Notes on social media feedback loops


A few slides to layout the principle of different feedback loops between your online community, your site, contributors, readers and other blogs and communities. Any feedback?

…And thanks to tweet-feedback from Jenny Ambrozek (@sagenet) for the wider context around the power of feedback loops – see the Fast Company article on how Ning is using this concept (what they term a ‘viral expansion loop’) to great effect. [I'm currently at the British Computer Society at Covent Garden, so looks like I'll be reading the print-out over lunch].

PS: It’s also a key way in which the world’s biggest social network site Facebook, by implementing the ‘status update’ feature, managed to rapidly grow its membership, as I outlined in a recent post. In other words this is a very powerful tool if done well, and with something people want. Anyone want my viral loop consultancy better get in touch quick as I’m off to see a London-based social media agency about this on Thursday!

In the meantime I’ve ordered Adam Penenberg’s book ‘Viral Loop’ (see the Amazon widget on my homepage to order a copy) after a ‘winning streak’ of blog posts on the power of networks & feedback loops led me to his virtual door. If you fancy creating some feedback loops, or plain user flows for that matter, I’ve tracked down what appears to be a useful site: Product Planner. It allows you to create your own viral loops and check out some that have already been created.

And of course I did a very quick search today on Twitter on the key phrase ‘viral loops’ which unearthed this gem of a slideshow, from Josh Jeffreys (Interactive Creative Director at BusyEvent) which provides (in his words) an overview of how to build applications that have built-in mechanisms for driving users to recruit additional users through normal use of the application. Look out for the new acronym ‘UDU’ (users drive users):Viral Loops: Making Self-Marketing Apps

Social networking ability & field sense


Wayne Gretzky-Style ‘Field Sense’ May Be Teachable http://shar.es/m3E8W An application to social networking influence is my thought. Cheers!

My tweet today (above) follows my last blog post on the importance of location, rather than the number of connections, in determining an individual’s influence: “we may have got too focused on valuing networks in terms of who is the best connected. In fact the most influential person in the network comes down to location, rather than connections,” according to the research paper ‘Identifying Influential Spreaders in Complex Networks’.

In other words if location is important, and if networks are dynamic, then maybe you can get better at being in the right place at the right time to maximise your influence? Perhaps the sports science of ‘field sense’ has something to offer here to online social networking strategy? It’s just a hunch for now.

Valuing online networks – location vs connections


A recent research paper suggests we may have got too focused on valuing networks in terms of who is the best connected. In fact the most influential person in the network comes down to location, rather than connections, as outlined in this blog extract:

The importance of hubs may have been overstated, say Kitsak and pals. “In contrast to common belief, the most influential spreaders in a social network do not correspond to the best connected people or to the most central people,” they say.

At first glance this seems somewhat counter-intuitive but on reflection it makes perfect sense. Kitsak and co point out that there are various scenarios in which well connected hubs have little influence over the spread of information. “For example, if a hub exists at the end of a branch at the periphery of a network, it will have a minimal impact in the spreading process through the core of the network.”

By contrast, “a less connected person who is strategically placed in the core of the network will have a significant effect that leads to dissemination through a large fraction of the population.”

In some ways though this sounds little like the maxim about being in the ‘right place, at the right time’. Certainly from my own experience this seems a worthwhile approach, rather than growing the number of connections in my social network. I suspect it may help if you (to use another saying) ‘keep your eyes and ears open’ to achieve this too!

Download: Identifying Influential Spreaders in Complex Networks (PDF; 3mb). Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1001.5285.

Re-launching as a community of practice?


Below is my slideshare presentation of what I’d do in the first four weeks in the way of putting together a community strategy for the National Strategies community, which currently has little in the way of peer to peer discussion to enable it to function as a community of practice.

Talking about community champions…


I’ve noticed there’s been some debate about the role of community champions, leaders and moderators on the online community managers’ group e-mint recently. If I was going to write about it in depth I’d highlight the good use of champions by the TreeHouse charity on their online community ‘Talk about autism’, assisted by my ex-colleague Elena Goodrum. (In fact she links to them in the first paragraph of the community landing page). I think on a more informal basis a champion system worked well on the ICAEW’s IT Counts, where top contributors would usually chip in on a conversation. So two ways of approaching it, one formal and one more informal for your consideration.

Telligent Community is on the move!


Telligent has announced the availability of Telligent Community 5.5 and Telligent Enterprise 2.5.

The new releases include enhancements around extensibility, performance, flexibility and ease of adoption and represent the company’s ongoing commitment to innovation in the areas of community and collaboration software.

  • Telligent Community is an external-facing community application that enables organizations to listen to, learn from and improve conversations with customers, partners and prospects.
  • Telligent Enterprise is an internal collaboration software application that promotes a productive and efficient corporate culture. Collaboration between employees is kept private and secure

Both products are built on Telligent Evolution, an award-winning collaboration and community platform that enhances integration and allows organizations to create applications to meet specific business needs.

In addition, the following will be released in March 2010:

  • Telligent Analytics 3.5 provides dramatic improvements in performance and ease of use to our comprehensive analytics software that allows organizations to quantify user engagement both inside and outside of their communities.
  • Telligent Evolution Platform SDK provides development capabilities to extend the existing applications and build new applications on the Telligent Evolution platform. It enables customers and partners to easily integrate the Telligent Evolution platform with enterprise systems, such as Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (SharePoint), which organizations already depend on for content management, document management, customer relationship management and other specialized functions.

Telligent will host a FREE live webinar and product demonstration featuring Telligent founder and chief technology officer Rob Howard on: Thursday, February 18, at 11 a.m. Central US time (5pm GMT).

You can register for the event here: http://tinyurl.com/telligent-webinar

On another note I am also pleased to let you know that Telligent was recently named an InfoWorld 2010 Technology of the Year Award winner!

Each year, the InfoWorld Test Center picks the year’s best hardware and software for business and IT professionals. The winners represent the best and most innovative products to meet the test bench each year, leading the way in the data center, in the cloud, on the desktop, or in software development, security, collaboration, or mobile computing.

InfoWorld named Telligent Enterprise 2.0 ahead of both Jive and Socialtext, praising Telligent’s integration with SharePoint and ability to meld collaboration features with community sites both internal and external. Another high point according to InfoWorld was Telligent’s social analytics capabilities. In addition, InfoWorld predicts big things for Telligent in 2010.

You can read the full article here: http://www.infoworld.com/d/infoworld/infoworlds-2010-technology-year-awards-458?page=0,8

Measuring E2.0: evolution of Hello.bah.com


I’ve just had a good start to the week listening to the Virtual Enterprise 2.0 Conference presentation regarding Booz Allen Hamilton’s internal collaboration tool, hello.bah.com. The one thing that struck me was the conversation around how to measure its value. Though they demonstrated this through the significant reduction in time  it took to find the right people for a project, especially useful for a company with a lot of off-site employees as community manager Megan Murray said, the need to prove ROI is ongoing.

To paraphrase the discussion, the metric for value was arrived at as a result of a benchmarking   as a consulting firm the challenge was to see how long it tool to find the right people to staff a project. Comparing the E2.o tool against Outlook and the phone it took an average of 1.5 hours less time to find individuals you required for a specific project. So as senior associate Walton Smith said that over 23k people you quickly see a positive return; but he added he was still looking for a great answer to the question of proving ROI.

I’m sure the 2.0 Adoption Council has plenty of possible answers to that question. I have a few ideas of my own too which I shared with the good folks at Webjam the other day. I was thinking of Vanessa DiMauro of Leader Networks White Paper (pdf) on the subject of creating professional peer-to-peer communities and measuring usage by the majority of ‘readers’ as opposed to active ‘contributors’. The point being that enabling this method to measure E2.0 could be part of the answer, IMHO.

In the 90s, a colleague and I
did a really interesting study3 to answer the research
question “What do people, who don’t actively post
in an online community, do with
the information in the commu-
nity?” We so commonly use the
term “lurker,” which has nega-
tive connotations. But if you
look at the statistics of online
community behaviors, only one
to four percent of all community
participants actually post a mes-
sage, and only about 20 to 30
percent of all private community members make
themselves visible by taking a poll, posting a mes-
sage, being interviewed, or showing some sign of
active presence, so that leaves a really large percent-
age of people who repeatedly visit. They have use
patterns that are sustained and predictable. What the
heck are they doing, and why do they keep coming
back?

So my colleague Gloria Jacobs and I decided to
study what people do who aren’t actively and visibly
participating. Are they just reading and lurking, as
that negative word connotes? What are they doing with
their repeated logons?

What we found was a really robust usage of the
information and connections that people make in
professional online communities, even if they never
make themselves visible. They actually have a ten-
dency to use the information that they learn in their
real life, in some cases more actively than the active
posters or participants.

We were able to track behaviors such as printing
out information or emailing it to others (when it was
appropriate); using information in meetings; con-
necting with colleagues or people that they met in
the online community via phone or at conferences or
through email. So the silent readers are very active
members of the community. They just make deci-
sions not to make themselves visible in the perma-
nent online space.

That was a really interesting finding for us, be-
cause it rounded out the great question “Why are
these people coming if they’re
not doing anything?” But they
are. They are choosing to mani-
fest their connections in the real
world, in the public-facing world just not online.

Download the presentation slides (pdf, 3mb) here: The Evolution of Hello.bah.com

Three essential questions about community management


Try your hand at these three questions about community management. My answers are below to give you some inspiration!

Q1. What has been the biggest surprise you’ve had while community manager, during the process of building your community?

The degree of difference there is between growing a conventional website and an online community, where the success depends so much on engaging people and sustaining that engagement. While it’s true that ‘build it and they will come’ doesn’t apply to any website, this is particularly true for communities where you need to attract not just readers but contributors who are willing to take time and effort to provide their ideas and feedback.

Q2. In your opinion, what are the top 3 ingredients for building a great community?

1. The community should have a clear audience with a clear purpose with which to serve them in mind.

2. The community manager must know how to nuture an online culture based on reasoned debate and knowledge sharing, from implementing a clear and consistent use of community guidelines on the one hand, to an effective strategy for balancing the needs of both top contributors and the majority of readers on the other.

3. The community manager must know to capture metrics of success, and be able to convey these at all levels of the business to demonstrate the value of the community especially in terms of ROI.

Q3. In your opinion, what are the top 3 skills required to be an effective community manager?

1. Know how to create the conditions which optimise the emergence of valuable conversations between members, so-called ‘golden nuggets’ of information, so that quality as well as quantity of participation is clearly demonstrated, balancing the needs of the organisation with the needs of the community.

2. Excellent organisational skills as so much of good community development involves successful co-ordination of a wide range of tasks, from listening to community feedback and raising that with technical developers through to implementation, to promoting the benefits of the community through online and offline marketing.

3. A passionate ability to see the value of the community in every aspect whether it’s valuing contributions from the smallest comment to the most in-depth blog post, or balancing the value of individual top contributors with the importance of aggregate indicators of value such as content views, so that they all can harnessed to contribute to meeting the business objectives of the community.

Essential online community blog posts of 2009


My blog posts of 2009, from how to reward top contributors to discussion about community metrics to grow your community, bullet pointed for you below. Here’s to a successful 2010 with more thoughts on online community, & with a special eye out for enterprises investing in communities for their employees (and what that might mean for internal communication professionals).

A brief visit to AuntMinnie


AuntMinnie, which has 148,000 members worldwide, is celebrating ten years of radiology journalism with a terrific giveaway of gifts depending on how long you’ve been a member.

On a smaller scale it’s worth noting that since I captured the vital statistics for its forum membership in mid-November (29604 Registered users have made 223898 posts in 13 forums. There are currently 27278 topics) that by 22 Dec it reads: 29827 Registered users have made 230030 posts in 13 forums. There are currently 27949 topics. That’s over 6,000 posts in just over a month. OK, fair enough. But remember the well-established 90-9-1 rule of thumb that around 5 to 10% of members contribute all the posts. So say around 200 people have created those 6,000 posts?

Lets remember what drives advertisers which are the lifeblood of these sites is the number of members, the reach. So the emphasis is not surprisingly on rewarding this aspect. And to be positive this has the benefit of rewarding the majority of readers of the site, rather than just the contributors. That said if Aunt Minnie is going to sustain its success for another ten years then how is it going to live up to billing in its meta description tag (the description you see under its Google listing) as the following:

“AuntMinnie.com is the largest and most comprehensive community Web site for medical imaging professionals worldwide. Radiologists, technologists, administrators, and industry professionals can find information and conduct e-commerce in MRI, mammography, ultrasound, x-ray, CT, nuclear medicine, PACS, and other imaging disciplines.”

So there, they see themselves as a community site. So how far are they to achieving that goal? From a community consultant view, the first thing to point out is that what they call community is the forum section, fair enough; not to be confused with ‘Communities’ which is where the separate specialties/technologies such as CT fall. By the way one thing about that, when you select one of these communities, you are presented with a series of news items that are clearly specific to that topic. Each of them clearly has a ‘Discuss’ link to respond to the content and post in the forums. What would help though is the forum post which opens to give you the option to either post a new thread (as it currently defaults), or to post in an existing thread. That way you are designing it with the needs of the contributor foremost.

Anyhow, looking at it from the top level of the forum there’s a few things that jump out at me (bearing in mind I don’t have access to community metrics for any of the sites I’m looking at). And the first is as you can see is the sheer volume of topics and posts which appears kind of daunting. So in the ‘Residents Digital Community’ discussion forum, leading the numbers, there are currently over 55,000 posts and nearly 8,000 topics! Phew. At the other end of the scale the ‘How to use these Forums’ discussion forum there are just 3 topics and 3 posts. That said at least the number of discussion forums, limited to 10, provides a kind of order. One small note is that the community stats say there are 13 forums, while just 10 are listed, so I assume 3 are private.

But what could be improved if not the information architecture, by placing the topic and post count in a less prominent position, is the display of contributor’s content which currently due to lack of space appears in a truncated format, while space is allowed for the individual moderator which is surplus at that level. Obviously AM staff are constrained by the software to some extent but surely a re-skin based on an information architecture review, even if it’s just at the top level, would be a worthwhile investment for its 10th birthday?