Re: Super-connectors for robust network
Subject: Re: Super-connectors for robust network
From: Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com>
Date: 7/30/10, 14:09
To: Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com>
CC: Mano Singham <mano.singham@case.edu>, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>, tessig@me.com

The role will necessarily be somewhat different for the start-up bloggers since they will enter the network without a push-to relationship with any specific blogger that will define, at least temporarily, subsequent bloggers' relationships and pushing capabilities.

Moreover, the start-up bloggers are a chosen group selected for the purpose of establishing the culture of quality for the growing network.

One of the deficiencies of the descriptive widget spreadsheet is that it does not reflect these facts.

I do not have Todd's experience with an online network, but for most group endeavors I have been involved in (or at least the successful ones) there have been, in addition to the nominal leaders of the group, certain members who by being lively and active have stirred enthusiasm and action in other members and the group as a whole.

I assume that activity within the network will be spontaneous and voluntary.
 
 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand and appreciate the goal here, but I hope that modifying the rules for a chosen group isn't the solution. Also, wouldn't this result in Bloggers being given the task to read more material then they signed up for?


On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
Re: super-connectors

One possible means to add some robustness to the network, following up on Todd's comment, would be to liberalize the Pushing rules for a core of outstanding bloggers, such as the established and respected writers who will be in the network at startup.  Perhaps these bloggers could Push any post in the network that comes to their attention by any means, and Push it to a wider range of receivers than would be possible under the general rules, thus assuring that there is a certain level of movement of high quality material within the blogger network, and ultimately to the readers.

Clark


On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Mano Singham <mano.singham@case.edu> wrote:
This correspondence, especially the Q/A with Todd and the links that Clark sent me to the three items about how the system will operate, has been very informative. I have a much better understanding now about the basics of the system, though I am still a little fogged as to its workings in detail. 

I suspect that this is one of those situations where the originators/designers have it clear in their minds and the rest of us are going to learn the finer points by actually using the system, and that the feedback generated can be used to fine-tune the system.

When will at least a beta version of the system become operational?

Mano

Mano Singham

On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:40 PM, Scott Mintz wrote:

I would like a clarification. Is the concern that we could end up with one big network rather than many small ones as everyone is connected? If this is the case, then I think to some degree overlap will be helpful to act as a redundancy in instances where certain participants become less participatory. However, I would passionately want to avoid what I view as a "homogeneous" web.

A random thought I had was to enable to network to grow at an orderly pace by instituting regulators, such that as a person's ability to add to their network is governed by their time on the network AND/OR related to the percentage of posts pushed aka reviewed, so the more active they are on the network, the larger theirs could become. While this could also play a role in creating some super-connectors (If I understand the definition correctly), if made public, could alter the incentives relating to pushing works.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
It will be useful to discuss (by e-mail) what adjustments we may want to make to the network structure in light of Todd's comment, and adjust the widget requirements statements accordingly.


TE: A robust network needs some but not too many "super-connectors"? You don't want a pyramid, of course. But you also don't want a flat homogenous web. I don't understand the incentives from the current description well enough to believe this will work. 

BB: Indeed, we want neither, and we're willing to make any changes to the schematic in order to prevent any homogenous web that might emerge under the proposed system. My thinking has been that individual participants would find it cumbersome to make too many connections due to the heavy resulting stream of information that would entail. Let me know what you think.

 Clark