TheCapitalClinic

"So I was looking around the site and I realized something. It feels like it has become such a small little community. I mean look at the top 10 people and blogs. Look at who comments and writes those blogs. It's always the same people. I mean I love all of US and what we have to say and everything else, but there are more than just our little circle of about 15 people on Fuzz. How do you suggest we expand? Reach out and not be in this little bubble?
Do you know what I mean? Is it just me? I'm not saying it's bad! But it's a social network, so why are we so limited with who we communicate with? or rather, why is everyone else so limited?"

Miss B, as always you ask some stimulating questions. In trying to answer the basic thrust of your query as to why there appears to be, on the surface, a limited number of familiar "avatars" creating a small community, let me try to answer in several ways:

1. First, I recommend that you re-read the following article written in February 2003 by Clay Shirky, one of the most knowledgeable of the "web gurus" studying the dynamics of web-based social networks, on "Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality" . In the article, Shirky explains why, typically, an "A-List" [being a small set of webloggers] account for a majority of traffic in the weblog world. There are several take-aways worth quoting in his article:

Diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality...If you run a website with more than a couple dozen pages, pick any time period where the traffic amounted to at least 1000 page views, and you will find that both the page views themselves and the traffic from the referring sites will follow power laws...Blogs are not a good place to rest on your laurels

2. Keeping in mind Shirky's point regarding page views and web traffic following "power laws", you should consider that the "top 10 bloggers" in any arbitrary score-keeping system [or top 50 or top-whatever] is merely describing an inevitable [but transitory!!!] phenomenon that at any given time there are a limited number of "supernodes" that seem to have "system-wide" connectivity that derives much of its "apparent energy" from the fact that "supernodes" tend to inter-connect with other "supernodes".

3. Equally important, however, is to also keep in mind that at any given time, a node [any point of connectivity on a network] can become a "supernode" depending on the context of the network that is being inter-connected. Put it another way, remember back in high school, when you interacted with your boyfriend, each of you was a "supernode" vis-a-vis each other [although technically many say, two nodes do not constitute of "network" - which, generally speaking, requires three or more transmitters and receivers]. In your clique of, say, ten friends, sometimes one was a "supernode" and at other times just a more quiet "node" in receiving mode rather than transmitting mode most of the time. As student council member, one tended to be a "supernode" vis-a-vis your constituency [say, as representative of the freshman class speaking to other freshmen] but maybe just a "node" mostly in receiving mode vis-a-vis the more vocal seniors in the student council. Thus, being a node or supernode depends upon context. That is what is happening here at fuzz [and what happens in other social networks]. That is, what you see as inter-activity among a limited number of "supernodes" in one context among a larger group of nodes [primarily in quiet receiving mode] obscures the interactivity of these nodes as "supernodes" in another context [like kissing your boyfriend or having lunch with your core group of friends in high school].

4. Again, I want to stress that everyone is a "supernode" in one context, but just a "node" in another context, and nothing is permanent about this situation. One month you are prom queen, and the next month another bevy of beauties show up [although I am sure you will give them all a run for their money. :=)].

5. This blog response deserves much more discussion, so I will stop here; but I hope that I have clarified rather than confused you regarding an inevitable web phenomenon which obtains when you have networks within networks within networks within networks in nested hierarchy [you get the point].

Thank you for raising an important point regarding the creation of "social capital" - the burning issue of this artist community and passionate lovers of music. Most people on the web do not have the same instincts that you do on how to optimize the context of your activities as a "transmitter" [rather than just passive "receiver"] across many networks and, thus, avail themselves of the mulitiplier effect that derives from being a "supernode" in as many network contexts at the same time. Most folks tend to limit their activity as "supernodes" [in active transmitting and receiving mode] in just one or two dimensions of comfort and familiarity. To me, the name of the game [of course, there are other approaches as well] is to push out the envelope of connectivity and content beyond the zone of your comfort.

[NB: due to its general interest, I take the liberty to repost this exchange as a Q & A blog.]