If you want a community with stronger ties, provide more definition to your social object.
Chris Wetherell, There’s been some interesting critical discussions of some…
A great aphorism buried in a long screed about the apparent lack of love for Google Reader within Google.
I have long argued that social communities pivot on creation and sharing of social objects: the medium is the message, again. And Wetherell argues that Reader is just right in the scope of its messaging, where people share stories.
He also explicitly disses Google+, arguing that it is too broad in scope:
The social object of Google+ is…nearly anything and its diffuse model is harder to evaluate or appreciate. The value of a social network seems to map proportionally to the perceived value of its main object. (Examples: sharing best-of-web links on Metafilter or sharing hi-res photos on Flickr or sharing video art on Vimeo or sharing statuses on Twitter/Facebook or sharing questions on Quora.)
So, restating: one measure of the depth of connection to a social network by members — and the strength of the connection between members — is the fit between the network’s social objects and the members’ goals.
Flickr and Instagram are great because they pivot around image sharing, and support social interactions around them. Reader, Wetherall argues, does a similar job with stories, but I will quibble there. I don’t think the Reader model is primarily social: it’s sociality seems like an afterthought, as with Delicious, and others. I think Tumblr and Twitter are better places for sharing stories, but neither one is all the way done, yet.
However, his insight, quoted at the top, is worth reflecting on, esepecially for those involved in developing social tools of whatever sort.
(h/t deepthinking)
