LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  January 2007

SOCNET January 2007

Subject:

Re: Opinion Leading in Online Communities

From:

Valdis Krebs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Valdis Krebs <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:16:01 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (71 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Chris Weare wrote:

> We examine email and offline communications in voluntary neighborhood
> associations.  When we compare centrality between online and offline
> networks the correlation is relatively low, only .31. This finding  
> suggests
> that the advent of e-mail could be enabling some individuals to  
> rise in
> centrality within associations. However, e-mail communication does  
> little to
> alter the core of individuals who appear to control these neighborhood
> councils. In 17 of 41 boards, the five most central actors are also  
> the five
> most central in the offline network, and in another 16 boards only  
> one of
> the five most central actors was not in the top five in the offline  
> network.

This is interesting Chris.  This is for people who have BOTH on-line  
and F2F interactions.

Many studies have been done on influence and key opinion leaders,  
back to the original Coleman studies.  These were all based on F2F  
interactions.   Does this same type of influence transfer to the  
internet where people may ONLY know each other on-line -- there is no  
F2F or other media component to their relationship???

Here is a company, BuzzLogic, who just got VC funding of $9.6  
Million, who are expecting influence in the blogosphere to work as it  
does in F2F.  Is a "conversation" in the blogosphere the same as a  
F2F "conversation" ?  I would think not... the same dynamics and non- 
verbals found in F2F conversations are not present in a blog  
conversation [if we can really call it that], and therefore many of  
the influencing dynamics may be missing.  And "in-degrees" may be  
easier to obtain [and observe] on-line, because it easy to do so  
using blogging tools and the blogger "culture" reinforces [almost  
encourages] lots of linking.  We may be seeing the same dynamic here  
like we saw in the Movie Actor Database which overestimates social  
networks by lowering the bar very low on who is "connected" [two  
actors appearing in the same movie are "connected", even if they  
never really met, or if they hated each other and avoided each other].

> A unique value of the BuzzLogic service is its ability to gather  
> data and draw maps that show the network of trusted relationships  
> linking influential bloggers. Based on criteria established by  
> users, these maps show:
> Who is influencing specific topics, based on linking relationships  
> and other gestures participants make within blogging conversations;
> How information flows between influencers and other participants  
> within specific conversation topics; and
> How these relationships change, both over time and in real time.
> Powering BuzzLogic maps is a patent pending method for indexing and  
> describing the conversations taking place within social media. The  
> method indexes the millions of publishers participating in  
> conversations and then applies advanced analytic technologies to  
> consider relationships between them and time to gauge how  
> information is being published, shaped, shared and consumed. In  
> turn, BuzzLogic quantifies the relative influence of participants  
> in conversations at moments in time and over time.

Verrrrry intersesting.

Valdis

____________________