A multi-disciplinary look at the assumptions and reality of a designed world.
Before we get started, I have three confessions:
First, I'm not on Facebook. As the social cost of not being part of that community becomes higher and higher, I struggle to recall why I'm not on board. Second, much of my understanding of what people are doing when I'm not with them comes from my wife and friends who filter events and track each others' lives through Facebook and then pass the relevant morsels over to me in the real world to digest. Third, I'm completely intrigued by the concept of social search, and the inclusion of the Aardvark social search engine into the huge Facebook network is enough to make me reconsider my anti-Facebook stance. I'm almost inclined to sign up just to start asking questions and see what I get back.
For those unfamiliar, Aardvark is a social search service that aims to leverage the wisdom of connected groups—a user can ask a question of their Facebook friends and get, presumably, relevant answers because they share location, interest, careers, and a variety of other things that made them a network in the first place. As the Aardvark blog says:
"Consider this: I have about 200 friends on Facebook, and they each have about 200 friends. Altogether I have over 10,000 friends and friends-of-friends in my extended network. These 10,000 people have a lot in common with me: many share my school and work affiliations and my cultural reference points. I'm interested in the choices they make and the experiences they have — they are usually more relevant to me than the opinions expressed by anonymous strangers on the web."
I certainly want to tap the wisdom of my foodie friends, find the best bike shops, events to attend and movies to see. And I can easily see the benefit of asking friends for help versus endlessly trawling the internet for answers, only to wonder if the answers I get are ones that I trust to be correct. As the Aardvark blog points out in a roundabout way, the tricky thing is subjectivity: "Social Search is especially great for subjective questions, and questions where context is important to getting the information I want." Social Search is also "complementary to Web Search, which is still great for objective information that can be found on a specific web page."
We all rely on specific people for information on certain topics; I have go-to friends I ask for restaurant or cooking advice, cycling friends who share my passion for not being treated like dirt in bike shops, others who share my taste in music and still others who like the movies I do. Unfortunately, I've learned from painful experience that people I trust in one area are not necessarily the best judges of my taste in others.
Aardvark tries to get around this issue of subjectivity by qualifying the answerers via their profiles, allowing users to ask questions "through instant messaging or email and the service will get to work searching your contacts and their contacts depending on their qualification to answer said question. The qualification is determined based on their profiles, which list their expertise and the likes." In a sense, by relying on a system of self-administered expertise, Aardvark is trying to make their subjective answers as objective and "true" as possible.
So what happens to people like me when search becomes social? To start with, I'll not have access to the scale of Facebook's proposed social search network. But I'm not convinced that the kind of answers I need are best handled on this kind of platform anyway. I know that a lot of the subjective questions I ask of others are more conversational and require more depth than a simple comment exchange offers. There's also a high probability that a small number of people will bear the weight of a large amount of the information sharing. Few of us are willing to devote large amounts of time answering questions that don't provide us any benefit; those that are will become hubs of knowledge and miniature Wiki's, their online behaviors shifting from social equal to information dispensary. Will the answers that I glean from real-life queries become more privileged precisely because they are out-of-network?
Here's a test for the theory of social search: What do you think?
(This article also appeared in Creativity-Online's OnDesign)
Thanks for the interesting
Alison - July 7, 2009
Thanks for the interesting post on Aardvark and social search. You raised some good questions and I'll be checking back to see if your readers respond
To clarify, anyone can join Aardvark who's invited by another user--you just have to be on Facebook to join on your own. Nick, shoot me an email, and I'll send you an invite--alison@aardvarkteam.com
Just join FB Nick. You know
Adam Richardson - July 13, 2009
Just join FB Nick. You know you want to. We're all doing it. I resisted too. Now I can't remember why. But I can stop any time I want to.
Do you really want an
Don't - September 14, 2009
Do you really want an electronic umbilical cord feeding you junk food and garbage disposal worthy morsels of information?
Stick with the filtered life...you're living like a King.
social search test
Kate Staples - November 21, 2009
Have you joined yet Nick?!!
To answer your question...Sometimes it's more privaleged to get answers from people in your online network! Especially if they're a global expert in something you need help with and you would never be able to connect with them 'normally.' Sometimes you need advice and you can learn things from people who even if they are in your network, you might not run into them to ask them the questions you have...and you might not want to call them to ask them a favour when you don't really know them that well. On FB- you just put it out there! Filter it if you need, just like you filter out the 3 other i-pods you can hear when you're sitting on public transport.
It's a quick easy way to get some great advice from people you trust about... whatever...what brand camera to buy, what should I name my business, is there a great park with coffee nearby? Does my 1 year old have an ear infection (no you don't need to go to the GP, there's Drs in my network...and mothers- lots of them!)
The worrying thing is that there are less and less real life meaningful intereactions in general. 'Community' has become about how many fans your business page has or how many twitter followers you have. I think that social networking online is taking over the social networking people aren't doing with their own neighbours and while I'm not boycotting FB, I am making a compensatory effort to speak to people in my own backyard more (which backs onto a park so I'm being literal as well as figurative here:-) ) I don't think these interactions are more valuable because they're face to face tho. That's the beauty of the internet. I don't need to travel to South Africa to ask someone what it is like living with HIV and not being able to emigrate to Australia. I can have that conversation on FB with someone I share a group with and learn something real about another person's life that I never would have been able to before...and perhaps be inspired to take action to make the world a better place.
Ahh enough ranting from me;-)