New Google Research On Social Networks

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Google Research On Social Networks

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday July 12, 2010 @05:04AM from the someone-research-the-superpoke dept.

mantis2009 writes "Paul Adams, a senior user experience researcher at Google, has posted a slideshow from a recent presentation that shows insightful research into how people use social networking technologies. The presentation describes several shortcomings of existing technology, and it highlights specific modalities that current technology (ahem, Facebook) gets wrong. Adams concludes that social networking applications are a 'crude approximation' of real-life social networks. 'People don't have one group of friends,' Adams research in several different countries shows that in reality, most people have between four to six groups of friends. He argues that social networking applications need to be built with that reality in mind."

25 of 95 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just to point out... by Traegorn · 2010-07-12 05:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Facebook DOES support multiple groups of friend -- you can create separate friend lists and subdivide what permissions different sets get.

--
TRHOnline - Staggering Towards Brilliance
1. Re:Just to point out... by skids · 2010-07-12 05:18 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  If you know this, what are you doing on slashdot? People who have friends don't come here! :-)
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
2. Re:Just to point out... by mantis2009 · 2010-07-12 05:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Separating friend lists on Facebook as you describe doesn't support all of the functions mentioned in the slideshow. For example, posting comments on Facebook photos goes out to all people with permission to see your comments on photos. The slideshow suggests allowing different comments to be seen by different groups of friends. In the current Facebook implementation, your friends either have permission to see all your comments on all photos, or none.
3. Re:Just to point out... by DragonWriter · 2010-07-12 05:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Facebook DOES support multiple groups of friend -- you can create separate friend lists and subdivide what permissions different sets get.
  It supports multiple groups of friends in terms of permission lists (though that's a recent feature, and may well not have been around at the time the research was done supporting this presentation), but it doesn't support them as separable silos. So, even if its somewhat less crude than the state presented in the presentation, it still has the same fundamental problem the presentation points to in terms of groups.
  Of course, the presentation talks about more than just groups, it talks about important distinctions people make within groups regarding closeness, trust on/interest in particular issues, etc.
4. Re:Just to point out... by DragonWriter · 2010-07-12 05:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Google is proposing that the social networking software should automatically detect these subgroups.
  No. The presentation is suggesting that social networking applications should be designed around the fact that people tend to have a small number of clearly defined silos of friends, and make different distinctions within those groups. It mentions some of the kinds of distinctions made within groups.
  Nothing in the presentation suggests that social networking applications should automatically identify either the basic groups or the distinctions within the groups (although some of the distinctions, particularly the distinctions based on things specifically shared through the social network, are obvious candidates for automated tracking, and some -- e.g., strong/weak ties -- one can imagine might be roughly detectable using heuristics.)
5. Re:Just to point out... by 0100010001010011 · 2010-07-12 08:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't want 'lists' of friends. I want an entire sandbox.
  Right now I can say if friends can see my profile picture, albums, interests, or not.
  I want to be able to set a profile picture, interests, etc for each group.
  Right now the closest thing you're going to get is creating a whole new profile. My coworkers don't need to know I'm in an open relationship with my girlfriend or pictures of me on a Rugby tour.
6. Re:Just to point out... by Runaway1956 · 2010-07-12 10:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That lame "interesting" mod should have been "insightful", IMO. Yes, I have circles of freinds. Ever notice that a joke which is hilarious in one circle sounds lame and stupid in another circle? Or, that one bit of data that seems very important to one group is meaningless to all your other freinds? Your wife couldn't care less about some mundane detail of your job, and your girlfriend cares even less. Whoops!!! Wife and girlfreind? You should have put them into two different groups to start with!!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Agree by DIplomatic · 2010-07-12 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

I completely agree. I have to refuse friend requests from family and co-workers because I don't want them viewing my status/pictures. It would be great if I could post a status update to my "New York Friends Group", or share a picture album with my "Family Group".
1. Re:Agree by MonsterTrimble · 2010-07-12 05:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I 100% agree and would love nothing more for my SN account to have 'multiple personalities' and aggregate it into one place instead of having to maintain multiple profiles. I can obviously see issues arising involving posting to an incorrect profile and so forth, but that's unavoidable no matter the multiple SN profile set-up.
  Actually, I think these will be important features in a future 'facebook killer', although I suspect that facebook cannot be killed and it will take years for someone to catch up to it - A good analogy would be Hotmail & Gmail. Hotmail was first, was number one for a long time and even if it is #2 behind gmail, it is STILL huge.
  
  --
  I call it 'The Aristocrats'
2. Re:Agree by TheZalm · 2010-07-12 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You can do that now. Just create a Family List and and a NY Friends List. That's what I do. Then, when you post an update, you'll see a little icon that lets you pick which lists can see it.
More than one... by Itninja · 2010-07-12 05:16 · Score: 4, Informative

I use multiple SN's. For professional contacts I use LinkedIn. For personal contacts I use Google Buzz (or at least did until recently). For imaginary contacts I use WoW.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Agree by parallel_prankster · 2010-07-12 05:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Facebook as a tool is very limited to imitate real life social networking. For example I have different categories of friends on facebook and I would like to be able to literally have different profiles for each of them in FB. Yes, FB does support something like that, but it is a pain to set each post or album differently for each individual. I still have not added anyone from my work to my FB account because I am scared what they might end up seeing on my account. Ofcourse, FB also has this ridiculously bad privacy policies in which your tagged pictures get shown to everyone depending on whoever has the least restrictive privacy settings!
and the point is? by chichilalescu · 2010-07-12 05:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I really don't get it. why is facebook a big deal? I understand the companies that want facebook-like things to work: they want money. but the rest of the world? how does it make people better persons?
don't tell me it's easier to keep in touch with people you knew in highschool/college whatever. if you're doing it just because it's easy, it doesn't mean you actually need to do it, and it doesn't mean you care about those people more.

--
new sig
1. Re:and the point is? by vlm · 2010-07-12 06:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  but the rest of the world?
  Partially, its a grind game. I recently deleted my account, but one behavior I saw was some of my female acquaintances competing to see whom can collect the highest number of male friends, by any means. I enjoyed some of their pictures at least (hope my wife doesn't read this). The middle school girl game of seeing whom has more friends on the bus, minus (most of) the teasing. A nice looking young woman can easily acquire 4 digits of admirers, if not friends.
  Also whenever you hear a trite explanation of why someone is on facebook, always assume the result is the opposite of their goal. Unemployed people claim they are on FB because its a great place to find a job, although they never find one, at least because of FB. I'm at the age where former schoolmates and coworkers are now very lonely stay at home moms, so they claim to be on FB because they're looking for adult interaction, but they post stupid stuff all day, so no one reads them. Single guy friends claim FB is a great way to get some, so they post every freaking benchpress set and every mile on the bicycle, and every time they enter or leave a "trendy bar", yet, they remain single. Everyone in America has heard of "someone" whom got a job or rekindled old friendships or got some because of FB. However, for 99% of the population, FB just simply doesn't work, but as long as there's people who have convinced themselves that it works, its all good, for FB anyway. Its a religion, basically.
  And the final reason is simple curiosity. Whatever happened to that stoner dropout dude that I hung out with in 8th grade study hall? Oh, thats interesting. One of my coworkers was going on and on about some girl whom would never date him in high school, turns out she now publicly prefers other women, which explains that, or maybe it's his fault, whatever. Well, that was fun for a little while, goodbye facebook.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:and the point is? by vlm · 2010-07-12 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Oh, and collectors. Lest I forget collectors. "Everyone in this department is on FB, so you need to join too". Thankfully not someone in management, so I could simply ignore him. Collectors can get aggressive. Think of how wild otherwise calm cool and collected old women can get when bidding at auctions for antiques. Same deal if you're related to someone or work with them and you've not friended them yet, how dare you.
  Collectors are oddly enough closely related to the drama queens or sh!t stirrers or whatever you call them. They at least provide comic relief.
  There is also a subset of very passive people on FB whom sign up and then refuse to use it, just accept all incoming friend requests and drive on. Not ready to toss it out, yet no longer willing to participate. The "hoarders" of the social networking scene. Can't use it, but can't throw it away either.
  Last but not least I found some folks are on FB simply because they're crusaders in the worst sense, and they want to proselytize either religiously or politically. Doesn't matter if anyone cares or is offended, they're going to go on posting holy book quotes or fox news quotes until they get tired of doing it, which apparently takes years for some of them. Not really my cup of tea, but if it keeps them out of my face in real life, all the better.
  With the exception of the folks I actually interact with outside of FB, I think I've now accurately categorized ALL of my ex-FB friends. It was fun, for awhile.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
3. Re:and the point is? by spiralx · 2010-07-12 08:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or for those of us with lots of friends/relatives it's a way to share information/gossip across a wider group of people than your immediate circle of people you see regularly, or people separated by distance, to find out what people have been up to, to see pictures of yours or others events. And then there's the fact that it makes organising social events a breeze, both mine or my friends and those by any of the dozens of club nights I might want to go out - people get an invitation, and only those who accept/say maybe get any of the further information that might be sent out.
  Which I would imagine accounts for the vast majority of people using FB.
For example ... by PPH · 2010-07-12 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

... girlfriends, wives.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
The construction of persona by freejung · 2010-07-12 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

It goes beyond the problem of having different groups of friends. The problem is that in real life most people have many different personae. You would say and do things with your friends from college that you would never say or do in front of your boss, as the most obvious example.
IRL we put a lot of work into constructing and maintaining these different personae, and we do a lot of work to keep them separate.
With social networking as it is, that's all over. Even if you never participate in Facebook, you are probably tagged in dozens or even hundreds of photos, and the odds are pretty good that some of them show you doing things you wouldn't do in front of your boss.
So the question is, will we adapt the technology to allow the creation and maintenance of a variety of different personae, or will we adapt our own behavior so as to present one consistent, universally acceptable persona to the world?
I think many of us, particuarly the younger generation, are already doing the latter. In order to adapt to this, we have to adjust our expectations of people. Maybe as an employer, you just have to get used to being able to see pictures of your employees smoking weed at parties and so forth, and not let it bother you. However, until we adapt, it creates the problem that suddenly everything you say and do is potentially public (whether you participate in social media or not).

--
My site: Free Nature Pictures
1. Re:The construction of persona by CraftyJack · 2010-07-12 07:46 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think many of us, particuarly the younger generation, are already doing the latter. In order to adapt to this, we have to adjust our expectations of people.
  According to the slides, at least, that's not the case. The presenter claims that younger users are more likely to actively manage their privacy settings. He seems to be implying that people opt for more control over who sees their profile when they understand how to do so, and stop using the service (or have a bad experience) when they don't.
One thing missing... by Heshler · 2010-07-12 06:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I read through the whole slide set, and it was very insightful as to the subdivisions of the network and the influences therein. The conclusions were pretty strong, however there is one issue that could make it difficult to create tools that will be the next Facebook. The problem is that although people in the studies privately categorized their "friends" into different groups and different closeness, I don't think they would be willing to share information on the closeness-level of relationships and the categories in some cases. In fact, I would be hesitant to do that on my own facebook profile if there were options, as people might see my computer. Furthermore, I would also be hesitant to post status updates that were addressed to a specific group of people, for fear of leaving the others out. What if I had to confess to someone I like that I do, in fact, use Facebook a lot, but I simply don't include them in my interactions there? The slides mention that people have workarounds like using entirely different networking services to comunicate with different groups, and I don't see this changing without an innovative implementation of a social network.
1. Re:One thing missing... by Chapter80 · 2010-07-12 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The tool doesn't need to prompt you for "closeness level". It could just track who you post to, and then when you post a message or a photo, give you a list of contacts, and ask which ones you want to send to. It could sort the list based on frequency, and the people you are close to will filter to the top.
  
  Share with (check all that apply):
  [ ] Wife, Mary
  [ ] Sister, Betty click here to check this one and everyone above
  [ ] Dad, Bob click here to check this one and everyone above
  [ ] Mom. Irma click here to check this one and everyone above
  [ ] Cousin, Fred click here to check this one and everyone above
  [ ] Distant Cousin, Joe click here to check this one and everyone above
Re:It's the first time when they admit they want m by vlm · 2010-07-12 06:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

they won't stop until your Facebook/Buzz/Yahoo/whatever profile is a 1:1 mapping of you .... while now it's almost mandatory
Don't forget the other aspect of 1:1 mapping from a mathematical sense. How hard would it be to have multiple pages, if there's no authentication and "everyone knows its mandatory". It's like requiring all of us to carry ID cards at all times, yet allowing all of us to hand craft anything that we feel like calling an ID card.
Maybe, purchase a carefully crafted page for a job interview (HR repo says: "Look! Mr. Someone is a FB friend of the world famous VLM whom has a /. UID with only 5 digits! We gotta hire this guy!!"). This doesn't work so well for rare names. But a sufficiently expensive FB campaign can make any name common. Which might be a valuable service for people with tarnished FB reputations.
HR will check to verify my PHD. Probably. So I probably should not fake a doctoral degree. However, HR can not verify the PHDs of my artificially created FB friends whom sing my praises. Nor my executive and CEO friends. The key is not to go overboard. In my infinite spare time I have been working on a plan to implement all the characters of a certain book inside FB with myself as the main character. Kind of a performance art display. If you must steal my idea, at least credit my post here. It all boils down to the cost of multiple one year domain registration and email hosting.
I have also in my devilishness been contemplating generating a big connectedness graph of a 5-D hypercube, or perhaps several other shapes, and instead of naming the vertices (1,0,1,1,1) or whatever, I'd pull random names, and register and link them in FB-space. I wonder how far I can take this before getting caught. Someone out there is buying connectedness graphs from FB and is bound to notice.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:First! by Yvan256 · 2010-07-12 07:25 · Score: 3, Informative

The proper way to express your feeling is to say "Dude, fuck Facebook. Seriously."
Well CONGRATS THEN! by linhares · 2010-07-12 07:41 · Score: 2, Funny

well congrats then!
Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'FacebookRestClientException' with message 'unable to get preference' in /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/client/facebookapi_php5_restlib.php:420 Stack trace: #0 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/client/facebookapi_php5_restlib.php(365): FacebookRestClient->call_method('facebook.data.g...', Array) #1 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/mycliques/lib.php(121): FacebookRestClient->data_getUserPreference(0) #2 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/mycliques/lib.php(133): getPrefRaw(Object(Facebook), 0) #3 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/mycliques/lib.php(153): getPref(Object(Facebook), 0) #4 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/mycliques/index.php(36): getPivot(Object(Facebook)) #5 {main} thrown in /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/client/facebookapi_php5_restlib.php on line 420
Similar to Danah Boyd use of the term "publics" by v(*_*)vvvv · 2010-07-12 09:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Danah Boyd had a lot of very similar things to say at www2010, and it is worth mentioning:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/futureweb2010/danah_boyd_www_keynote.xhtml
And I am sure others have reached similar conclusions also, but Paul Adams is definitely not the first to mention the problems of having one "public". Danah goes further and challenges the common notion of privacy more generically than just focusing on social network systems.