Flawed Practices 2.0
Tell me, does it make any sense to put words in the mouths of your users, without an opportunity to review those words or amend them? This - and other similarly ill-conceived practices - undermines the credibility of social networking sites and applications.
Take naymz.com … a site I’ve recently been looking at. (I tend to compare these sites on policy, features, interface, etc.)
It’s a reputation site. It’s got a mechanism for inviting your contacts on various services, it sends the message.
Some of your contacts take the requested action and agree to be a reference, or go further and offer a comment as endorsement. You manage these responses - selecting which references to show … all sounds fine. However, upon taking such step the site sends a message on your behalf thanking your contact for what they have done.
Why do I have a problem with this?
In general, putting words in my mouth that I wouldn’t say or that I don’t know will be said for me (or transmitted) is wrong-headed! As I said, I am on a lot of sites. I’ve been guilty of inviting others, and I have likewise felt some obligation to respond to site add-request when others have joined a new site. But additional communications beyond the first approved (with opportunity for edit) invitational message implies deeper commitment to and endorsement of the site or application. I’d like to make that judgment call myself.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I got a kick out of:
“I removed you from the Reference section of my profile for now.”
So not only does it offer/thank for a reference, it lets them know they’re no longer being used. Most social net software doesn’t do this. I wonder if this is deliberate for reputation (you could infer things on how this state is handled), or if it just a chatty application. I am interested in seeing how the reputation bits could play out, but so far, it seems like more stalker-ware.
Speaking of which, have you seen spock?
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Being a chatty application is one thing, but transmitting the messages as if in the voice of the user, and largely unbeknownst to the user initiating the action is ham-handed. I think a lot of us value tact and diplomacy in our reputations. I also value being direct, but when I am direct, I want to express things in my own words.
As to Spock, yes, I have been on there for some time. Any particular thoughts on Spock?
In general I’d love to hear other “flawed 2.0″ practices for any sites/applications out there. What Web 2.0 means is fairly broad… some of the aspects that attract many of us are often coupled with other features that undermine or contradict those values, or are not executed fully. Moving in the direction of openness is a clear plus in my book. Minimal openness involves being clear with me as to how and when the application will represent me to my colleagues and to the world.
How do you try out new sites like these without potentially offending your network? Do you invite a small handful of friends initially? (Which also begs the question of how the invite is handled).
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Spock is weird. I can’t figure out if it’s interesting, other than it knowing all about you before you sign up. Naymz attempts to give you a few questions about reputation, however loaded they are. I’m still waiting for one of these things that’ll help point out the crazy people, but I think that’s always going to be a word-of-mouth thing due to all those fun libel and slander laws.
I think all of these things offend on invite. I don’t think there’s any way around that now that there are eleventybillion of them.
Back to the original rant though, have you told Naymz that they’ve got an irritating feature, or should we expect them to just figure it out now that it’s here?
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
No, not directly, not yet. We’ll see if they are monitoring their reputation online.
I’m interested in the general issues here, in terms of using such sites and also designing them. Feedback for Naymz is secondary to best practices and the social issues.
I like the phrase stalker-ware. Over-all I am unimpressed by most of the social networking sites out there. (Which ones impress me?… hmmmm!)
We join most of these sites following or anticipating the crowd or in hopes one of the sites will get design/tools/service/governance right and not crowd-source everything that is already freely available experience/wisdom on the web.
Of course we want them to integrate feedback in a meaningful way… I’m just less ready to put extensive thought into such suggestions if I don’t feel invested in the site wnd/or when I don’t feel they are invested in me, the user.
The best hope we have is in the trend towards open standards, open-social, etc. Data-portability, ability to manage one’s connections, and one’s own data and contact info. Too many of the sites haven’t figured out a sustainability model that works to the advantage of their members and gear everything towards widening the user base. I’m interested in how sites and services can work together to promote choice/flexibility and a common standards-based infrastructure.