striatic thinks he might know too many people.

84 responses to this plurk.

• 
  July 03, 2008 at 03:30 Chelseagirl <wondered> if that might be the case
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 03:32 Chelseagirl <compares> it to a musician she knows. Hs indie band'd CD was playing in a record sore and turns out the girl working there knew him too...
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 03:32 Chelseagirl says the girl said, "EVERYBODY knows Pietro! one might also say, EVERYONE knows striatic
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 03:45 striatic was thinking more that he knew too many people, not that too many people knew him.
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 03:50 Vanlal says You can choose to un-follow certain plurkers. They remain your friends and tey can see your private plurks but you won't see their streams
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 04:02 Chelseagirl says OK then. BUt I know Pietro and he knows me, etc
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 04:11 striatic was n't talking about plurk specifically.
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 05:42 clickykbd /me wonders if stri is staring at extremely long logs in SocialThing. heh.
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 16:43 Courtney P feels knowing too many people is a new social problem introduced by the internet age.
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 16:44 Courtney P says Although it enables us to keep up with more people, it's also hard to keep up with so many people! Also, it causes tons of distractions.
• 
  July 03, 2008 at 21:46 pzriddle asks what negative dollar value bkerr would assign to knowing one more person
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 00:15 striatic says why don't services have better tools for following large groups of people in meaningful ways?
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 06:25 Grey Area says striatic, it's a problem waiting to be solved.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 06:30 clickykbd I think the only approaches i've seen are in the data-visualization arena... and usually they just feel like toys and less than useful.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 07:20 striatic says the solution isn't in the visualization so much it is in weighting the information by relevancy and importance.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 07:22 striatic says for example, imagine if everyone had five "points" per day, to spend marking their own plurks as "cool". all other posts would be "neutral"
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 07:23 striatic says you then use a threshold to present a manageable amount of information to the reader ..
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 07:25 striatic says depending on the amount of noise, sometimes the neutral posts make it through the filter, ones with "cool" points always would though.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 07:26 striatic thinks there are a lot of different ways to handle it beyond "self ranking" .. that's just a start that isn't some visualization based toy.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 07:55 Vanlal How do you define cool? Setup word filters? Anything that mentions beer or breasts is automatically cool?
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:31 striatic says no. you define what your own cool posts are. it's dead simple. people weight their own posts using a limited allotment of points.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:41 Grey Area thinks but what if I actually would have liked another post of yours? (and miss it because of the filter)
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:47 striatic says without such a system, you'd miss it because it'd be lost in the total volume of posts anyway.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:49 Grey Area says not necessarily. It might leap out at me because of a word or a phrase. But now, it's hidden unless I do something to "view all" etc
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:49 Grey Area says I frequently scroll through my plurk timeline and stop when something interesting flashes by.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:52 striatic says that's essentially random, and people who do very few plurks are drowned out by people who do many. punishing casual use isn't good.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:53 Grey Area says No. You THINK it's random. But I'm picking the ones I like. With your system. I'd be forced to look at what someone else likes.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:53 striatic says you can still reward active users, since even their "non essential" plurks will get read by low density subscribers.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:54 striatic says you're looking at what the person saying the thing would most like you to read. that isn't bad.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:55 Grey Area says What if that doesn't interest me?
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:55 striatic says in real life, plurk would be like everyone in a room either yelling at the top of their lungs or being completely silent.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:56 Grey Area says You were the one that pointed out the other day that online doesn't have to be an analogy to real life
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 08:58 striatic says it doesn't have to be, but attention is, ultimately, zero sum. that's all this addresses, and it as true online as off.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:03 Grey Area says The assumption you're making here is that sheer volume will take away more of my attention.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:03 Grey Area says I agree that is often the case. But it doesn't have to be.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:06 striatic says it does have to be. more is more. i mean, you end up with this at a certain point:
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:06 striatic says
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:06 striatic says grrr ... tinyurl.com/6qk2tf
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:19 Grey Area says No you don't. A human being doesn't end up with 74,000 friends.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:23 Vanlal It'd be interesting to weigh in plurkers that one routinely responds to and vice versa. i.e. if you exchange plurks more often with X she ..
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:23 Vanlal ... weighs more for you, etc.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:24 Grey Area says Now that seems a better idea...
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 09:27 Grey Area says OTOH, we could be back at striatic's argument. More volume = more interaction, hence smaller folk drowned out.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:01 striatic says vanlal, that punishes lurking. you might be interested in something without feeling the need to respond.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:02 striatic thinks it'd be a good idea for an app or service that's specifically focused on interaction and is willing to sacrifice lurking.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:03 Vanlal One could bookmark interesting threads and have those weighed in.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:04 Vanlal The ultimate algorithm would be complex tracking many varied factors.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:08 striatic says another problem with that is that you'll end up with the same stuff from the same people over and over.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:12 striatic thinks a self ranking method can actually promote diversity by compensating for homogeneity when it becomes an issue.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:14 striatic thinks filters are less important on plurk, where people want a firehose to the face, and more applicable to facebook..
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:14 striatic says since both casual and hyperactive users have to coexist in that space.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:16 Vanlal I don't think anyone really wants a firehose to the face. Sure, all the A listers do but they don't really listen even to themselves
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:17 Vanlal Filters are essential in any social interaction. More so with plurk, than Facebook , where everyone has a firehose and isn't afraid touse it
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:29 Vanlal says I was having this conversation with a friend.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:30 Grey Area wants a simple way to bookmark this conversation!
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:31 Vanlal Post a Plurk feature REQ
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:35 striatic says people firehose you on facebook all the time with app invites and photos and all kinds of stuff. they firehose you without even knowing it.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:37 Vanlal says Let me restate - Everyone wants to firehose everyone else in the face. No one wants a firehose in the face.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:38 striatic says i don't want to firehose anyone in the face.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:41 striatic says i'd say most people don't, actually .. the problem is that the only way to deal with this currently is to make fewer posts.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:41 striatic says and then you're over-run. you've effectively ceded the network to the blabbermouths.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:46 Grey Area says the people with the app invites, the blabbermouths are the same people who constantly fwd emails to everyone. Simple solution: plonk!
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:46 Grey Area says That's how you deal with volume.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:48 striatic says there's a social penalty for plonk, so people don't do it. also, it's a baby/bathwater situation.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:51 Grey Area says With your analogy, I could choose to stand in a crowded room listening to everyone yelling. Or I could pull my friends out and talk to them.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:51 striatic says we have page rank, decent spam filters, personally targeted context sensitive ads .. and yet social networks are still simple directories.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:52 Grey Area says As you pointed out, the ideal situation is to weigh relevancy and importance. How you do that is the real problem.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:52 striatic says i'm talking about moving from yahoo version 1.0 -human edited web directory to the sophistication of page rank. it's a similar leap.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:53 Grey Area says Your method gives too much importance to user-selected importance. Like search engines only looking at meta tag keywords.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 10:56 striatic says that's a poor analogy. unlike meta tags, there's a limited currency. and social costs if you lie.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 11:00 striatic says besides, right now users select importance by choosing to say something or not.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 11:01 striatic says and people already do what i'm talking about .. posting the most important stuff to a blog, somewhat less important stuff to twitter
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 11:02 striatic says but you end up having to post and follow multiple services which is inelegant and annoying.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 11:03 striatic says plus the blog might not even hook into the social network .. lame.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 11:05 Grey Area says Your original problem was for A service to have a better tool to follow a large group of people. Multiple services is another ball game now.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 11:08 striatic says not really. people are trying to use "more services" as a way to better break up large groups of people .. i'm saying that doesn't scale.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 11:09 striatic says that's why we're seeing thing like friendfeed and social thing crop up .. but they need to solve the original problem as well, and aren't.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 21:06 clickykbd speaking of monopolizing my social network. (just caught up on the whole thread). haha.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 21:07 clickykbd FriendFeed is at least allowing you to "like" entries... and providing views sorted by likiness.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 21:08 clickykbd But it's not self ranking, nor is it a very smart algorithm... popular posts with many contacts still trickle up and causal users down.
• 
  July 04, 2008 at 23:33 striatic thinks this is all because SF wants to be LA soooo badly, it feels the the need to create all these model train set sized star systems.
• 
  July 05, 2008 at 01:37 clickykbd hey. but now I can rub elbows with the wordy and prolific! haha.
• 
  July 05, 2008 at 12:53 adonoho Constraints increase signal versus noise. When a plurk costs you money, as it does on my phone, I think carefully about who I follow.
• 
  July 06, 2008 at 04:40 striatic thinks self ranking would be useful for browser vs. mobile alone, potentially. pushing only the most important stuff to mobile devices.