Ethan Zuckerman in Reddit: A Pre-Facebook Community in a Post-Facebook World:

Because Reddit connects strangers, it has certain advantages over Facebook, which connects friends. Ideas may spread more widely from Reddit than from Facebook despite a smaller pool of users. An idea shared between Facebook friends may peter out quickly as social networks reach saturation: an idea spread through friends who went to the same college may lose momentum when all alumni have heard about it.

Reddit users are connected to many different communities, and an idea spread on Reddit’s front page may go on to spread in thousands of different groups of friends on Facebook. This power to disseminate ideas to many different social subnets may explain why Reddit memes often go viral and why Reddit has emerged as a key node in online activism.

In social network theory terms, Reddit has figured out how to tap into “the strength of weak ties”¹, whereas information on Facebook tends to keep getting recycled among people who already share strong ties offline.

Luke Kingma also touches on this strength in his interesting post The Next Great Social Network Will Not Put Relationships First:

The vast majority of us are not fortunate enough to have an incredibly diverse and interesting network of friends, family, and colleagues. Reddit works because the measure of a user is the content he shares, not the company he keeps. Moreover, visibility on Reddit is directly proportional to one’s utility in a given conversation. As a result, we are exposed to more interesting people, ideas, and perspectives.

This access to experts on any topic imaginable is what makes Reddit so powerful. The principle of content > relationships is probably also why Medium doesn’t have a follower model for its authors, but instead organizes content in topic collections. But Medium is a different topic altogether — I’ll post some thoughts on that platform soon.

I’ve been using Google+ a bit more frequently over the past few weeks. Of course, if you read this blog you wouldn’t have noticed. I know this because referral traffic to the site from Google+ is virtually non-existent. I find the whole narrative around Google+ extremely strange, so I’d like to get some of my random thoughts out in the open to see if anyone can add some insight.

First, viewed purely on its own merit Google+ is a fantastic social network. The interface manages to bring together all the best parts of Twitter (short updates, follow model), Facebook (pulling in short article summaries, good conversation mechanism), App.net (longer updates), and Flickr (beautiful photos). At the same time, it leaves out most of the annoying parts of those respective networks (like advertising, lack of context, and the inability to carry on a conversation). It’s my favorite social network to post links to, because I can add short commentaries or pull quotes from the article, and it automatically pulls in important metadata (sure, Twitter Cards also do this, but those aren’t supported by all sites and in all apps).

Second, Google+ feels like a parallel universe. As an active user of both Twitter and Google+, my experience has been that there is almost no overlap between the people who use those two networks on a daily basis. Further, users behave very, very differently depending on the platform. Twitter users comment more about Apple (well, the ones I follow anyway…), whereas Google+ content is much more slanted towards Google/Android news (not surprising, of course). Twitter users are more angry and combative, whereas Google+ is more like summer camp. Twitter feels frantic, Google+ feels relaxed.

And the weirdest thing — to keep beating a dead horse — is that the users on each network seem blissfully unaware of each other. It’s like going to a farmers market full of hipsters and young parents. Both are present, but it’s as if each group is invisible to the other¹.

Getting actual numbers to compare the size of the networks is a fool’s errand. I don’t think we’ll ever really know how big each of the major networks are. But one widely reported statistic says that Google+ is now the #2 social network globally, behind Facebook but ahead of Twitter.

And this is why I’m confused. I think Google+ has a superior product in terms of its features. There appears to be lots of traffic on the network, and people are still reasonably nice to each other when they interact. And yet there’s no way I can even begin to think about moving off Twitter, because most of the people that I interact with and want to keep up with are on Twitter and not on Google+.

Does it mean that Google did too little, too late? Does it mean that the major social networks are all syphoning off their own unique customers that will never overlap? Is Google inflating the numbers artificially and it is, in fact, dying a slow death? Or, most disturbingly, does it mean that having a superior product doesn’t matter as much as strong network effects?

But then again, perhaps Google+ is not competing with who we assume they’re competing with. In line with Google’s vision to organize the world’s information, the focus on Google+ seems to be shifting to content more than relationships. And as Luke Kingma points out, the foundation of the next great social network will probably be the quality and relevance of the content, not the person who posted it. In that sense, I wonder if Google is more interested in being Reddit² (the front page of the Internet), than it is in being a Facebook/Twitter clone (what your friends are up to).

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this… on Google+, of course.

This widely linked post from Benedict Evens definitely deserves all the attention it’s been getting. In Glass, Home and solipsism Benedict talks about the fallacy of thinking that customers care as much about your product as you do¹:

You can think of people as users or customers — but they’re not yours. They don’t belong to you, and they may barely even care that you exist.

A little bit earlier he discusses Google Glass and says this:

If everyone you know owns a Tesla and is deeply engrossed in new technology, then the idea that there might be social problems with Glass doesn’t come up — everyone’s too busy saying ‘AWESOME!’

This reminded me of what John T. Gourville calls “The 9x Effect” in Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of New-Product Adoption (you have to register for a free HBR account to view the article):

There’s a fundamental problem for companies that want consumers to embrace innovations: While developers are already sold on their products and see them as essential, consumers are reluctant to part with what they have. This conflict results in a mismatch of nine to one between what innovators believe consumers want and what consumers truly desire.

This image from the article explains the concept well:

This might explain why products like Color, Facebook Home, and Google Glass appear destined not to do very well in the general market.

1 in 2 computer users lose data every year. Back up all your data with Backblaze online backup. It’s unlimited, unthrottled, uncomplicated, and unexpensive.

Don’t risk losing your music, photos, movies, and whatever else you’re working on or editing. Backblaze continuously and securely backs up all the data on your computer and external hard drives.

Need to restore or access your files? Download a single file or all your data from any web browser or have Backblaze FedEx you a flash key or USB hard drive. Even quicker – access your files right from your iPhone.


Whether it’s a broken hard drive, lost external, or a stolen computer, data loss happens all the time. For less than a cup of coffee, just $5/month, Backblaze can back up all the data on your computer.

It’s easy. Stop putting it off. Start your free trial, and get your backup started today.

Sponsorship by The Syndicate.

I recently had to convince a client to pause their redesign efforts and work on their content first. This is how I did it. I tried to stay away from UX jargon and overly technical arguments. There is obviously much more to say about Content Strategy and related disciplines, but this was an exercise in trying to make a succinct argument by only focusing on information that’s most relevant to the client. I’m posting it here in the event that it might be useful to those who have to make similar arguments to non-UX audiences.

Introduction

Since this is primarily an informational site with the goal of converting readers into customers, it is imperative that we start the design process by developing the core content first. This will ensure that we design a web site purposefully to help users find the information they need, and guide them towards desired actions, as opposed to designing the interface first without knowing what content will be displayed. For a more detailed overview of this strategy, see A Richer Canvas.

In this brief overview I will summarize the primary reasons for following this approach, and how I propose we go about it on a practical level.

What happens if we don’t follow a “content first” strategy?

Let’s look at an example of starting the wireframe process before content is available. Let’s say we provide some wireframes of what the site might look like:

Now let’s say you love this approach and we proceed with graphic design, and eventually, towards the end, we finalize the content. We plug the content into the design, and then we discover we have a problem. Suddenly our design doesn’t work so well any more:

If we design before we have content, we effectively create the packaging before we know what’s going to go in it. And if the content doesn’t fit the package, there are only two options: start from scratch, or try to jam the content into the existing package. We don’t want that.

But it’s not just about making the design work. Developing the content first allows us to be much more strategic about the words we put on the page. It gives us the opportunity to start with user and business goals, and make sure our content meets those goals. Ahava Leibtag puts it as follows:

We need to start urging our clients to think about their content not just as a commodity, but as the starting point, the building blocks of a website. It’s time to stop building the house without knowing how many bedrooms it may need. It’s a paradigm shift in the way we think about building websites. But, it has to be done. Because you know what they call things that are beautiful, but have no function? Useless.

So how do we design with a “content first” approach?

The basic process of putting content at the core of a design (specifically a redesign such as this) is as follows:

• Audit. This is also referred to as a Content Inventory. We collect and document all our pages (like a site map), and we extract all the content from each page.
• Analysis. In the next step we work on context and goals. We look at our audit and document how the content on each page relates to other pages. We look at the goals of our site, and figure out what type of content we need to ensure we meet those goals. We look at the process for writing content and if there are areas for improvement. We evaluate our brand promise and define exactly how we want to communicate to our visitors to deliver on that promise.
• Content creation. Once we’ve laid down the guidelines for our content and agree on what we’re trying to achieve, we start writing. This involves rewriting existing content as well as writing new content if the audit and analysis showed us that we have some gaps.

For more on this process, see Getting to Grips with Content.

Who does this work?

The title of the person doing this type of work isn’t that important. The most important thing is that they have a thorough understanding of writing for the web, and how to connect users with the right content. In the web design industry this is often done by Information Architects or Content Strategists.

• Information Architects “categorize information into a coherent structure, preferably one that most people can understand quickly, if not inherently” (see Wikipedia). Another way of saying it is that they build bridges between users and the content and services they need (see Information Architect).
• Content Strategists “plan for the creation, publication, and governance of useful, usable content” (see The Discipline of Content Strategy).

So as I’ve said, the title isn’t important, only the outcome is. And the outcome is web content that meets user and business goals, and allows us to design an experience centred on guiding users along the desired path.

For the reasons outlined above, our strong recommendation is to engage a person with Information Architecture/Content Strategy skills to help us develop our core content before we proceed to the design stage.

End note: Of course, the argument is not always as simple as this. It is often impossible to have the majority of the content available before commencing design. That’s why I like the idea of Structure First. Content Always. But in this particular case, we needed content before we could do anything, so we had to put on the brakes until we had something useful to work with.

By now most people have read Paul Miller’s I’m still here: back online after a year without the internet. The article is certainly deserving of all the attention it received back in May. I’m not sure what I expected — perhaps a gloating, holier-than-thou account of the virtues of going on an internet sabbatical to “find yourself”. But that’s not what this is. It’s a raw, often sad, always authentic account of a year that didn’t go at all as expected.

There is much to discuss and analyze in Paul’s experience, but I’d like to focus on this particular paragraph:

What I do know is that I can’t blame the internet, or any circumstance, for my problems. I have many of the same priorities I had before I left the internet: family, friends, work, learning. And I have no guarantee I’ll stick with them when I get back on the internet — I probably won’t, to be honest. But at least I’ll know that it’s not the internet’s fault. I’ll know who’s responsible, and who can fix it.

Paul touches on a really important point here. Over the past few years we’ve increasingly started to blame the internet or technology whenever we feel like we’re failing at being human beings. It all started with Nicholas Carr’s famous 2008 article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, a theme that is carried through in Kevin Kelly’s excellent book What Technology Wants.

These (and other) authors make great arguments, and I don’t doubt the validity of their assertions. But I do think the pendulum has swung too far away from the importance of personal responsibility. It has just become too easy to play the victim and blame technology for our own inability to resist it. Some people feel so powerless against the relentless pull of technology that they pay hundreds of dollars to go to what is essentially rehab for technology addicts. NPR tells the story in the article At Tech-Free Camps, People Pay Hundreds To Unplug:

Digital Detox co-founder Levi Felix attributes the high demand for tech-free retreats to a growing awareness of the pervasiveness of technology in our everyday lives. “People are feeling like something’s not right here,” he says.

With no iPhones or computers to distract them, campers at Camp Grounded participated in “playshops,” featuring yoga, laughing contests and writing sessions.

What the hell? “Laughing contests”? Isn’t that just called “going out to dinner with friends”? Sure, many of us find it hard to unplug, and we end up spending a lot of our time alone together¹, but we can’t throw our hands in the air and blame inanimate objects for our woes. We have to take responsibility for our actions and realize that we have nothing to fear: our devices won’t become self-aware and attack us if we turn them off every once in a while.

I think Theodore Rooseveldt said it best:

If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn’t sit for a month.

Image source: Jean Jullien

Graeme Wood takes a fascinating look at The World of Black-Ops Reputation Management for New York Magazine:

Whoever he was, it seemed that “Xander Fields” had built a whole Potemkin universe of positive-press websites that amplified made-up praise, often by made-up people, for a handful of rich folks with messy online reputations. I was now deep down in a ­rabbit hole but hadn’t yet landed with a ­satisfying thud. Who was “Xander Fields”?

I love reading stories like this. Consider this your required weekend reading.

Mark McGurl wrote a fascinating essay on the recent Zombie Renaissance in literature:

We are living in a time when what counts as “life” is in significant scientific dispute, and in the heyday of zombie computers and zombie banks, zombie this and zombie that. Why wouldn’t we also be living in a time of zombie literary forms? Whatever their specific emphases and intricacies, all these zombies represent a plague of suspended agency, a sense that the human world is no longer (if it ever was) commanded by individuals making rational decisions. Instead we are witnessing a slow, compulsive, collective movement toward Malthusian self-destruction. Of course all monsters are projections of human fears, but only zombies make this fundamentally social and self-accusatory charge: we the people are the problem we cannot solve. We outnumber ourselves.

It really is a very thought-provoking piece. I just finished reading Justin Cronin’s The Passage and I kid you not — it is the best book I’ve read in a long time. Cronin is a literary author who takes on the zombie/post-apocalyptic genre in such a compelling and beautifully-written way. And as I read those words in McGurl’s article — “we the people are the problem we cannot solve” — I realised that’s exactly what makes The Passage so hard to put down. It is a story about surviving ourselves. If you’re looking for something to read this summer/winter, I highly recommend it.