How It All Went Wrong, A Social Media Love Story

You used to come home and find her so sexy, waiting by the door, her seductress self available for your every whim. Now, you find her to be work. Your experience on Social isn't giving you the same thrill it previously did. What changed?

Do you remember what she wore the first day you joined? She was gloriously nude, a blank page to be written on, then read. She took a little effort, needed a little pursuing, but it was worth it. Part of what made Social so exciting was the thrill of the chase - the hunt for followers and re-posts. Teasing her until she gave up those important things to you was a total rush.

She knows your likes and dislikes now, and anticipates your needs, brings you comfortable topics and people...but the thrill is gone. What changed? 

You changed. 

You're not trying any more. You're tired when you check your feed, disengaged when you read statuses. Your posts are memes and jokes. You're muting people - you don't listen to Social anymore. 

You're bored with Social and are treating her badly. She's as interesting as ever to those of us who spend a little time paying attention to and taking care of her.

Social is not a thrill ride, she's not a hussy, here for a roll in the hay, so long, see ya. Social is a fine lady with a salon full of fascinating people and objet, worth every moment you spend to cultivate her company. Don't blame her if you're not fun anymore. 

Originally posted on Quora

Community Lifecycle: How to Prevent Evaporative Cooling from Eroding an Online Community

Evaporative Cooling, a termed coined by Eliezer Yudowsky, is the natural loss of user base on a community, tare if you will. Time, crises and change will contribute to Evaporative Cooling. It can't be prevented, but it can be slowed and managed. In response to a question on Quora, I detailed a few steps to identifying, managing and modulating Evaporative Cooling on an online community.

How to Prevent Evaporative Cooling from Eroding an Online Community

1. Acknowledge Community Lifecycle

2. Passion At The Top to Ignite Passion at the Bottom

3. Reward Users With Rewards, Not Rank

4. Architectural Flexibility = Good, Managerial Flexibility  = Better 

****

1. Acknowledge Community Lifecycle

There is no way to "prevent" Evaporative Cooling (EC) in an online community completely. 

Your active user base will ebb and flow over time. Incremental growth may or may never lead to an explosion of popularity, but tare will exist with every new generation that joins the community, because people's priorities change and technology changes over time. What is a passionate interest now could become a vague interest later. Technology will change and no matter how innovative a community architecture is right now, at some point it will be old-school or obsolete. Not updating the technology means you'll lose people - updating the technology means you'll lose people. Keeping the group small and intimate means you'll lose people. Opening the community up means you'll lose people.

The key to keeping a community alive has a lot to do with keeping the currently engaged users engaged. In part, this can be achieved by...


2. Passion At The Top to Ignite Passion at the Bottom

I'm speaking here as owner and moderator of 4 concurrent communities, all based around an interest - not a hobby even, merely an interest. Of course people come and go in this interest space and in the more than ten years I've been running these communities, the thing that sustains me - and the communities - is that we all still enjoy the topic. My passion for it communicates to some degree in everything I do on these communities. My communities give warm welcomes to other fans, who find their enthusiasm rewarded.

In communities I haven't run, but have had the pleasure of moderating for, when the passion at the top cools, the community congeals almost instantly. Community builders that choose moderators so they can play with the architecture, cede control to people who don't have their vision or their passion. Moderation becomes a "thing to be done" not a "thing that keeps our community thriving." (1) (See point 3 for more on this.)

To slow one's own EC, one must acknowledge the limits of one's own passion - and energy. Like any community leader, I go through phases of burnout, or if there is simply less to talk about, I let the conversation ebb. Ebb tide is not an irreversible trend on a community, a blog or even in a conversation. When I've been blogging with frequency and intensity, I often take a few days off to let the audience - and myself - have a break. When I come back to it, my readership jumps. The same is true with a community. Short breaks in news/updates allow for a more relaxed approach when one returns - time for chat, personal opinion and other less quantifiable discussions that make up a community. Or a pattern of small news/chit-chat can be excited by big news or broader topics. 

The more passion a leader brings to the community, the more passion the community will generate.


3. Reward Users With Reward, not Rank (2)

I cannot stress enough how critical this point is.

It's time for a story. Two, in fact. In both cases, I was a Admin-level member after rising through the ranks by just being a good contributor and relatively unflappable.

The story is very similar in both cases. In the first case, there was a member of the group who offered to take charge of one of the committees. She was a horrible leader; selfish, mean and lazy. Everything she touched withered and died. She was so bad, that even the people above her left because she was loud and intractable and it just wasn't worth the energy. When the person above her left, invariably she would be given that position. No one at the executive level would be the bad guy and tell her to get lost (in part because this was a volunteer community, in part because of who was chosen to lead.) She rose through the ranks, more quickly as time went on, because the higher she got, the more people had to work with her and more would leave.

Ultimately, in the first case, the person took over the community and - no surprise at all - within a year the community was dead.

In the second case, a top user was rewarded with rank, because she was online so often. The community owners relied on this person for feedback but there were no checks and balances to her intel or actions. Her misinformation was the only information the owners received and like idiots, they relied on that. The problem was that the reason she was online so often was that she was conducting a cyber-affair with another user (who was a major contributor of money, which translated to rank on the community.) The two of them formed a block that abused, harassed and destroyed other users they felt were a threat.

In the first case, rather than dealing with the problem, that person was given power. In the second, the community owners used hours logged as a metric for valuable contributor. In both cases, the community owners set the community up for massive EC as the community members were disengaged and occasionally, active persecuted, by people who unsuited to hold any power at all.

In both cases, I pointed out the fallacies behind the appointment, but The Powers That Be chose to pretend nothing was wrong. I did not stick around long.

How can this problem be rectified? Understand that the #1 value good contributors are making is not their presence, not the hours they log, not their experience. Good contributors contribute good content. Rewarding them by giving them management tasks which will suck away their energy and desire to contribute is the perfect recipe for EC. It's the Peter Principle, online community style.

When I created a reward program for one of my communities, I focused on rewards that reinforced the "team" aspect of user support. Rather than adding on burdensome responsibility, they are rewarded for what they already do, the way they already do it. Time is not an issue. Amount of money spent is not really a major factor. Power is taken out of the equation entirely. The point of a reward is to make someone feel rewarded. (3)

By using Rank as a Reward, you disincentivize your top users to use. Their time on the site becomes unpaid work, their voice becomes the Voice of Authority, so it's harder for them to kick back and have fun. Many sites give rank without power or tools to maintaiin order- a veritable death spiral for online community moderation. Additionally, training for Moderators is poor or non-existent on many communities. The end result is that your best users are too frustrated and tired to contribute. 

There is no faster was to kill a community than by using Rank as a Reward for contribution. It is the major EC generator.



4. Architectural Flexibility = Good, Managerial Flexibility  = Better

In the article quoted, the focus is more on the technology than the people. It is absolutely a benefit to be able to adapt to the times. Adding social sharing and alternate means of communication, providing spaces for digression and dissension (warrens) and open fora for conversation are a fantastic way to slow down EC.

Even better is management that acknowledges mission/scope drift and is as transparent as possible (4) when changes are made or have to happen. "We're adding a new feature because we want to try it out" is something that community builders can (and should) say. Users may or may not try the new feature out - this, and what they have to say about it when they do use it, is valuable feedback. When a new control has to be rolled out, the best way to explain that is to say just that. "We had to do this because...." Engaged users will understand. Don't be coy, "Hey we made new changes that will take away something you liked because we did." Are there so many cases of something that a new rule was warranted? Say that and say it plainly.

Users believe they ought to have some say in a community by virtue of their time and engagement. Management has to make decisions based on the greater good and the bottom line. But surely there's a way to bring these two things together? Harness the insight of new users, casual users and heavy users in regards to community change  - and publish these findings so people can feel as if they were represented, heard and understood. In the volatile start-up world more=better, so it's understandable that changes will be rapid and constant. Can you think of any community anywhere, online or off, that likes change? People get used to what they get used to and they adapt very quickly, but they do not realize this. Every change, no matter how ultimately important, will increase EC...unless you include the community in that change.

It's easy for engineers to tinker with architecture, it's far more important for community managers to tinker with community engagement.


5. Conclusion.

While Evaporative Cooling is a fact of online community life and cannot be prevented or avoided, it can be slowed and managed. Understanding which aspects of community life are the most vulnerable to EC, establishing a rhythm to harness the ebb and flow of community life, maintaining engagement, rewarding contribution, providing tools for moderation and flexibility in management can decrease EC over the long-term. 

More reading:

1. Perils and Pitfalls of Online Community Management by Erica Friedman on 'Splaining: The Bloarg

2.Moderation: Policing, Curation and Shoveling Behind Elephants by Erica Friedman on 'Splaining: The Bloarg

3. When a Reward Program Feels Like a Slap

4The Myth of Transparency in a Community by Erica Friedman on 'Splaining: The Bloarg

Erica Friedman has been managing online communities since the olden days of BBS. She was a moderator on Usenet, and has owned, adminned or moderated about 2 dozen communities online. She currently own and runs 4 communities.

Three Things I Won't Share On Social Media (Unless I Want To)

It's pretty obvious to anyone on any Social Media platform that advertising is still the main business model. And it's pretty obvious to advertisers that the more they know about me, the better a job they can do at predicting what I might want to buy next.

To that end, most Social Media networks ask me to share a lot of my personal information with them. Of course they want me to find people like myself, past work colleagues, alumuni of my college, people with similar interests - and so they tell me how much easier it would be to find these people if only I were part of that network.

In fact, when I first joined Facebook, you had to pick a geographic network. Whether you liked it or not, you were lumped in with people in your relative geographic location. As soon as I was able to remove a geographic network from my FB account, I did.

There are many reasons I might want to share a piece of information with a Social Media platform and there are even more reasons why I might not. When you're asking for personal information, contact information and other market research data, consider that what is best for you, is not always best for your customer.

Here are three things I won't share with you, unless you make me...or unless I want to.

1) My Past Locations
This includes former addresses, places of employment and education.

Maybe it's just me, but I really have very little incentive to speak with the folks I knew in high school. Or college. Or grad school. We were in the same place at the same time, and we did share some experiences but that doesn't mean we're "friends." And if we are, there's a good chance I'll know how to find them without your help. The same is true for former colleagues and neighbors. These are situational relationships and once we're no longer dealing with the same boss, we may in fact have nothing in common.

Before you ask us where we went to school, consider that, for many people, school was *not* the greatest time of their lives and that things that happened in that (perhaps distant) past are not really worth revisiting. And what, really, value is that to you as a social platform or as a business? Consider the analogue version of this question, "Oh, you're from Ohio? My nephew lives there....do you know him?" When you ask me where I went to school, so I can "connect" with other people who went to that school, that's exactly what I hear in my head.

2) My Present Location
I'm not going to propose a scenario here about women, and the consequences of telling perfect strangers where to find them, but let's be realistic here - for ages, companies have asked us to provide our names, addresses, phone numbers and emails if we so much as want to mention that their coupon had a spelling mistake.  WHY? You are not going to call us - we don't want you to call us, it would be intrusive and weird.

Foursquare is a system designed around the idea that reporting our location could be of benefit to us. Check in and get a discount. Check in a lot and get a bigger discount. But...take a step back and tell me that this wouldn't be the most useful tool for a stalker in the known universe. Because it would. And if you have ever written an article, blog post, book or done an interview and had a mailbox full of hate, there is no way this tool is going to look like something you want to participate in.

3) My Future Location
I might be planning a trip. I might even want to share it with my Twitter pals. Does that mean that I want ads telling me about great deals in that location? Maybe...but not unless you ask me first.

Again, imagine an analogue scenario. You're talking to friends on the phone about a trip. Then your local travel agency calls, "We hear you're going to Las Vegas. Call us about a special deal on hotels!" "Targeted advertising" feels remarkably similar to "creepy eavesdropping" for the average person. The fact that you're parsing my status updates doesn't make your business clever....it makes your business a stalker.

Before you ask questions about your consumers, consider the possibility that being intrusive has less value than you think in a building a relationship with them.

Pounding In Nails That Stick Out: Gamification and the Intersection of Social Media and Business

Good group dynamics is a miraculous and amazing thing. In the best of times, it appears that the entire group has had one idea simultaneously and each person can bring their skills to bear to make the project happen. It's as if one has somehow stepped into a Mickey Rooney movie and every kid is pitching in to put on the show.

Group dynamics online can work that way. A dedicated group of people can bring their skills to create just about anything, from an online community to a new paradigm of charity donations. But, often when you enter that community - especially if you are a latecomer - you find that group dynamics work according to unwritten rules, and often seem to adhere to the old Japanese adage of a harmonious society - pound in the nail that sticks out.

Think for a moment about the kinds of communities that build up on MMORPGS (Massive Multi-Player Online Role Playing Games) like World of Warcraft. Individual achievement is recognized and rewarded, but groups can and do turn on their own members if one player exceeds the rest significantly. "We're all in this together, so don't get ahead of yourself" is the unwritten rule in group play. In real life, there are plenty of people who can't feel happy for those who succeed where they don't - the online world is no different. Of course it isn't - people don't change, only the technology does. So, where a nail sticks out in an online community, you have to expect that there will be people who want to pound it back in.

Which brings me to Quora.

I want to say upfront - I love Quora.

Quora is a Question and Answer forum that has a user base with high computer and business literacy, which sets it apart from more mainstream Q&A platforms like Yahoo Answers or LinkedIn Answers. Also unlike these two platforms, Quora maintains a relatively high standard for both questions and answers. Q&As are expected to be well-written, intelligent and conversation-forwarding.

Quora also has integrated several features that allow other users to upgrade, support and downgrade your status on the system.

Other users can (and do) suggest edits for your answers - and they can manipulate your standing within the platform by up- or down-voting your answers. Users can tag your questions to help promote them - or to indicate that you are asking the question based on an assumption that others might not have. For instance, if I ask you, "Which is the Best Chocolate EVER, Godiva or Lindt?" I am assuming that either one or the other is the best chocolate ever. A better question is, "What chocolate do you consider the best chocolate EVER?" (In case you care, the best chocolate ever, IMHO, is from a company called Li-Lac in NYC.)

In effect, Quora has turned the kind of information-sharing reference librarians have engaged in for ages into a game. You receive status for well-answered and well-asked questions. These virtual pats on the head manipulate your status on the platform in real time. A person with many up-votes automatically jumps to the top of a list of answers, based on past expertise and reputation.

For the best article I've read on participation on Quora, read this post, Welcome to Quora, Do Yourself a Favor & Slow Down by Lucretia Pruitt.

What I wanted to talk about today is what happens when you start to receive status on a community like Quora.

Quora is a republic. The leaders are Citizens #1, as indicated by laurels awarded by their fellow citizens in the form of up-votes. And, as happens in such groups, some citizens forget that the point of the Republic is to maintain a high quality of life for everyone...they become focused on pulling those top Citizens down from their pedestal. This is also part of human nature.

As soon as a person starts gaining status on Quora, they might find that they encounter more, rather than less, down-voting. Truly influential people are targeted by cliques of users determined to undermine their status. The higher one rises...the more effort there is to pound them back down as a reward for sticking out.

Google is about to launch +1 as a new feature. Consumers will be able to affect companies' status in search returns with this tool. In effect, this adds a more public leveling up or down to the sharing function of Facebook's ubiquitous "like" button. People can "share" your business with the world - they can also up-vote you. It doesn't take a genius to see that action committees/cliques/private armies will be formed to manipulate this.

Facebook, Google and Quora are hardly the only companies to "gamify" the intersection of Social Media and business. Foursquare and Crunchyroll offer achievement badges for participation, Get Glue offers stickers and t-shirts, even my other blog offers badges of honor. Gamification is here to stay. Gamification turns your business into a citizen in a republic.

Gamification of business and information means that gaming etiquette reigns.

Individual achievement is rewarded....but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep one eye looking behind you at all times.

Nails that stick out too far are liable to be pounded back in.