Knowing Who Your Friends Are- The Future of Social Relationships.

Posted on February 8, 2010 by Anna

I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at Social Media Week on the topic of Social Graph Optimization. It’s a complicated subject and one that I really should write a full post on and I promise I will in due time. While this particular post isn’t exactly about that topic, it is driven by some thoughts I had as result of the panel.

I have been thinking more and more about the concept of “friends on the Internet”. Look over 6,000 people follow me on twitter- it’s impossible for me to truly be friends with every single one of them. However, by current social Internet standards – I am. They have 100% access ( except in some circumstances) to my social activities and behavior. Sure I prefer some of them to others, but they have no way of knowing this digitally. In Social networking sites currently all relationships are generally created equal.

Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, & etc were all built on this weird concept of validity of numbers. The more people I am connected to, the more power and value I have. While the SIN complex -get it? Strength In Numbers -will always apply, we need to progress to some type of way to establish the strength and validity of social relationships. Who do we consider friends, and what connection are more about status & fluff? With out some way to divide these two camps ( simplifying & assuming their are only two levels of relationships) maintaining well balanced virtual relationships is overly complex. In essence, the current social structure as it stands now is not built to support enduring virtual relationships.

As social society continues to adapt & mirror the best parts of in person communication enhanced with technology, this becomes more and more import. For example, in real life- those who have larger social ecosystems are naturally casually connected to a myriad of people. While these large physical ecosystems exist, people do not transmit all of their likes, dislikes, behaviors, habits, & emotions to the ecosystem as a whole, but rather selectively to various sub communities within the ecosystem based on the trust, relevance and strength of the relationship. I see adapting this type of communication structure into the social space and as a crucial next step for digital communication.

Here’s a peg shot video from just after the panel at Social Media Week. I think it sums up my thoughts nicely.

This entry was posted in Event Reflections. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments()

  • http://digitalinfant.posterous.com/ digitalinfant

    Hi Anna! I enjoyed your post and it reminded me of a piece I read a few weeks ago about Robin Dunbar's (professor of evolutionary anthropology) study on the relationship between the number of “friends” we amass on social networks and those that we can classify as meaningful relationships http://bit.ly/8CMCUa. Dunbar's view is that “while social networking sites allow us to maintain more relationships, the number of meaningful friendships is the same as it has been throughout history – around 150”. After reading the piece, I experimented with the idea myself and looked at all of the “friends” I had on facebook, and realized that I only really communicated with around 100-150 of them during a year. The rest were just connections with little interactivity – although I could see what was going on in their lives the odd time in my news feed.

    What are your thoughts on Robin Dunbar's piece and do you think more social networks should allow us to categorize and organize those that we have meaningful relationships with versus those that are just connections (although, I think quite a few are already making this move)?

    Hope you are well :)

    -Johnathan

  • http://john.webanalyticsdemystified.com/ John Lovett

    Hi Anna – I love this concept that you’re addressing here. But the reality is that not all of your “friends” are equal. Some of them are more likely to influence you than others, while some you may actually like and others are just plain old friends. But this can be measured. For instance, just using a simple free tool like TweetStats (and no I’m not staking you 😉 I can determine that you reply to @Epigrammist most often meaning that your relationship there is deeper than with others. Further, I can tell that @ShellyKramer is one of your biggest fans because she RT’s you most often.

    These glimpses into Twitter start to reveal nuances in your social relationships. Yet, I agree that there must be some distinction or bifurcation between types of friends. As we all become more interconnected through our networks this will only get more confusing. In my mind, the bigger question becomes what will you do with information that one group of friends is different than another? To really start using social effectively, one needs a plan for how to address certain people, groups or segments within their networks. Ok – enough of my rant – and I’ll stop stalking you now.

    Cheers,
    John Lovett

  • annaobrien

    Alas, tweet stats is terribly inaccurate then. I haven't tweeted with @Epigrammist in months.

    Plus I feel many of these stats are given with out the context the desperately crave to be meaningful. Just because we have web driven banter via twitter does not mean it's friendship either. It solely means I have had conversations with then. Thats said… I do love @shellykramer :) Perhaps a musing off the top of my head did not provide the real depth this concept deserves.

    For example, one of my best friend in the whole world I rarely see or speak with. I keep up with her life digitally as she does mine. And there is value in the passiveness of our relationship and I want, no demand, the right to make sure I am more likely to see her content then where User 401 checked into foursquare for the 30th time that day.

    I am not trying to devalue your comment but to say that we need to organize our own views. I am not saying I should alert people that they are not part of my inner circle and tell them to go to hell. Instead I want the ability to frame how I see my social community and easily isolate and at times highlight those lives that are meaningful to me regardless of how those individuals value my connection. I shouldn't have to rely on a stat program to do this.

    We as users should demand the right optimize our experience to benefit and bolster our digitally supported relationships.

    Excuse and fodder in here.. this is a drive by comment response :)

    @digitalinfant- I'll give you a proper response tonight :)

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Knowing Who Your Friends Are- The Future of Social Relationships. | -- Topsy.com()

  • http://john.webanalyticsdemystified.com/ John Lovett

    Your points are well taken and I think we can agree that interaction doesn’t quantify value. And I vehemently agree that we must organize around our own views.

    Social media has different value for you as an individual than it does for a brand trying to interact with consumers. The perspective you bring to the conversation should determine how you need to evaluate any given relationship – this will be different than an organization’s perspective. Perhaps you as an individual don’t require a technology to make these determinations, but I am guilty of wearing the marketer’s hat and thinking that automation can aid in this process.

    But thanks for pointing out that these technology solutions can be horribly inaccurate. IMHO we need pragmatism and common sense when approaching social. Kudos to you for working to figure out how to do both.

  • annaobrien

    Ha thanks for the kudos and sorry if I appeared to bite back… My brain is a bit frazzled today and thus my blog response bore a bit of extra snarkness.

    And I agree Brand value and personal value are two different worlds. We shouldn't look at them in the same way. If normal people talked like brands we'd have a much higher suicide rate. Who'd want to live in a world like that?

  • andrewraimist

    Anna

    I'm wondering if the commonly accepted definition of the word “social” is changing (or has already changed). It used to be that someone who was “very social” liked to go to public events, parties, had many friends, etc.

    Now I'm wondering if being social means being linkedinto Twitter, Facebook, etc., and are people really starting to equate “being social” with sending bits of text and links to one another over the web? Is someone with 20,000 Twitter followers “more social” than someone with 20? What about your number of Tweets?

    Do you have to carry around a mobile communications device to be considered social? Is being social media saavy now equivalent to being a social person (in the old sense of the word)?

    I wonder in part because I have a blog and I'm on Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, YouTube, Vimeo, & del.icio.us, write for Examiner.com, and continue to try to express myself online and develop my presence, etc. However, I really don't like cellphones. I have a very basic LG model that I use exclusively to make and receive calls. I have never sent a single text message from or to a mobile device. I don't constantly check my Twitter and Facebook status (and don't feel a compulsion to do so).

    Usually when I'm on my computer working, I post things using these various networks, owever don't spend a whole lot of time reading and reacting to things others have written or posted. Occasionally, when something catches my attention, I'll write a longish response that may or may not actually be read by many people (often on the New York Times site) or interesting blog posts.

    :)

    So does this mean I'm anti-social?

    Andrew Raimist
    http://AndrewRaimist.com

  • annaobrien

    Yes. It also means you have no friends and should go live in a cave, wear tinfoil on your head, while watching reruns of golden girls and crying over spilled milk. As ludicrous as this sentence is, its just about as crazy as you being anti-social. :)

    Here's the deal. Ultimately it is up to us to define how we socialize. Just like in life ppl can be naturally introverted & extroverted online ( in my opinion). Just because you interaction tends to be more about quality than quantity does not make you anti-social, but rather penchant for poignant conversation.

    I also think that online communication in many ways is a selfish act. For example you shared how you like to respond to articles that may not ever have their comments read. I am am going to ignore that my site was thrown in this mix ( ouch) and venture to say that small one way interactions are part of new online social dynamics. Fundamentally it's likely that online social definitions vary from offline ones, but as times bear the burden of snapping to their predecessors frame. But the truth is, this medium is so new we don't have any proof one way or the other. In 10 years some one is going to write a great study about it and get tons of acclaim, but for right now we have be caught up in the web. Get the pun?

    Lastly,I , if no one else, appreciate your comment because it got me thinking. I guess in the end that's pretty damn social.

  • annaobrien

    Yes yes and yes. I pretty much agree with much of this. I am not sure I can force myself into a number because I think social allows people to migrate friends. IE I hang out with these 30 people virtually for a month and then migrate fairly easily to a new set of thirty n a month and so on. But, in the end I can agree that we can no physically no mentally sustain the amount of quasi relationships we bare via social.

    And that said, much of my post was written in the context to advocate the consumer of social media. We hear much about brand use and business value, but have ignore the user based experience over the last year. The fact is social media in not optimized for consumption. Some think google buzz will solve this issue. I am not sure I agree. I think that the reality is until we have some type of customizable dashboard, someone needs will always remain unmet. It's quite interesting how a tool that is driven by niche market needs is not optimized for its consumption.

  • http://andrewraimist.com/ AndrewRaimist

    Thank you Anna for your honesty and directness. When I lumped your site in with others, it was actually intended to be a compliment.

    I'll write a longish response that may or may not actually be read by many people
    (1) on the New York Times site, or
    (2) interesting blog posts.

    My comments here fit into that second category, 'interesting blog posts'.

    Also, thanks for pulling me back from that cave (Plato's probably) with tin foil and golden girls, telling me that I'm “pretty damn social”.

    ps . . . I like your picture. It looks like you're saying something . . .