3 ms·

I had not seen or read about this presentation but independently determined that the main flaw in Facebook is how it bunches up all of a user's connections into

by mtzb 16y ago

I had not seen or read about this presentation but independently determined that the main flaw in Facebook is how it bunches up all of a user's connections into one group. A competitor can only gain traction in social networking if it is built ground up with the concept that a person's offline social network consists of smaller groups and that with each of these groups, a person behaves and shares differently. I feel this is a major weakness in the way Facebook is structured and any competitor should look to exploit this fundamental flaw. If I were building a competitor to Facebook (like Google may be), I would allow a person to create sub-profiles under a main login. For example, a user could have the sub-profiles for themselves: "Work", "Family", "Friends". Each sub-profile would have it's own profile picture, it's own contact info, it's own newsfeed. When someone wants to add you, you would have the choice of which sub-profile you want to give them access to. The main message that such a social network would need to give users is that each sub-profile is strictly walled off from your other profiles. So, now you won't have to worry about your boss seeing those photos from last night's party in which you had too much to drink since he only gets updates from your "work" sub-profile.

joe_the_user 16y ago
I agree the main weakness of Facebook is "it bunches up all of a user's connections into one group". The problem a competitor face with this is: 1) Maintain multiple groups requires a significant mental overhead. Any UI would be hard but the thought the person would have to put plus the UI makes this impractical. I never use Facebook groups, my reptile brain processes it as "UI noise" before my rational mind even see it (ie, literally don't recall ever getting anything related to facebook groups). 2) There's a reflex for a person to think of themselves as using a single role even they aren't. Many people with a lot to hide will say and even sincerely mean "but I have nothing to hide" and only discover later they were bullshiting ... themselves. So Facebook's approach has strong leverage. Just as much, software people like to think they'll sell something based on "more features" when what people need ... is a single, clear feature. Essentially, a direct alternative would need to be presented as a single thing people can understand and use easily. Even more that single thing couldn't be framed as "you get to have multiple identities" but would have to be framed somewhat differently.
- forkandwait 16y ago
  I think you have good points, but I disagree with "There's a reflex for a person to think of themselves as using a single role" -- weirdly enough, humans are so hardwired to manage complex social situations that they can manage a few different personas intuitively, along with linguistic and bodily cues about who they are trying to be. Even children do this. (Well, Zuckerberg might not find personas, roles, and code-switching intuitive, but I think super focused computer types are not representative... ;) ) There is scholarly work to back me up, but I can't think of any names to start with except Labov and Goffman -- they are completely brilliant mind fs if you bother to read them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Eve... Re the UI -- spot on, but maybe that is a UI problem, not a UI boundary condition, and we could start researching cues for persona switching on the computer screen. Avatars are a first attempt, but not all that inspiring if you ask me.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    I disagree with "There's a reflex for a person to think of themselves as using a single role" -- weirdly enough, humans are so hardwired to manage complex social situations that they can manage a few different personas intuitively, along with linguistic and bodily cues about who they are trying to be. I agree with your second statement but I'd invite you to consider that this actually supports my point. Human beings are naturally, unconsciously able switch personas so they tend not to be consciously aware of that switch. As you say, it's done by cues and reflex. And thing about the Internet is people don't notice what they're not noticing. Just as an example, Flame wars come specifically because people don't understand that their "compass" isn't there. The same problem is there with multiple roles. Yes all that good stuff you mention is happening. I am aware of it because I've studied a bit myself but the average person isn't aware of it even as they do it. There are two ideal goals: - create a UI that allows both sufficient cues to get allow people to activate their useful unconscious filtering process (and which manufacture some places and situations which assures a person they can safely let go of those filtering mechanisms). - Present this UI in a frame where the conscious mind can accept it. Saying "it let you sneak around behind your boss' back" might be true but it isn't something a person's "presentation of self to self" would be inclined to accept. Sometime the statement "The most brilliant advertisers in history have been those who've found a way to sell things to people 'they didn't know they needed'" can be true in a good way! The average person doesn't know they need multiple roles online so a new product needs to combine framing, education and UI really creatively.

by mtzb 16y ago

joe_the_user 16y ago

I agree the main weakness of Facebook is "it bunches up all of a user's connections into one group". The problem a competitor face with this is: 1) Maintain multiple groups requires a significant mental overhead. Any UI would be hard but the thought the person would have to put plus the UI makes this impractical. I never use Facebook groups, my reptile brain processes it as "UI noise" before my rational mind even see it (ie, literally don't recall ever getting anything related to facebook groups). 2) There's a reflex for a person to think of themselves as using a single role even they aren't. Many people with a lot to hide will say and even sincerely mean "but I have nothing to hide" and only discover later they were bullshiting ... themselves. So Facebook's approach has strong leverage. Just as much, software people like to think they'll sell something based on "more features" when what people need ... is a single, clear feature. Essentially, a direct alternative would need to be presented as a single thing people can understand and use easily. Even more that single thing couldn't be framed as "you get to have multiple identities" but would have to be framed somewhat differently.

forkandwait 16y ago
I think you have good points, but I disagree with "There's a reflex for a person to think of themselves as using a single role" -- weirdly enough, humans are so hardwired to manage complex social situations that they can manage a few different personas intuitively, along with linguistic and bodily cues about who they are trying to be. Even children do this. (Well, Zuckerberg might not find personas, roles, and code-switching intuitive, but I think super focused computer types are not representative... ;) ) There is scholarly work to back me up, but I can't think of any names to start with except Labov and Goffman -- they are completely brilliant mind fs if you bother to read them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Eve... Re the UI -- spot on, but maybe that is a UI problem, not a UI boundary condition, and we could start researching cues for persona switching on the computer screen. Avatars are a first attempt, but not all that inspiring if you ask me.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  I disagree with "There's a reflex for a person to think of themselves as using a single role" -- weirdly enough, humans are so hardwired to manage complex social situations that they can manage a few different personas intuitively, along with linguistic and bodily cues about who they are trying to be. I agree with your second statement but I'd invite you to consider that this actually supports my point. Human beings are naturally, unconsciously able switch personas so they tend not to be consciously aware of that switch. As you say, it's done by cues and reflex. And thing about the Internet is people don't notice what they're not noticing. Just as an example, Flame wars come specifically because people don't understand that their "compass" isn't there. The same problem is there with multiple roles. Yes all that good stuff you mention is happening. I am aware of it because I've studied a bit myself but the average person isn't aware of it even as they do it. There are two ideal goals: - create a UI that allows both sufficient cues to get allow people to activate their useful unconscious filtering process (and which manufacture some places and situations which assures a person they can safely let go of those filtering mechanisms). - Present this UI in a frame where the conscious mind can accept it. Saying "it let you sneak around behind your boss' back" might be true but it isn't something a person's "presentation of self to self" would be inclined to accept. Sometime the statement "The most brilliant advertisers in history have been those who've found a way to sell things to people 'they didn't know they needed'" can be true in a good way! The average person doesn't know they need multiple roles online so a new product needs to combine framing, education and UI really creatively.