Comments on: Relationships are complicated http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/ This can all be made better. Ready? Begin. Mon, 12 May 2008 13:48:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: sbdc» Blog Archive » Wish List: Contact Priorities http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98886 sbdc» Blog Archive » Wish List: Contact Priorities Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:13:43 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98886 [...] been thinking a lot about some of the recent talk about how to classify relationships online and how that translates, at least for me, into actual practice. The truth is that as [...] [...] been thinking a lot about some of the recent talk about how to classify relationships online and how that translates, at least for me, into actual practice. The truth is that as [...]

]]> By: Bedroomation » Web things that must die #2: XFN http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98866 Bedroomation » Web things that must die #2: XFN Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:02:53 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98866 [...] Messina’s follow-up post to the one where he makes his case against XFN is a more useful discussion, starting as it does with a concern for real human needs that users have on sites that exist now. However, he also expresses an affinity for a very acidic post by Adam Greenfield in December 2007. Why doesn’t he then conclude that any mention of XFN should be ditched? Greenfield’s diatribe is mostly on point, and all of the quotes that Messina bullet-points in his post align with what I have been arguing here. While Greenfield’s argument about the uselessness of defining terms when you don’t allow the use of the opposite - often reduced to the argument that we should be able to express enemy relations as well as friend relations - is a bit of a faux ami, as the problem isn’t the linguistic impotence of the terms used but, more basically, the artificial limitations on choice of words, he makes a very resonant point about the most important facts of our relationships not being made explicit for the sake of social comfort and coherence. XFN is an unnecessary layer. Why is the fact of linking someone within a particular designated context, qualified by other observable facts from elsewhere on the Web, not meaningful in of itself? In real life, we invite people to parties, and then other people may infer that we are friends with those people we have invited. If we had to qualify those invitations with explicit word on whether, in individual cases, they constituted an act of friendship, we’d just be creating discord for ourselves. That’s why we don’t do it. [...] [...] Messina’s follow-up post to the one where he makes his case against XFN is a more useful discussion, starting as it does with a concern for real human needs that users have on sites that exist now. However, he also expresses an affinity for a very acidic post by Adam Greenfield in December 2007. Why doesn’t he then conclude that any mention of XFN should be ditched? Greenfield’s diatribe is mostly on point, and all of the quotes that Messina bullet-points in his post align with what I have been arguing here. While Greenfield’s argument about the uselessness of defining terms when you don’t allow the use of the opposite - often reduced to the argument that we should be able to express enemy relations as well as friend relations - is a bit of a faux ami, as the problem isn’t the linguistic impotence of the terms used but, more basically, the artificial limitations on choice of words, he makes a very resonant point about the most important facts of our relationships not being made explicit for the sake of social comfort and coherence. XFN is an unnecessary layer. Why is the fact of linking someone within a particular designated context, qualified by other observable facts from elsewhere on the Web, not meaningful in of itself? In real life, we invite people to parties, and then other people may infer that we are friends with those people we have invited. If we had to qualify those invitations with explicit word on whether, in individual cases, they constituted an act of friendship, we’d just be creating discord for ourselves. That’s why we don’t do it. [...]

]]> By: Arvind Ashok http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98824 Arvind Ashok Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:24:44 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98824 very interesting read, and some insightful comments. two comments in particular - Assaf & Dave Taylor focus on a method/tool which would work for them. Focusing on the main article, especially related to the bulleted list about making things humane - the reason soc nets make arbitrary buckets is because we are using them for many reasons and not for a clearly defined one. Using a network for talking to friends and maintaining a relationship with all your clients on the same network as the same person is where this arbitrariness and confusion and misrepresentation sets in. Facebook's new permissioning is a small work-around this but still not powerful enough and it is hard to get right. And these are just work arounds and not really a complete and intelligent solution. Maybe thats 3.0 and we are trying to get to atleast 2.5 now. very interesting read, and some insightful comments. two comments in particular - Assaf & Dave Taylor focus on a method/tool which would work for them.
Focusing on the main article, especially related to the bulleted list about making things humane - the reason soc nets make arbitrary buckets is because we are using them for many reasons and not for a clearly defined one. Using a network for talking to friends and maintaining a relationship with all your clients on the same network as the same person is where this arbitrariness and confusion and misrepresentation sets in. Facebook’s new permissioning is a small work-around this but still not powerful enough and it is hard to get right. And these are just work arounds and not really a complete and intelligent solution. Maybe thats 3.0 and we are trying to get to atleast 2.5 now.

]]> By: Dreaming away about a user centric web « Alexander van Elsas’s Weblog on new media & technologies and their effect on social behavior http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98822 Dreaming away about a user centric web « Alexander van Elsas’s Weblog on new media & technologies and their effect on social behavior Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:47:29 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98822 [...] 26, 2008 · No Comments FactoryJoe wrote an interesting post earlier called “Relationships are complicated”. In this post he talks about the (technical) difficulties to support complex (on-line) [...] [...] 26, 2008 · No Comments FactoryJoe wrote an interesting post earlier called “Relationships are complicated”. In this post he talks about the (technical) difficulties to support complex (on-line) [...]

]]> By: Stephen Paul Weber http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98816 Stephen Paul Weber Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:43:26 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98816 +1 on the manual import (not unthinking) for humans. I would personally prefer the magic auto-import, but definitely see why one might not want to. +1 on the manual import (not unthinking) for humans. I would personally prefer the magic auto-import, but definitely see why one might not want to.

]]> By: Delicious Links - 20 links - friendfeed, lifehacks, blogging, programming, wordpress « // Internet Duct Tape http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98806 Delicious Links - 20 links - friendfeed, lifehacks, blogging, programming, wordpress « // Internet Duct Tape Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:06:01 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98806 [...] [SOCIALSOFTWARE] Relationships are complicated, factoryjoe.com [...] [...] [SOCIALSOFTWARE] Relationships are complicated, factoryjoe.com [...]

]]> By: Bradley Allen http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98805 Bradley Allen Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:33:08 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98805 I'm just glad you folks are beginning to talk about these issues and have quoted Adam Greefield. I remember when Tantek decorated the offices of Technorati with an XFN poster like wasn't it just the coolest thing ever and I thought, "Oh no he didn't!" But he did. I figured maybe there was something I just didn't understand, or wasn't willing to... because I certainly didn't feel comfortable reducing my fellow human relationships to a list of checkboxes. Especially in public. I’m just glad you folks are beginning to talk about these issues and have quoted Adam Greefield. I remember when Tantek decorated the offices of Technorati with an XFN poster like wasn’t it just the coolest thing ever and I thought, “Oh no he didn’t!” But he did. I figured maybe there was something I just didn’t understand, or wasn’t willing to… because I certainly didn’t feel comfortable reducing my fellow human relationships to a list of checkboxes. Especially in public.

]]> By: sbdc» Blog Archive » links for 2008-03-22 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98803 sbdc» Blog Archive » links for 2008-03-22 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:30:07 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98803 [...] Relationships are complicated | FactoryCity (tags: data identity relationships social xfn) [...] [...] Relationships are complicated | FactoryCity (tags: data identity relationships social xfn) [...]

]]> By: zeldman http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98777 zeldman Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:16:01 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98777 Good stuff. Good stuff.

]]> By: Dave Taylor http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98776 Dave Taylor Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:24:51 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/03/19/relationships-are-complicated/#comment-98776 I think there's a simple approach that would work very well for my 300+ FB contacts, 600+ LI contacts, and 3500+ MS contacts: a "relationship strength" slider. Leave the interpretation of strength relatively ambiguous so that I can decide what it really means *for me*, but a slider that goes from 'weak connection' to 'strong connection' would be great. Then, elsewhere in the social app, let me filter my contacts / connections based on strength. This works both with social and professional connections and is quick, easy and quite manageable. I hate the Facebook "categorize your relationship with this person" grid, but hate even more that I can't have any qualitative indicator on my connections on LinkedIn, MySpace, FriendFeed, etc etc etc. Trying to perfectly model all human relationships in a grid or series of values, however, is crazy. We'll never have any improvement because we'll all just disagree and never get beyond stage 1... I think there’s a simple approach that would work very well for my 300+ FB contacts, 600+ LI contacts, and 3500+ MS contacts: a “relationship strength” slider. Leave the interpretation of strength relatively ambiguous so that I can decide what it really means *for me*, but a slider that goes from ‘weak connection’ to ’strong connection’ would be great. Then, elsewhere in the social app, let me filter my contacts / connections based on strength.

This works both with social and professional connections and is quick, easy and quite manageable.

I hate the Facebook “categorize your relationship with this person” grid, but hate even more that I can’t have any qualitative indicator on my connections on LinkedIn, MySpace, FriendFeed, etc etc etc.

Trying to perfectly model all human relationships in a grid or series of values, however, is crazy. We’ll never have any improvement because we’ll all just disagree and never get beyond stage 1…

]]>