effective and some of the innovation around rating comments is interesting; it is porous rather than exclusionary, but the new tools may filter out the noise.

一个只有强连接（每个人都知根知底）的网络本身是没什么价值的。通常它会停滞不前，并且带有很强的小圈子偏见。而外部新视点是有价值的。这就是为什么博客评论如此有效，而很多针对评论评级的创新应用非常有趣。和排他性相比，这种机制更加开放，但是需要新的工具来过滤噪音。