blog
Comments on TCC's Thesis of Cascading Network Energies
TCC just wrote a really good post on network energies - check it out at
http://www.fuzz.com/fan/TheCapitalClinic/blog/On-Building-Cascading-Levels-I-II-and-Beyond-Of-Network-Energy
I have a couple of thoughts which I already posted as a comment to his blog.
I think you should check out TCC's post as I feel it is an extremely insightful overview of the power of networks. I provided the following 3 comments and I would encourage folks to comment and add to this brainstorm.
First, as I visually imagine TCC's thesis of Level I and II, a picture of two concentric circles comes to mind. Level I relationships that have immediate connections back to the origin and Level II connections which contemplate networks that stem from each of the Level I relationships. However, an important phenomenon takes place when there is an intersection of networks whereby multiple intersections may in fact triangulate back to the origin. In other words, when two (or more) separate users in two (or more) separate networks realize that they share a common connection with the origin, I would argue that the glue (or stickiness) of the connection is actually a stronger bond. Even more simply stated, birds of a feather flock together. Perhaps the point to consider is the "compounding effect" when two networks actually intersect and create an even stronger network. Thus, visually, I might imagine a three dimensional model whereby overlapping networks are actually thicker (more robust) then uni-dimensional connections.
Second, all networks need to consider the stickiness or bond between users. I feel this is especially important to emphasize given a simple truth that while a network may be large, if the bonds are not strong, the network will break. Think of what happens in a military coup or mutiny where a network is large, but a "loose bond" in that network could in fact cause the entire network to collapse. In some ways this concept can be thought of as a "reverse tipping point" where a break in the network will actually use the same network to create a viral phenomenon that will destroy the very existence of that network.
Third, TCC referred to search engines in his overview. As such, I would like to introduce the concept of how new (and previously unlinked) networks can join a network. This is what search engine marketing strategies (SEM) attempt to do - in essence to create a new network or connection using search technologies. This becomes an easy way for an unaffiliated user, who uses a search engine to find out about a specific topic and potentially become a new node on the network as the user begins to interact with other individuals on the network. It follows that the more links there are to a certain network, the more opportunities for a search engine bot to crawl that network, and thus elevate it in the search ranking. A perfect example is simply typing "Fuzz" into Google's search bar. As you know Fuzz can mean many things - the police, a piece of lint, a guitar effect, whatever. The item that pops up first is actually the Fuzz community - lots of links and networks within networks...
So, to illustrate my thoughts:
Point 1 - overlapping networks have stronger bonds: person A is linked to person B, person B is linked to person C. When persons A and C realize that they are both connected to B, there's a natural reason for A and C to connect. Thus, what once had two links (A to B and B to C), now has three links (A to B, B to C, and C to A), thus making the network stronger and overlapping.
Point 2 - the bonds between networks need to be refreshed and strengthened as stale bonds grow weak. If person A primarily communicates with person B, but not with person C (even though they have been lifelong friends - ring a bell?), the bond between A and C may break. If the phenomenon continues, the entire network can virally break as "bad news" spreads throughout the network and creates a systemic collapse.
Point 3 - all networks need to find ways to add more nodes and invite other networks to join. External means such as search engines have become a critical part in creating a link to a previously undiscovered network. Intrinsically, this is critical to the livelihood of any network (or empire) to expand and bring new membership to an existing infrastructure. Persons A, B, and C are happily coexisting with an entirely unrelated network of persons X, Y, and Z. If the through some external means both networks become linked, there's a chance of a stronger (and larger network) and well, just a bigger party that has a better chance of attracting a larger membership. Bringing networks together through a catalyst is a powerful means to build larger communities...
Food for thought...
http://www.fuzz.com/fan/TheCapitalClinic/blog/On-Building-Cascading-Levels-I-II-and-Beyond-Of-Network-Energy
I have a couple of thoughts which I already posted as a comment to his blog.
I think you should check out TCC's post as I feel it is an extremely insightful overview of the power of networks. I provided the following 3 comments and I would encourage folks to comment and add to this brainstorm.
First, as I visually imagine TCC's thesis of Level I and II, a picture of two concentric circles comes to mind. Level I relationships that have immediate connections back to the origin and Level II connections which contemplate networks that stem from each of the Level I relationships. However, an important phenomenon takes place when there is an intersection of networks whereby multiple intersections may in fact triangulate back to the origin. In other words, when two (or more) separate users in two (or more) separate networks realize that they share a common connection with the origin, I would argue that the glue (or stickiness) of the connection is actually a stronger bond. Even more simply stated, birds of a feather flock together. Perhaps the point to consider is the "compounding effect" when two networks actually intersect and create an even stronger network. Thus, visually, I might imagine a three dimensional model whereby overlapping networks are actually thicker (more robust) then uni-dimensional connections.
Second, all networks need to consider the stickiness or bond between users. I feel this is especially important to emphasize given a simple truth that while a network may be large, if the bonds are not strong, the network will break. Think of what happens in a military coup or mutiny where a network is large, but a "loose bond" in that network could in fact cause the entire network to collapse. In some ways this concept can be thought of as a "reverse tipping point" where a break in the network will actually use the same network to create a viral phenomenon that will destroy the very existence of that network.
Third, TCC referred to search engines in his overview. As such, I would like to introduce the concept of how new (and previously unlinked) networks can join a network. This is what search engine marketing strategies (SEM) attempt to do - in essence to create a new network or connection using search technologies. This becomes an easy way for an unaffiliated user, who uses a search engine to find out about a specific topic and potentially become a new node on the network as the user begins to interact with other individuals on the network. It follows that the more links there are to a certain network, the more opportunities for a search engine bot to crawl that network, and thus elevate it in the search ranking. A perfect example is simply typing "Fuzz" into Google's search bar. As you know Fuzz can mean many things - the police, a piece of lint, a guitar effect, whatever. The item that pops up first is actually the Fuzz community - lots of links and networks within networks...
So, to illustrate my thoughts:
Point 1 - overlapping networks have stronger bonds: person A is linked to person B, person B is linked to person C. When persons A and C realize that they are both connected to B, there's a natural reason for A and C to connect. Thus, what once had two links (A to B and B to C), now has three links (A to B, B to C, and C to A), thus making the network stronger and overlapping.
Point 2 - the bonds between networks need to be refreshed and strengthened as stale bonds grow weak. If person A primarily communicates with person B, but not with person C (even though they have been lifelong friends - ring a bell?), the bond between A and C may break. If the phenomenon continues, the entire network can virally break as "bad news" spreads throughout the network and creates a systemic collapse.
Point 3 - all networks need to find ways to add more nodes and invite other networks to join. External means such as search engines have become a critical part in creating a link to a previously undiscovered network. Intrinsically, this is critical to the livelihood of any network (or empire) to expand and bring new membership to an existing infrastructure. Persons A, B, and C are happily coexisting with an entirely unrelated network of persons X, Y, and Z. If the through some external means both networks become linked, there's a chance of a stronger (and larger network) and well, just a bigger party that has a better chance of attracting a larger membership. Bringing networks together through a catalyst is a powerful means to build larger communities...
Food for thought...
Comments
"People are like circles as they move through life. Those who touch them are tangents, altering the directions of their life paths..."
- John de Wit
Allow me to quote you here :
"Second, all networks need to consider the stickiness or bond between users. I feel this is especially important to emphasize given a simple truth that while a network may be large, if the bonds are not strong, the network will break. Think of what happens in a military coup or mutiny where a network is large, but a "loose bond" in that network could in fact cause the entire network to collapse. In some ways this concept can be thought of as a "reverse tipping point" where a break in the network will actually use the same network to create a viral phenomenon that will destroy the very existence of that network."
- this is very true in the inner workings of a band too, for sure. You must utilize each members strengths and weakness's on the inside and the outside. However be careful in doing so, through good organization, so you lessen the risk of having too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak. That tends to happen more on the internal (creative) side of a band though. As long as people's duties are fairly different from each other, and people within the "group" understand and value, the meaning of the word compromise, than that risk is relatively low. The chemistry and drive of the individuals involved plays a huge role too of course.