I like the new move toward "Social Connection". I think that is what often preceeds community.
I see that interaction is a key for you. I agree to a certain point and I think that very recently, we've seen a change in what it means to "participate" in a community. It used to be particpation in some sort of interaction online.
In looking at social networking sites (orkut, friendster, tribe, etc.), consider the personal home page. A member can create an identity within the community by adding "friends" and joining "communities". These are displayed on their personal page and become part of their persona. "She knows these people, and has these interests"
In this way, they are particpating and building identity without any real social interaction.
I would say that this is a form of participation that is in between lurking and participating in discussions. Are these people members of a community?
Tomi Ahonen
· 4 years ago
Hi Jake and Lee
I agree the community discussion is often about social connectivity. There is a company that is very deeply involved in analysing social networking, and that is Finnish customer analytics specialist Xtract Ltd. Their website is www.xtract.info and they have some really cool stuff, including the Alpha User analysis that Alan Moore and I used in our book Communities Dominate Brands. Alpha Users will revolutionise new service and technology launches, as it goes well beyond the "innovator" and "early adopter" and "evangelist" thinking, deeper, into the social networking, to discover the true critical single person in any given community.
Dominate !
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Paul Golding
· 4 years ago
I am confused by the entire discussion.
As you claim to be in the business of "building communities", isn't it more meaningful to tell your questioners what it is that you build. Surely, that must be your definition and the only one that matters in this context.
Jake
· 4 years ago
Well, this discussion is more of an academic yarn-batting. If I had a client or colleague asking about how this plays out for a particular project, I wouldn't begin to have this kind of discussion with them.
Casper Nielsen
· 4 years ago
I'm currently writing a paper on Communities of Practice and therefore I have to define what a Community is. I will agree with Jake in his definition - but I was wondering about Lurkers aswell :-)
As I see it, Lurkers cannot be members of a community, even though they defently are affiliated with the community. Members participate in keeping the community alive. Lurkers can have an influence on the community when they let themselves be known and participate even remotely in a discussion or activity. Depending on the community, the possibily of a Lurker being present might make some sort of difference...but not enough to grant membership as I see it
Jake
· 4 years ago
I'd agree with that, Casper.
Anonymous
· 4 years ago
First, let me state that it is wonderful to have stumbled on this site!
Just from the few comments it appears that the passion for online communities and the web as a whole is fully present:)
I would like to comment of the definition of community and the subsequent discussion.
I respectfully disagree with the defnition as provided. It is very possible to belong and contribute to a community without direct participation. I suspect that many "lurkers" are some of the largest proponents of the online communities they visit. While they might not submit content, they have the ability to help the community grow by encouraging others to participate both actively and passively.
The desription of the social connection spectrum is intersting. It appears that the focus is to define the "bounds" of relationships not the composition. I believe that said composition is the primary element in relationship definition. By composition I mean, the inherent disposition.
Tony Fortner
· 4 years ago
First, let me state that it is wonderful to have stumbled on this site!
Just from the few comments it appears that the passion for online communities and the web as a whole is fully present:)
I would like to comment of the definition of community and the subsequent discussion.
I respectfully disagree with the defnition as provided. It is very possible to belong and contribute to a community without direct participation. I suspect that many "lurkers" are some of the largest proponents of the online communities they visit. While they might not submit content, they have the ability to help the community grow by encouraging others to participate both actively and passively.
The desription of the social connection spectrum is intersting. It appears that the focus is to define the "bounds" of relationships not the composition. I believe that said composition is the primary element in relationship definition. By composition I mean, the inherent disposition.
Jake
· 4 years ago
Welcome, Tony.
Yes, the lurkers question is one of the most difficult things to answer about all this.
But I often talk about community as a "dating relationship" because there are so many parallels.
If you're talking about simply being "associated" with community, then certainly lurkers apply.
But plugging this into the dating model, lurkers are like stalkers. If you are the only one involved in the relationship, are you truly having a relationship?
To me, to "belong" to a community requires a two-way participation. I can look fondly as a tech geek at the Mac community, but I am a "member" of that community if I never actually buy a Mac?
If *I* believe that I'm in a relationship, but I've never talked to the person on the other end, am I really in a relationship?
Tony Fortner
· 4 years ago
Jake, thanks the welcome and a prompt response.
It might be that we are using two slightly different definitions for "relationship". Which given it's complexity I would not doubt:)
I find it difficult to define relationship in binary terms, "in or out". I believe them to be more flexible, with varied levels of energy. It might be best to seperate the value assigned to communities and relationships as one can have many types of the other. I believe it is the relative expectations and "conditionality" of the relationships that ultimately define the community.
To use your example, would it not be possible for two people to have a relationship in a community without direct interaction? I humbly submit my relationship with the pastor of the church I attend. His sermons have influence, he is aware that I exist, yet we have never spoken with each other. However, since the expectation is that this is "normal" for this communinity, then the conditionality exists. Ack, runningoutofroom
Jake
· 4 years ago
Very good point, Tony. Although, the flaw in that pastor logic is that you are actually participating in the process - you actively go in the church, sit down and are part of the known crowd. While you might not interact with the pastor, you're interacting with the others there.
Using this same example, if your church service is televised, and someone watches every Sunday, but they never go to the church or meet others, are they still a member of the community?
Tony Fortner
· 4 years ago
I like where this is going!
My answer is yes!:) Supported by my earlier statements regarding influence (helping the community grow). In my mind the "right" or "fee" for belonging to a community is the individuals ablility to positively (or negatively) influence the overall health and well-being of the community.
The person sitting at home, islolated from the other members, less the TV, can still help to grow the community by introducing others to physically attend the church services and contribute even if they do not.
The person at home has one type of "relationship" with the church community and the person who attends physically has yet another type. However, their membership can, and in my humble opinion should, be attained by the desire to contribute to the overall health of said community.
If someone desires to "belong" yet they contribute in more passive ways, valuation of the contributions might vary, but the contribution remains.
I love the dialectic! Gotta run, bbl.
Casper Nielsen
· 4 years ago
I see the stalker-view as a strong metafor, but as the stalker is inherently negativ I can't say that I like it - although the comparison made made me laugh, hehe
to put the discussion on the edge - you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others - and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership
but if everybody does what he does - stops going to the church and just watch it from home - the church-sermon community doesn't work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating... the "fee" has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small - by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership - but not affiliation
I hope I'm still making sense :-)
Casper Nielsen
· 4 years ago
I see the stalker-view as a strong metafor, but as the stalker is inherently negativ I can't say that I like it - although the comparison made made me laugh, hehe
to put the discussion on the edge - you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others - and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership
but if everybody does what he does - stops going to the church and just watch it from home - the church-sermon community doesn't work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating... the "fee" has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small - by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership - but not affiliation
I hope I'm still making sense :-)
Casper Nielsen
· 4 years ago
I see the stalker-view as a strong metafor, but as the stalker is inherently negativ I can't say that I like it - although the comparison made made me laugh, hehe
to put the discussion on the edge - you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others - and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership
but if everybody does what he does - stops going to the church and just watch it from home - the church-sermon community doesn't work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating... the "fee" has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small - by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership - but not affiliation
I hope I'm still making sense :-)
Casper Nielsen
· 4 years ago
I see the stalker-view as a strong metafor, but as the stalker is inherently negativ I can't say that I like it - although the comparison made made me laugh, hehe
to put the discussion on the edge - you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others - and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership
but if everybody does what he does - stops going to the church and just watch it from home - the church-sermon community doesn't work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating... the "fee" has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small - by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership - but not affiliation
I hope I'm still making sense :-)
Casper Nielsen
· 4 years ago
sorry about the double posts - it keeps saying I made the verification wrong - but apparently it accepted anyway :-/
Tony Fortner
· 4 years ago
Hope everyone had a great Father's Day!
Been a few days since I have had any chance to read and post on anything so I thought I would start here:)
The distinct qualifier that I see for community is "acceptance" or "membership" criteria. Meaning that one can be a non-participative member as long as the community deems that acceptable.
I do understand your point regarding "relationships" however, we might be applying two different values to that word. It might be possible that we are confusing relationship with interactivity. In my mind one can have a relationship, or a "connection" to another without awareness (i.e. twins separated at birth). No doubt they are related, so much even that many report having similar dreams, tastes, lifestyles, etc.
It also might be that we are employing too many "relative" no pun intended, terms.
Tony Fortner
· 4 years ago
Hope everyone had a great Father's Day!
Been a few days since I have had any chance to read and post on anything so I thought I would start here:)
The distinct qualifier that I see for community is "acceptance" or "membership" criteria. Meaning that one can be a non-participative member as long as the community deems that acceptable.
I do understand your point regarding "relationships" however, we might be applying two different values to that word. It might be possible that we are confusing relationship with interactivity. In my mind one can have a relationship, or a "connection" to another without awareness (i.e. twins separated at birth). No doubt they are related, so much even that many report having similar dreams, tastes, lifestyles, etc.
It also might be that we are employing too many "relative" no pun intended, terms.
komik
· 1 year ago
I am confused by the entire discussion.
As you claim to be in the business of "building communities", isn't it more meaningful to tell your questioners what it is that you build. Surely, that must be your definition and the only one that matters in this context.
jawbreaker
· 1 year ago
Hi there!...I have also tried mypage.com, it's free and its nice. They have a lot of apps.,and also communities where you can be a part of it(":)..
All Comments
I see that interaction is a key for you. I agree to a certain point and I think that very recently, we've seen a change in what it means to "participate" in a community. It used to be particpation in some sort of interaction online.
In looking at social networking sites (orkut, friendster, tribe, etc.), consider the personal home page. A member can create an identity within the community by adding "friends" and joining "communities". These are displayed on their personal page and become part of their persona. "She knows these people, and has these interests"
In this way, they are particpating and building identity without any real social interaction.
I would say that this is a form of participation that is in between lurking and participating in discussions. Are these people members of a community?
I agree the community discussion is often about social connectivity. There is a company that is very deeply involved in analysing social networking, and that is Finnish customer analytics specialist Xtract Ltd. Their website is www.xtract.info and they have some really cool stuff, including the Alpha User analysis that Alan Moore and I used in our book Communities Dominate Brands. Alpha Users will revolutionise new service and technology launches, as it goes well beyond the "innovator" and "early adopter" and "evangelist" thinking, deeper, into the social networking, to discover the true critical single person in any given community.
Dominate !
Tomi Ahonen :-)
As you claim to be in the business of "building communities", isn't it more meaningful to tell your questioners what it is that you build. Surely, that must be your definition and the only one that matters in this context.
I will agree with Jake in his definition - but I was wondering about Lurkers aswell :-)
As I see it, Lurkers cannot be members of a community, even though they defently are affiliated with the community. Members participate in keeping the community alive. Lurkers can have an influence on the community when they let themselves be known and participate even remotely in a discussion or activity. Depending on the community, the possibily of a Lurker being present might make some sort of difference...but not enough to grant membership as I see it
Just from the few comments it appears that the passion for online communities and the web as a whole is fully present:)
I would like to comment of the definition of community and the subsequent discussion.
I respectfully disagree with the defnition as provided. It is very possible to belong and contribute to a community without direct participation. I suspect that many "lurkers" are some of the largest proponents of the online communities they visit. While they might not submit content, they have the ability to help the community grow by encouraging others to participate both actively and passively.
The desription of the social connection spectrum is intersting. It appears that the focus is to define the "bounds" of relationships not the composition. I believe that said composition is the primary element in relationship definition. By composition I mean, the inherent disposition.
Just from the few comments it appears that the passion for online communities and the web as a whole is fully present:)
I would like to comment of the definition of community and the subsequent discussion.
I respectfully disagree with the defnition as provided. It is very possible to belong and contribute to a community without direct participation. I suspect that many "lurkers" are some of the largest proponents of the online communities they visit. While they might not submit content, they have the ability to help the community grow by encouraging others to participate both actively and passively.
The desription of the social connection spectrum is intersting. It appears that the focus is to define the "bounds" of relationships not the composition. I believe that said composition is the primary element in relationship definition. By composition I mean, the inherent disposition.
Yes, the lurkers question is one of the most difficult things to answer about all this.
But I often talk about community as a "dating relationship" because there are so many parallels.
If you're talking about simply being "associated" with community, then certainly lurkers apply.
But plugging this into the dating model, lurkers are like stalkers. If you are the only one involved in the relationship, are you truly having a relationship?
To me, to "belong" to a community requires a two-way participation. I can look fondly as a tech geek at the Mac community, but I am a "member" of that community if I never actually buy a Mac?
If *I* believe that I'm in a relationship, but I've never talked to the person on the other end, am I really in a relationship?
It might be that we are using two slightly different definitions for "relationship". Which given it's complexity I would not doubt:)
I find it difficult to define relationship in binary terms, "in or out". I believe them to be more flexible, with varied levels of energy. It might be best to seperate the value assigned to communities and relationships as one can have many types of the other. I believe it is the relative expectations and "conditionality" of the relationships that ultimately define the community.
To use your example, would it not be possible for two people to have a relationship in a community without direct interaction? I humbly submit my relationship with the pastor of the church I attend. His sermons have influence, he is aware that I exist, yet we have never spoken with each other. However, since the expectation is that this is "normal" for this communinity, then the conditionality exists. Ack, runningoutofroom
Using this same example, if your church service is televised, and someone watches every Sunday, but they never go to the church or meet others, are they still a member of the community?
My answer is yes!:) Supported by my earlier statements regarding influence (helping the community grow). In my mind the "right" or "fee" for belonging to a community is the individuals ablility to positively (or negatively) influence the overall health and well-being of the community.
The person sitting at home, islolated from the other members, less the TV, can still help to grow the community by introducing others to physically attend the church services and contribute even if they do not.
The person at home has one type of "relationship" with the church community and the person who attends physically has yet another type. However, their membership can, and in my humble opinion should, be attained by the desire to contribute to the overall health of said community.
If someone desires to "belong" yet they contribute in more passive ways, valuation of the contributions might vary, but the contribution remains.
I love the dialectic! Gotta run, bbl.
to put the discussion on the edge - you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others - and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership
but if everybody does what he does - stops going to the church and just watch it from home - the church-sermon community doesn't work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating...
the "fee" has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small - by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership - but not affiliation
I hope I'm still making sense :-)
to put the discussion on the edge - you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others - and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership
but if everybody does what he does - stops going to the church and just watch it from home - the church-sermon community doesn't work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating...
the "fee" has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small - by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership - but not affiliation
I hope I'm still making sense :-)
to put the discussion on the edge - you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others - and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership
but if everybody does what he does - stops going to the church and just watch it from home - the church-sermon community doesn't work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating...
the "fee" has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small - by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership - but not affiliation
I hope I'm still making sense :-)
to put the discussion on the edge - you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others - and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership
but if everybody does what he does - stops going to the church and just watch it from home - the church-sermon community doesn't work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating...
the "fee" has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small - by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership - but not affiliation
I hope I'm still making sense :-)
Been a few days since I have had any chance to read and post on anything so I thought I would start here:)
The distinct qualifier that I see for community is "acceptance" or "membership" criteria. Meaning that one can be a non-participative member as long as the community deems that acceptable.
I do understand your point regarding "relationships" however, we might be applying two different values to that word. It might be possible that we are confusing relationship with interactivity. In my mind one can have a relationship, or a "connection" to another without awareness (i.e. twins separated at birth). No doubt they are related, so much even that many report having similar dreams, tastes, lifestyles, etc.
It also might be that we are employing too many "relative" no pun intended, terms.
Been a few days since I have had any chance to read and post on anything so I thought I would start here:)
The distinct qualifier that I see for community is "acceptance" or "membership" criteria. Meaning that one can be a non-participative member as long as the community deems that acceptable.
I do understand your point regarding "relationships" however, we might be applying two different values to that word. It might be possible that we are confusing relationship with interactivity. In my mind one can have a relationship, or a "connection" to another without awareness (i.e. twins separated at birth). No doubt they are related, so much even that many report having similar dreams, tastes, lifestyles, etc.
It also might be that we are employing too many "relative" no pun intended, terms.
As you claim to be in the business of "building communities", isn't it more meaningful to tell your questioners what it is that you build. Surely, that must be your definition and the only one that matters in this context.