

On Communities and Content - destraynor
http://www.contrast.ie/blog/on-communities-and-content/

======
cullenking
Not all user generated content need be treated the same. As the article points
out, a very small portion of consumers on a particular site turn around and
create their own content. But, I think this mostly applies to general interest
content sites. What if your site provides content as a result of providing a
useful, provocative tool?

We have about 21k users on ridewithgps.com. The focal point of the site is the
mapping functionalities for planning and logging bike rides. Users create this
content by either drawing a prospective ride on a map, or, by uploading a log
file from a trip they took. There are very few accounts that have no routes or
recorded activities on them, because the site exists to provide utility to a
user. With 134,000 maps, that's 6.4 maps per user. By creating an account,
users are compelled to start creating maps because it is directly useful to
them to do so! However, users can also add less important content: a mini-
profile for their bike, photos, comments etc. The amount of this less
utilitarian content that users create is significantly smaller. Photos, for
example, are 0.3 per user. Comments are 0.1 per user.

What does this mean? Make sure your site provides a strong utilitarian aspect
for your users! Provide them with value, not just another place register and
store generic content.

~~~
Elepsis
All the way back in 2006, Joshua Porter wrote a really good article
illustrating this principle using the example of Delicious:
<http://bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/>

The gist of it:

 _The one major idea behind the Del.icio.us Lesson is that personal value
precedes network value. What this means is that if we are to build networks of
value, then each person on the network needs to find value for themselves
before they can contribute value to the network. In the case of Del.icio.us,
people find value saving their personal bookmarks first and foremost. All
other usage is secondary._

~~~
Perceval
That's a nice restatement of Smith's 'Invisible Hand' concept.

~~~
Kliment
No, it isn't. While widely quoted, out of context, Smith did not believe that
a market was guided by an "invisible hand". In his book, he only mentions it
once, and in a fairly limited context. His text does point out a number of
situations where regulation is interfering with the optimal market state, but
the bulk of the book is a description of the kind of market that would self-
adjust to an optimum, and the form of regulation that would be best for
creating that kind of market. So yes, organizing a community so that personal
gain leads to community gain is very much in line with Smith's beliefs, but
keep the "invisible hand" out of it. (If you are curious, the full text, long
out of copyright, is available at several locations online, with various forms
of commentary. I highly recommend the book.)

~~~
Perceval
Your comment is unnecessarily condescending. I have the unabridged text of
_The Wealth of Nations_ on my shelf, next to books by virtually ever other
major political economist: Locke, Malthus, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Engels,
Keynes, Veblen, Polanyi, Hayek, Friedman, Schumpeter, and a collection of
institutionalists, rational choice theorists, post-Keynesians, neo/post-
Marxists and so on.

The very simple fact is that Elepsis's post _is_ quite literally a restatement
of the 'invisible hand.' Here is the one passage from _The Wealth of Nations_
where Smith uses the term:

 _"He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor
knows how much he is promoting it. …[H]e intends only his own security; and by
directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest
value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other
cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his
intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of
it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society
more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never know
much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good…_

 _"…[E]very individual, it is evident, can in his local situation, judge much
better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who
should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ
their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention,
but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single
person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so
dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to
fancy himself fit to exercise it."_

Elepsis's comment highlights a quote from an article about del.icio.us saying
that personal benefit comes first and without personal benefit del.icio.us not
only would not work, but there would be no substantial public benefit
produced. If anything, this is an even stronger statement than Smith's
statement of the 'invisible hand.'

Your comment is somewhat of a non-sequitur. You seem to be attacking the
thesis that the market should exist entirely free from the activities of the
state. This has nothing to do with my original comment. It's irrelevant if the
'invisible hand' metaphor was only used once—the fact remains that Elepsis's
quote is a very straightforward restatement of the 'invisible hand' metaphor.
Trying to turn that into some ideological flamewar about free-marketers is
unnecessary and unhelpful.

~~~
Kliment
Reading it a day later, I agree, it was unnecessarily strong, and your
interpretation is correct. I am attacking the use of the "invisible hand" to
mean "greed benefits everyone", a quite common (and frustrating, to me) abuse
of the concept, but you are quite right that the specific use in the book does
match the context - that users seeking their own benefit, unwillingly and
unaware contribute to the good of the community. I am no longer permitted to
edit the comment, but I offer my apology.

------
JacobAldridge
I find myself torn around the value of content in web businesses moving
forward.

On the one hand, there's the observations put forward (most strongly, in my
encounters, by Scott Adams on his dilbert blog) that content is essentially in
a race towards free. The value in this situation is those companies that can
sort, aggregate, or point you in the right content direction (HN fits this
group; so does Google).

But then there's the fact, and this article makes the point, that without
content there's no value. Whether user-generated, expert-driven or otherwise,
we do need some content, and no doubt some content is far more valuable than
others.

My strength is undoubtedly in created meaningful content. Does that make me
valuable, with the right connections, or a sucker with skills that are soon to
be comparable to blacksmithing in NYC or making cars in Detroit?

~~~
robryan
It is a big problem, there needs to be content created but in the majority of
cases this content can't be produced in an economical fashion, so it's down to
people that love what they do, those using it to cross promote something else
and the second rate cheap content farms.

------
danielsiders
You wouldn't believe the number of calls I got when I worked at an agency
every day asking us to build facebook, but better in some tiny way. For free.
The really generous prospective clients would offer us a share of the
potential, expectedly limitless, profits. Critical mass of users is hard
enough when launching real tools, social networks are the one in a million
perfectly timed shots and follow up with great response to users' needs. You
can't manufacture that kind of success, just hope to ride the wave well if and
when it comes.

~~~
prawn
Oblig: <http://www.27bslash6.com/p2p2.html>

------
Qz
This is well written, and the biggest takeaway is probably the _content
precedes design_ line, which I think is pretty key.

On a side note, noticing that this is .ie, I can't help but try to read the
article in my head with an Irish accent. But I've been watching a TV show set
in Scotland recently (The Book Group, on Hulu), so I'm pretty sure I'm
actually reading it in some bastardized Irish/Scottish accent that would
surely get me killed in either place.

~~~
destraynor
Thanks for your kind words. The content precedes design point is borrowed from
Zeldman.

As earnubs pointed out, my accent is Dublin, so if you're thinking scottish
you're way off :)

Maybe we should press on with the Contrast podcast :)

~~~
Qz
Oh man I would love a podcast. And I was only thinking scottish because of the
TV show I was watching...

------
danielrhodes
The only way to start a legit social network is doing so among a small number
of people first and once you get some network effects in that group slowly
expand out. Social networks aren't usually very good at bringing random people
together, they are good at facilitating relationships that already exist.

------
warwick
The comment about empty input boxes brought forth a possible UI idea. What
would happen if you showed users a profile page full of information taken from
other random users and asked them to correct it?

~~~
brianbreslin
you mean assume what they would fill in? most users are lazy. always assume
they are willing to put in the minimal amount of effort to get past your
friction points (signup)

~~~
warwick
The initial thought is to see if users are more likely to correct profile
fields from incorrect values than they are to just leave a field empty.

To avoid incorrect profile data, it might be implemented so that if a field is
never given focus, it would be treated as blank.

------
cinimod
That article totally describe me. Really realist and interesting read.
However, it's kind of normal to have no content if the goal of the site is to
let you share things with your friends.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
But that will only work if you (creator of the site) have a direct connection
with the group of friends.

------
Volscio
Do you think there are more sites that say they are "like Facebook, but..." or
more blog posts saying that "your site that's like Facebook, but... won't
work?"

[edit: wasn't clear]

------
joshuacc
_You know what they call a content driven site without any good content? A
load of bollox._

This.

