There is a quick quote I'd like to point out from the readings. I found it extremely significant that Social Network sites tend to form similarly minded communities. In the article, "Social Network Sites," Boyd and Ellison quote:
"While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homogeneous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typically segment society..."Did this stand out to anyone else? Is this necessarily a good thing? It seems that this may create individual blocks of knowledge instead of the collaboration the designers try to promote.
"Be-logs"
Two articles, "Bridging the Gap" and "Blogging as a Social Activity," were fascinating reads, primarily because it was all a little too familiar. Both articles overwhelmingly suggested that the majority of blogs out there focused on the journal/diary function. This is not surprising. I found myself entertained by the familiarity of creating a blog under the pretenses outlined in the articles.
For instance, both articles stressed the idea of blogging as a method for the release of emotional tension. In other words, people write in order to think things through. What an idea! How many times have I found myself staring down a computer screen with my fingers blazing away at the keys just to get the thoughts out of my head? I am a serial blogger: this is my 5th blog (the other 4 were journal/diary style). I tend to want to contribute posts when I get depressed, creative, bored, or even stressed. Along with the research subjects in these articles, I am thrilled that someone may actually be interested (and continue to be interested) in what I have to say.
Blogging is an interesting concept. In my "communication studies" days as an undergrad, we were told the best way to keep a conversation going was to get the person to talk about themselves. Perhaps blogging plays on this premise that we all really just want to hear ourselves talk? Maybe its the idea that we want our lives--our stories--to have some greater significance to the community around us. The impact one mundane detail of a post may have on a single reader gives us purpose.
Significance
Social computing gives us unlimited potential to impact our world. We like the idea of contributing to wikis, posting comments, and tagging sites because it gives the average person value, democracy, and potential. Carol Tenipor, in "Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?", presents the generally pessimistic view of Andrew Keen's distaste for user created knowledge. He (along with certain LIS faculty members) stresses the emerging disregard for expert advice that Web 2.0 tends to ignore. While this is not only valid, and also begs for the degrading of knowledge, it seems that this environment is satisfying the average user. Could it be that we just want to feel important? Are we just bored with being entertained and need a new focus? Are we simply playing into the convenience catastrophe, or do we really have something to say?
Posts
Interesting to see that you had 4 other personal blogs before this? Why so many? I had a personal journal style blog a long time ago. I used it mostly because I get some interesting ideas from time to time and want to document some of them (mostly so I don't forget them). Eventually though, it became a chore as I felt like I needed to update regularly to make it interesting. What kept you motivated enough to post on your blogs?
ReplyDeletekeokilee makes a good point, motivation is key. If people blog to sort things out, is it a situation akin to a good novel, where no one wants to read about a character for whom everything is going well?
ReplyDeleteWhenever I read a good book, I often wonder why the protagonist has to struggle through life. Then I realize without the conflict, the story just wouldn’t be the same. I’m not sure I would want to read a blog about someone's perfect life. Sometimes people's shortcomings or issues make them that much more endearing.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the blog has to show conflict, problems, worries. Not only does it interest the readers, but also the author. Have you ever tried to write something when you're in a great mood with everything going for you? It's difficult. Stress and chaos gives us the ability to articulate, probably because we're more self-focused and introspective during those times. We spend so much time thinking out our problems and focusing on the issues that writing it out comes naturally.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I should clarify: I have 4 other blogs, but I only write on two of them. And by "write," I mean, I will post every couple months on one of them. The other is more of a prayer journal. It's not open to the public, but I find I think things through better on the computer format. The reason I have so many is because getting a new blog motivates me to write. It's like getting a new toy...it's new and shiny and you can't get enough of it. After a while, it looses its newness and you don't feel like playing anymore.
I'm constantly doing this as I read people's posts: comparing what I do in RL and in my VL (or the number blogs that I've started in the past). I own journals (composition books) and each book has its own purpose. One contains reflections about my work as a teacher. Another might be a house journal that contains information about our home - repair logs and such.
ReplyDeleteOnline, I've discovered that I do the same. I thought I'd be good and do a food journal. Um, that was just for me. And, no, I didn't keep up because I ate more times than I could get to a computer.
I like that you said this: Maybe its the idea that we want our lives--our stories--to have some greater significance to the community around us. The impact one mundane detail of a post may have on a single reader gives us purpose.
Some of us keep records of our lives because of that. Some because it gives us a means to understand our past. Why keep photos and scrapbooks?
In online communities where people falsify their identities or are encouraged to create their own characters, I think the purpose is different.
By the way, all this talk about virtual worlds remind me of an episode of The Simpsons. Bart was part of an online MUD and Marge, his mom, became a character too. It was a sweet story about how Bart dug deep to save Marge's character. It affected their real life/animated world life relationship.
Okay. My head hurts.
You mentioned something at the beginning of your post about SNSs attracting similar people. I think it's really interesting how it happens. For example, I have an account on bebo because that's where my Tongan family & friends have accounts. I also have a facebook one because that is where my most of my mainland friends have an account. The way that I use each is different, the codes of conduct, what people post and interact, it's all very different. I guess no matter if it's at a party, work or online, the majority of people tend to feel most comfortable with those who are like them. So they will automatically separate themselves in order to increase their comfort level, even online.
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether it's good or bad when SNSs form around a particular community. I think that's just how it starts, but it doesn't necessarily stop its evolution. The articles have pointed out several different SNSs that are popular in particular regions, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Also, Myspace is an example of an SNS that began around a particular community (independent music) but eventually grew beyond that to encompass a more popular audience.
ReplyDeleteIt also ties into what you're saying about how people see themselves, and giving value to contributions that we make. Whether it's blogging or editing wikis, it still ties us into a particular community with an identity. I'd take a guess to say that early Myspace users were united in a common theme of being involved with independent musicians and labels. These themes are not so much restricting, but offers value in identity, and potential to expand beyond it.
The same passage caught my attention when I read Boyd and Ellison, which got me into thinking about the different levels of content sharing in social computing. In some social network sites, as Boyd and Ellison point out, users share content among themselves in their segregated online community. On the other hand, the majority of blogs are open access diaries/journals, and we could say that the blogs are a more “democratized” form of social computing when it comes to dissemination and sharing of information. Speaking of blogs, it was interesting to read your take on bloggers’ motivation. Along the same lines with keokilee and Dr. Gazan on motivation, are there any functions specific to blogging compared to, say, e-mail and personal homepage that keep you motivated to blog?
ReplyDeleteHere is another article by Nardi, Schiano, Gumbrecht, and Swartz with findings from interviews on why we blog.
ReplyDeleteHere's a quote:
Why use blogs instead of just sending email? Arthur
felt blogging involves less overhead (such as address-
ing) than email, with added scope for other communi-
cation, including “rants” and speculation. Several
bloggers emphasized the broadcast nature of blogging;
they put out information, and no one need respond
unless they wished to. Blogs are not intrusive. No one
is “forced to pay attention,” observed Lara, as they are
with email. Reading is voluntary, when convenient.
Why not Web pages? A blog is a kind of Web page.
What drew writers and readers alike to blogs is the
rhythm of frequent, usually brief posts, with the
immediacy of reverse chronological order. Writers
could put up something short and sweet, expecting
their audience would check in regularly. Readers knew
they would be likely to get fresh news of friends, fam-
ily, and colleagues in the convenient format of the
blog, with no work-related email or the distractions
often found on a homepage. Several informants saw
homepages as more “static” than blogs, more formal
and carefully considered, and somewhat less authentic.
Jack, a poet and avid blogger, said, “[With a Web page]
you don’t hear their voice in the same way.”
This discussion reminds me of this quote from 2006 from Eric Schmidt, a Google chief executive. “Most blogs have precisely one reader - the blogger themselves.”
ReplyDeleteI have a personal blog that is for my friends and family scattered all over the world. I’ve had it for about a year and I post about 4 to 6 times a month. My motivation is the feedback I get from my friends and family. If they stopped reading and commenting then I’d probably stop. In terms of what Dr. Gazan said: “no one wants to read about a character for whom everything is going well. “ I agree but if that character is my brother, my mother or one of my best friends then I definitely want to hear about it and share in their joys and accomplishments. My blog for friends and family is, in a sense, using a public space to have a private conversation.
In response to as_ICS691:
ReplyDeleteI studied journalism as an undergraduate. Part of the motivation to write on a blog is to keep practicing my writing. I don't know very many writers who don't get the itch to write even when there's nothing to say. A blog--instead of a e-mail or homepage--provides easy access to quick publication and continuous exposure. The writing can be more topical, expansive, and even formal. It gives pretend journalists (like myself) the release we can't seem to get in real life. Plus, an e-mail update can be an obligatory read or deleted by friends and family; blog readers read your post because they want to (ie. fans).