4 ms·

Tried it for me. No-one online now. Another idea: Chat-room with the nearest 100 people. Scales up and down.

by rmc 13y ago

timje1 13y ago
This one could have legs. Nearest X number of people gets around the 'this app is a desert' feeling - even if only 100 people are online globally, you've still got a full application!
- MartinMcGirk 13y ago
  I think you might be right on this. If I signed up to a service like this and there was no one in my area, but the app suggested that I might like to chat to these 50 odd people online in London or San Francisco, I might well stick around. I don't know how you would work it for an app that is supposed to be all about local though. If I sign up, and get connected to, say, some guy called Brian in New York and the conversation is great, but then the app grows really quickly and all of a sudden the app decides Brian isn't close enough for me to talk to anymore, it might leave a sour taste. There are definitely exciting UX possibilities with this though. I need to think on this a bit further.
  - rmc 13y ago
    Private message between users as an option? So if I wanna talk to Brian later, I can PM them. Combine chat with interesting people, with random chances of meeting new people.
- Goosey 13y ago
  I feel this results in some obvious paradoxes when considering how the room morphs over time. One (contrived) paradox: 99 people in the world online in San Francisco and 1 online in London. One more person in San Francisco joins. Do the previous 99 SFers suddenly find they are talking to the new SFer and not the Londoner? Who does the Londoner see they are talking to? Another (very contrived) paradox: 100 people are logged in who are all located on the edge of a perfect circle. One more person logs in who is located directly at the center of the circle. It's clear who is closest to each of 100 original people (presumably the person on the opposite side of the circle is 'swapped') resulting in each of the 100 original people now talking with the center person, but the center person can not be talking to all 100 people and there is no distance-based criteria for determining which of the 100 to not talk with. These seem like contrived examples, but as soon as the total user count is greater than the 'nearest X' count they must be addressed. A solution would be fascinating, I don't see a clear one!
  - freehunter 13y ago
    Yeah that situation brings up the possibility of a user being able to talk to people who cannot talk back to them. Not idea.
ThomPete 13y ago
Exactly. So many people don't realize that the primary success of such a product is for people to connect.
blueblob 13y ago
Same here, but nearest 100 people is not symmetric. While I may be nearest for you, there could be 1000 other people nearer to me than I am to you.
- lttlrck 13y ago
  That is no different to having a fixed radius.
  - blueblob 13y ago
    sure, but the statement was that you would be talking to 100 people, there is no way to enforce that it is 100 people. Perhaps you could partition the geographic area with centroids like a voronoi diagram, but then you will be dropping people in and out of chat if you move them to different clusters. A fixed radius is the simplest solution and probably a good place to start.

Tried it for me. No-one online now. Another idea: Chat-room with the nearest 100 people. Scales up and down.

by rmc 13y ago

Tried it for me. No-one online now. Another idea: Chat-room with the nearest 100 people. Scales up and down.

This one could have legs. Nearest X number of people gets around the 'this app is a desert' feeling - even if only 100 people are online globally, you've still got a full application!

MartinMcGirk 13y ago
I think you might be right on this. If I signed up to a service like this and there was no one in my area, but the app suggested that I might like to chat to these 50 odd people online in London or San Francisco, I might well stick around. I don't know how you would work it for an app that is supposed to be all about local though. If I sign up, and get connected to, say, some guy called Brian in New York and the conversation is great, but then the app grows really quickly and all of a sudden the app decides Brian isn't close enough for me to talk to anymore, it might leave a sour taste. There are definitely exciting UX possibilities with this though. I need to think on this a bit further.
- rmc 13y ago
  Private message between users as an option? So if I wanna talk to Brian later, I can PM them. Combine chat with interesting people, with random chances of meeting new people.
Goosey 13y ago
I feel this results in some obvious paradoxes when considering how the room morphs over time. One (contrived) paradox: 99 people in the world online in San Francisco and 1 online in London. One more person in San Francisco joins. Do the previous 99 SFers suddenly find they are talking to the new SFer and not the Londoner? Who does the Londoner see they are talking to? Another (very contrived) paradox: 100 people are logged in who are all located on the edge of a perfect circle. One more person logs in who is located directly at the center of the circle. It's clear who is closest to each of 100 original people (presumably the person on the opposite side of the circle is 'swapped') resulting in each of the 100 original people now talking with the center person, but the center person can not be talking to all 100 people and there is no distance-based criteria for determining which of the 100 to not talk with. These seem like contrived examples, but as soon as the total user count is greater than the 'nearest X' count they must be addressed. A solution would be fascinating, I don't see a clear one!
- freehunter 13y ago
  Yeah that situation brings up the possibility of a user being able to talk to people who cannot talk back to them. Not idea.

ThomPete 13y ago

Exactly. So many people don't realize that the primary success of such a product is for people to connect.

blueblob 13y ago

Same here, but nearest 100 people is not symmetric. While I may be nearest for you, there could be 1000 other people nearer to me than I am to you.

lttlrck 13y ago
That is no different to having a fixed radius.
- blueblob 13y ago
  sure, but the statement was that you would be talking to 100 people, there is no way to enforce that it is 100 people. Perhaps you could partition the geographic area with centroids like a voronoi diagram, but then you will be dropping people in and out of chat if you move them to different clusters. A fixed radius is the simplest solution and probably a good place to start.