5 ms·

I have to smile at the revelation of this problem. Nearly 30 years ago I discovered Usenet - and I was able to follow & read every post. That lasted for about 3

I have to smile at the revelation of this problem. Nearly 30 years ago I discovered Usenet - and I was able to follow & read every post. That lasted for about 3 days. For "there's too much on Twitter!" to suddenly be a news item is ... funny. Since then, I've followed the rise & fall of dozens of social media sites & sources, watching each follow the same pattern: within about 7 years, each site started, caught on, became the place to be, sagged under the weight & dreck of everyone wanting to be at the place to be, the signal-to-noise ratio collapsed as meaningful content found a slimmer medium, the self-important/trolls/spam/etc piled on, and the site (still existing) vanished from the public awareness. Oh, sure, Usenet continues, AOL continues, MySpace continues, ... but seem flotsam of the past. I've no doubt Twitter, Facebook, etc - whatever the current cultural imperatives are - will carry on for some time, but will likewise fade into oblivion as interesting content finds fresher ground and the S/N ratio collapses.

HenryTheHorse 12y ago
>..will likewise fade into oblivion.. In contrast, the humble email, which was to have died a brutal death in 1999, 2005, 2010 and now 2015 at the hands of various Goliaths, merrily continues to fill the days of our lives.
- fpgaminer 12y ago
  Email isn't a community or platform, so I wouldn't lump it into the same logical pile as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. Email is just a distributed means of communication, and isn't tied to any particular organization or community. So it won't suffer the same syndromes that platforms do. (note that I point out in particular that it isn't tied to a particular organization. Facebook messages are a form of communication, but they're tied to a platform/community. Thus it suffers the same cycles). But, e.g., email platforms suffer cycles. Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, etc.
fpgaminer 12y ago
I'm curious why the S/N ratio collapses like that. Is it because those who contribute to the noise level are slower to move to new platforms? Is it because those who contribute to the signal are faster to move to new platforms and/or adverse to popular platforms? Perhaps a combination of both? I suppose a part of me wonders if the answers to these questions could lead to a more stable platform. Yet that seems unlikely, since platforms don't seem to be holding traction longer than their predecessors. It seems like Reddit might be at least one possible evolution that could lead to increased longevity. Their trick is to have user moderated sub-communities as a first class feature, and keep the churn high on those communities (subreddits). That seems to be a way to allow the cyclic birth and death of platforms/communities to occur, but still keep people within the overarching Reddit umbrella. Though I think ultimately Reddit will suffer the same fate as Digg; it's only a matter of time before management makes enough mistakes or corruption reaches critical mass.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  When ongoing worthwhile conversation appears on a small board, the S/N ratio goes very high fast. Word spreads, and people are attracted to a high-interest low-noise signal. As more people join in, everyone can be heard ... but not everyone should be heard. The growing noise starts drowning out the signal, which gets frustrated and heads for less noisy grounds. The sheer mass & momentum of the noise sources keeps the place going for a while, but more "signals" leave over time, leaving a shrinking population. Various mechanisms are put in place to suppress noise, with varying degrees of success (HN's is pretty good). "Freshness" is also a factor. After a while, each forum just starts showing its age, not keeping up with spiffy new forms & forums. People get bored and move on. "Us vs them" is also a factor. A growing subgroup may decide they just don't want to be around the base. Prime example: Facebook and the alleged "kids don't use it because their parents are there". Embrace the lifecycle. It's real; instead of fighting it, manage it with the understanding that it will eventually fade and users head to newer quieter forums.
SixSigma 12y ago
No paraphrase Yogi Berra : Nobody posts on Twitter any more, there are too many Tweets.
mbesto 12y ago
I wrote about this almost 3 years ago and share very similar sentiments: http://www.techdisruptive.com/2012/09/18/we-are-far-from-solving-signal-to-noise-problems-with-technology/ http://www.techdisruptive.com/2012/09/18/we-are-far-from-sol...

HenryTheHorse 12y ago

>..will likewise fade into oblivion.. In contrast, the humble email, which was to have died a brutal death in 1999, 2005, 2010 and now 2015 at the hands of various Goliaths, merrily continues to fill the days of our lives.

fpgaminer 12y ago
Email isn't a community or platform, so I wouldn't lump it into the same logical pile as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. Email is just a distributed means of communication, and isn't tied to any particular organization or community. So it won't suffer the same syndromes that platforms do. (note that I point out in particular that it isn't tied to a particular organization. Facebook messages are a form of communication, but they're tied to a platform/community. Thus it suffers the same cycles). But, e.g., email platforms suffer cycles. Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, etc.

fpgaminer 12y ago

I'm curious why the S/N ratio collapses like that. Is it because those who contribute to the noise level are slower to move to new platforms? Is it because those who contribute to the signal are faster to move to new platforms and/or adverse to popular platforms? Perhaps a combination of both? I suppose a part of me wonders if the answers to these questions could lead to a more stable platform. Yet that seems unlikely, since platforms don't seem to be holding traction longer than their predecessors. It seems like Reddit might be at least one possible evolution that could lead to increased longevity. Their trick is to have user moderated sub-communities as a first class feature, and keep the churn high on those communities (subreddits). That seems to be a way to allow the cyclic birth and death of platforms/communities to occur, but still keep people within the overarching Reddit umbrella. Though I think ultimately Reddit will suffer the same fate as Digg; it's only a matter of time before management makes enough mistakes or corruption reaches critical mass.

ctdonath 12y ago
When ongoing worthwhile conversation appears on a small board, the S/N ratio goes very high fast. Word spreads, and people are attracted to a high-interest low-noise signal. As more people join in, everyone can be heard ... but not everyone should be heard. The growing noise starts drowning out the signal, which gets frustrated and heads for less noisy grounds. The sheer mass & momentum of the noise sources keeps the place going for a while, but more "signals" leave over time, leaving a shrinking population. Various mechanisms are put in place to suppress noise, with varying degrees of success (HN's is pretty good). "Freshness" is also a factor. After a while, each forum just starts showing its age, not keeping up with spiffy new forms & forums. People get bored and move on. "Us vs them" is also a factor. A growing subgroup may decide they just don't want to be around the base. Prime example: Facebook and the alleged "kids don't use it because their parents are there". Embrace the lifecycle. It's real; instead of fighting it, manage it with the understanding that it will eventually fade and users head to newer quieter forums.

SixSigma 12y ago

No paraphrase Yogi Berra : Nobody posts on Twitter any more, there are too many Tweets.

mbesto 12y ago

I wrote about this almost 3 years ago and share very similar sentiments: http://www.techdisruptive.com/2012/09/18/we-are-far-from-solving-signal-to-noise-problems-with-technology/ http://www.techdisruptive.com/2012/09/18/we-are-far-from-sol...