this is the last post of my mini-series that analyzes and compares the network properties of the giant social platforms. I started with Facebook, then I looked at Twitter, and in my last post I covered Google+.
We talked about the strengths and weaknesses of bidirectional as well as unidirectionally networks. As with any social medium, the democratization of content creation also created a lot of noise (i.e. irrelevant content). So we also discussed the curation mechanism on various platforms. Today, we can finally line them up and compare them side by side to understand their similarities and differences holistically.
This is the third installment of the mini-series that explores the behavioral implications of social platforms from their network properties. Since this post uses many network concepts introduced in the first two articles, I recommend reviewing them before diving into today’s topic.
Today, I will take a look at Google+ and try to understand why Google+ chose its current set of features over others. Of course this will be a little speculative, but I will try to show you the logic behind my speculation.
Earlier this week, I talked about some of the unique network properties of Facebook. Today, let’s see what we can learn from Twitter in terms of its network properties and behavioral implications.
Unlike Facebook and Linkedin, Twitter only requires unidirectional consent to connect. As a result, it has a greater growth potential. Despite all the limitation (e.g. 140-character messages) of Twitter, it grew with an astounding rate. It spreads so feverishly that it created a communication network that has lower degrees of separation than the social networks in our physical world.
Since its launch in late June, Google+ has been a hot topic of conversation. So before I proceed with either the engagement or the gamification series, I think it is appropriate to take a short detour to discuss Google+.
I think by now everyone has most likely had the chance to play with Google+ (or at least know what it is). If you still don’t know, don’t miss the boat. There are already 25+ million people signed up. I am not going to repeat Google’s pitch, so take a look at the demo from Google. What I’m going to talk about today, are some of the network properties and social principles behind some popular social platforms. Of course, I will compare and contrast them to the new kids on the block (i.e. Google+), and talk about their behavioral implications.
You must have heard of the adage -- A picture is worth a 1000 words. In the modern multi-media infused society, I would say that a movie is worth 100 million words. Quite literally, if you count the number of frames in an hour long movie, it will come out to be about few hundred thousand frames. Since each frame (being a picture) is worth 1000 word, you will easily get to the number I quoted above.
I presented some of my current R&D on influencers, which involves a lot of social network analysis (SNA) and graph analysis. Despite my attempts to explain SNA, I felt that I often fall short in providing a full exposition on this interesting topic. I've recently come across an online version of an amazing TV documentary by The Science Channel on this subject.
2004 to 2005 saw the rise of the social era, mainly through the availability of new large scale web applications that facilitate content creation, sharing, syndication and social interaction. These web 2.0 technologies began to mature over the next few years leading up to the inevitable social media revolution.
Many brands and large enterprises fear this social media revolution: a change of interaction and communication style where enterprises no longer have control over what the mass public can or will say about their brands. Moreover, the sheer volume of voices in the mass can easily overwhelm their corporate message.