Lucky #7

Love shack has two sets us rules. First, the legal mumbo jumbo where all of the "thou shalt not's" and "non accountable" statements are printed out in the usual jargon. Then it's off to read the general rules and user guideliness. No lawyers lurking there, just the, "everybody play nice guideliness" to give the forum some structure.


La Law:













Community Guidelines:














For the most part, everyone on Loveshack played by the rules. After all, people are on loveshack to find love, not conflict. There were a few red flags here and there. Nothing that would shut the place down. A few minor oversights and no reprocussions from the moderator. I've never been a moderator, but I don't know how they would be able to sift through the high volume postings to catch a violation. Having said that, I don't know if the moderator has yet to see the postings or if they minor enough to let it slide.


Profanity @!$#%&*


People are clever disguising profanity on the Loveshack forum. When you are talking about topics like dating, marriage, and divorce, it can bring out emotions. Despite the clever disguise, we all know what the word IS. The "*" was used to fill in the blank spots. There were several variations using the first letter followed by aesterics or all aesterics.

My favorite profanity cover up was on SpongeBob Squarepants (what can I say, the show makes me laugh, tehe.) They used a flipper the dolphin noise to subsitute for the bad words Spongebob had learned.














Personal Information:

It's not wise to give personal information like your phone number becuase you just never know














Duplicate Post:

Online Identities

Online Identities
My definition of online identity is influenced by my perception of the internet as being annonymous to begin with and having the blank slate as an opportunity to create the persona of your choice. My definition is: Online Identity is a self constructed personality used to represent a person in an online community. There is so much that we can use to create an identity. What differentiates an online identity from a real world identity, is that we have complete and total control in creating an online identity. There are no predetermined variables that represent who we are in cyberspace. The foundation of our real life identities are usually predetermined or not easily changed. Factors like, ethnicity, cultural heritage, religion, appearance, social status, income, etc. Liu’s article defines identity in terms of saying that you are what you like and consume. “Taste statements” are used to show the world who you are. This identity is shown through a profile that displays what your likes are in categories such as books, music, movies, television, and general interests. I have to say that it’s a very western consumer culture version of identity. Many cultures base identity on where you come from, what you do, family ties. Liu states that taste is shaped by socioeconomic factors and aesthetic factors. The identity based on Liu’s definition is based on what you like and what you can afford to purchase. Boy, my online identity is looking pretty bleak, broke grad student - closet country music fan. Shhhh, don’t tell anyone.Lap Band TalkFor this session, I choose the http://www.lapbandtalk.com/ forum because I am closing in on my 1 year anniversary as a proud lap band owner. For those of you who have not seen the commercials, it’s a weight loss tool that is surgically implanted to restrict food intake. Yeppers, I had weight loss surgery and have lost 50lbs in 10months, yeah me! Of course that also means that the Food Network is my version of porn.
Scenario 1: Posting a Question
Ibeatanorexia is a relatively new user. The user must register first, then go to the forum tab at the top of the screen. Once at the forum, the user must select the appropriate sub-forum to post in. The user clicks on the forum titled “post operation Q&A.”
Once in the correct forum, the user must create a new thread by clicking on the new thread button. Then the user can post their question and receive responses.

Scenario 2: Sharing Experiences
Fabio had the lap band surgery 6 months ago. He is making great progress and wants to share his experience with others. He must first register to become a user and have access to the site. Fabio logs into the lapbandtalk forum and posts his before and after picture to show what great progress he’s making. Fabio decides to create a blog to write about his experience and progress. Fabio clicks on the Tab at the top of the page titled BLOGS. Each member registration comes with a blog. Fabio posts his life changing story on his blog for other member’s to read.
Online identities are created using many different components. Users create a profile, and avatar (usually a post surgery picture). Demographic information like age, location, and number of posts gives you an idea of where the person is from, and how active they are in the forum. The purple flower tape measure at the bottom shows a visual of the weight loss progress. I think the measuring ticker tape the user chooses says a lot about their personality. I have seen flora designs, sports themes, and plain lines. Progress monitoringe can factor into online identity as well. If you are someone who has lost 100+ lbs you are more credible because of your success versus someone who has only lost 15lbs might not have as much credibility because they do not have as much experience or success.

Many user’s post before and after photos to show their progress and inspire others. This shows the transformation the person has made and their new identity as a healthier individual. Most discussion forums don’t use real pictures, but the nature of this site encourages people to post their photos. It feels more real because you can see the actual person instead of an avatar or other symbol. The term the “new me” is often used to describe the person’s new identity.

Users share their stories and experiences, create blogs, and post in the various discussion forums.

Ploderer’s article Technologies that Support Healthy Lifestyles would be a great addition to this website’s features. I can see how posting your weigh and progress is a form of “the use of public
displays to motivate moderate exercise.”

Egads! things have pig piled on me again...I'll have a posting after work.

Session 4

A little funny haha....

Trust:

Trust:As an example of building trust, I went to an absolutely fabulous site called
http://www.greatboyfriends.com/ . Yes, you can find great girlfriends there too. I want to be all inclusive in my writing here folks.

What I like about this site is that you have to have a recommendation to participate (Of course looking is free). That's right darling...Name, Social Security Number, and a good reference from someone other than your mother. Hopefully someone other than your mother thinks you are special. There is a greater sense of trust on this dating site compared to others sites like Match.com where anyone can sign themselves up. Someone has to vouch for your fabulousness…and girls value the opinion of other girls, so all the more trustworthy. The level of self disclosure by both the recommended and recommender gives the impression of a more trustworthy profile. There is the assumption that there is more honesty and realism in these profiles because of the recommendation that comes along with it. Sure it’s easy to proclaim yourself as “Great” AND it’s even better if someone else seconds the motion.
I like that the recommender also has a short blip about who they are, so you get a sense of who the friend, cousin, sister is in addition to their recommendation. You also get to a quick peek inside this person’s life by getting a glimpse of who they associate with.









Social Capital:


For some the social capital experience, I went to http://www.linkedin.com/ and created a very pseudo profile. Fancy, eh? Linkedin give folks the ability to connect with people you might not meet in real life.




I have more to say, but my eye balls are dangling and my brain is sputtering…so I will gather the rest of my thoughts and report back.

As for the final project…I’m still up in the air a bit. I’m contemplating comparing real life social structures and interaction to online group structures and interaction. The question would be: Are group structures and dynamics the same in online communities as they are in real life? I would go about comparing the two by gathering articles and books written on group structures and dynamics and then dissecting online groups to see if the interactions are the same.

ICS #3

This was my first visit to answer bag. I typically just read blogs and post in a few small online communities, where everybody knows your name. Answer bag was a new experience for me. I posted in a dozen different categories to cast a wide net, hoping variety would get me the points I was after. I asked about recipes, advice, opinions, and experiences. In the name of science, I asked different types of questions. It was challenging at first because a lot of my questions had already been asked. I was really hoping my request for a Chile Colorado recipe would reach Mexican grandmother's everywhere and inspire them to divulge secret family recipes. That did not happen as I hoped. Among other things, I goofed and meant to post a response, but ended up answering my question. I got the impression that answer bag is a place to find all types of information. I liked the detailed categories and subcategories. I saw a lot of polling questions that were being answered. Questions like, what is your favorite dessert?

My most answered question was: What time is it where you are at? Yes, a whopping 6 people shared their time zone information with me, how kind. I know there must be a successful strategy to attract points and responses, but I can't claim to know what that is. I saw other posts with only a few points and responses, so I must not be the only newbie. I can see the usefulness of the site, but I found it to be an overwhelming and frustrating experience. There was so much activity going on that it was difficult to attract attention. I felt like the middle child in a large family trying to get attention before someone else steals my thunder. It's a fast paced community with a new question popping up every second. Variety was the name of my strategy, but that didn't seem to get me very far. I poked around and saw that some questions have 100+ answers. I looked at some profiles and it seems that the more friends you have the more answers you will get. It would have helped if I had a politically controversial statement to make. Those questions seemed to rouse people.


Tedjamulia says that lurkers are attracted to online communities because of their desire for information that is credible, relevant, and easy to find. I would put myself in this category and even venture to say that maybe I have yet to acquire the necessary skills to attract attention in an OC. Keeping a low profile has been my MO for so long. I don't really want attention, and maybe that comes through in my postings. If not for the assignment requiring a posting, I would have lurked for a while; searched for questions I would be interested in, maybe hit the point’s button a couple times for giggles. I found myself hesitant to hit the point’s button. I kept asking myself, now is this question reeeaallllly points worthy? Why must I be so rigid, it's only points? The thing is that I know that it represents something. And since I was not too sure of the community I was hesitant to participate. It's my opinion that online communities mirror real life social structures. In any group there is a mixed bag of participants. A blending of extroverts, introverts, leaders, and followers. The action of the group tends to be made by a few people, with the rest following suit.

The group that I participate in frequently is specifically for introverts. I am intrinsically motivated to post there. The article by Ling talks about the collective effort model and homogeneity as reasons why people loaf or participate. I identify with that group, I know the group "culture", and my posts are valuable to myself and others in the community. I know that I am writing about a common topic and will be well received. I would not write about being an introvert on a general online community because I would not have the same amount of trust. For the introvert group, I have the three forms of self efficacy; technology, information, and connective, mentioned by Tedjamulia that motivate me to be a part of that group. I think self efficacy can vary depending on the environment of the community.

Tedjamulia discusses the issue of trust as a contributing factor to the success of OC's. I think trust is a key component and the reason people lurk first. Check out the other posts; see if there are any mean people waiting to pounce on the next post. I did see a couple of posts on Answer bag with negative points. It's very human that even though we are communicating virtually, fear and caution are still a part of joining a new group. I have seen abusive comments in other communities. People started posting good bye messages saying that they will no longer be part of the group because it isn't safe to post. Trust is a delicate thing, virtually and in person.

Usability is an important feature that attracts people to stay in Communities. Answer bag had great structure and was easy to use. Posting a question was a snap. Everything was nicely categorized and there was a broad spectrum of topics. It was just too busy for my comfort level. Tedjamulia says, "The more visible a person’s actions are to other community members, the more he or she will contribute and participate." I felt too invisible in such a large fast pace community. I was having fun posting questions at first, but lost interest over time. I would be more motivated to continue if I could attract more attention. Maybe next time. Answer bag is a great place to find a wealth of information. It's the New York of online communities. Great place to visit, but I couldn't keep with the pace.

The three reinforcers Tedjamulia talks about are: financial, performance appraisal, and social recognition. I have yet to take part in an online community that offered financial rewards if you contribute. I’m sure I would have many pseudo profiles to help fund my tuition. I would think credibility would not be as great when offering a financial reward. I know that I would post based on what ever meat the criteria instead of focusing on content. . I have done projects as a mystery shopper and posted my results in order to get paid, but I’m not sure if it’s the same thing. I was accurate and credible in my report because I was going to be paid either way. I can see that Answer bag uses performance appraisal and social recognition as reinforcement. The points system and user level rating are forms of social recognition. Also having a lot of friends listed in your profile can be a form of status. Life’s always gonna be a popularity contest on some level. It is motivating to have social status in a group. It takes motivation to get the status and apparently the validation is not enough for me to put the energy into it.

In Riding’s article, a virtual community consists of members who interact, feel part of a larger group, and have ongoing exchanges with other members. There is the potential for this type of interaction to develop among members on Answer bag. I did not have that experience as of yet. I’m sure if you post frequently in a specific topic, you could interact with the same people and feel like you are a part of that group. My experience using Answer bag was more of an Information exchange rather than a community. I didn’t’ see the opportunity for social support, or friendships to develop. My interaction was mainly for information purposes.

Now in the name of Science, I asked some questions that I would never want my mother to hear, tehe. Brilliant, I know. I thought they would get attention. I figured there would be a delete option...I spent the better part of 20min trying to figure out where that magic delete key is. Turns out it is invisible because it does not exist. Ya see, I put on the extrovert hat for a minute and kaboom. Ugh, I'm developing a Scrat complex.

Hey little buddy.



Overall, I liked the concept and design of Answerbag. I would use it in the future as a source of information. It’s easier when there’s no pressure to get points. I would be interested in the learning more about what is a successful strategy to get points.

Session 2

The readings were very intriguing. I was particularly interested in virtual friendship and the online depression phenomena. Which lead me to wonder about people's experiences meeting in online communities. Online dating is very popular and you always see those great commercial were people are meeting their soul mate online. According to the readings people who email and connect online are prone to depression. This made me wonder about the experiences people have with meeting and dating in online communities. Are they all Prozac junkies longing for love ~or~ are they ravenously fabulous people with little time for socializing in the real world.


Question: Do people have better experiences meeting online or in real life?

To investigate this question I went to the LoveShack- interpersonal relationship center. What better place to get information on real life vs. online interaction than a dating forum.

Website: www.LoveShack.org
Username: JinxyVoodoo
Posting: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t178489/

I think the appeal of online dating is that it is easy and accessible. Galston talks about voluntary community in his article. He uses three defining conditions: low barriers to entry, low barriers to exit, and interpersonal relations shaped by mutual adjustment rather than hierarchical authority or coercion. The online dating community would definitely fit into Galston's definition of voluntary community. The sites are open to anyone, so there are no barriers to entry. Exiting is a snap; you can even block certain people from contacting you or viewing your profile if you no longer want to connect with that person. And relations are mutual...hopefully without coercion?!?

I believe I got honest feedback from people about their experiences meeting from online interactions and communities. People were happy to share their experiences and give advice. Stitch wrote, "I'm biased and I guess lucky as I've had a lot of success with online dating. I found my wonderful boyfriend on the first try." Lucky for Stitch! Ah, if only it were that simple for the rest of us. Some people get lucky on the first try and to them I say, take your happiness and go elsewhere, just kidding. Rebellious said, "I do much better in person. Online, women are mistrustful simply because they don't know you, but in person they drool, it's a no brainer." It's interesting to read different responses and to see that people can have polar opposite experiences. As for my own experience with the online dating community, I would agree with those who said it’s a 50/50 tossup. I have meet people with really great profiles who represent themselves in a certain way, but turn out to be completely different. Albrechtslund’s article talked about the act of participating in an online community being “the act of sharing yourself – or your constructed identity – with others.” The truth is you are never meeting the real person; you are meeting their “representative.” Who you claim to be online rarely translates well when you actually meet the person and are expecting lots of chemistry. Andrewrost3241981 shared an online experience, “I once met a girl on the Internet who just turned out to be a scam artist.” See, ya just never know. It’s certainly a tossup.

LaRose's article mentioned the dangers of the online community disrupting real world ties and creating a lonely crowd. This is obviously not the case for "Stitch" who responded to my post by saying, "My boyfriend has Aspergers Syndrome, so he finds social situations fairly awkward. So going out and trying to meet people in real life was a little more complicated for him. “I think the online communities are bringing lonely people together. It’s unlikely that Stitch would have found such a great person in real life and if it did happen, it would have taken a lot more time, effort, and overcoming personal comfort zones.

Licklider and Taylor suggested that “life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity.” This is very true of online dating and interactions. There are different types of dating sites for people who want to connect on a common interest. I have seen dating sites based on religion, sexual preference, and even a site for people with physical disabilities. Previously proximity was the main factor in finding a mate. Now with the online dating option people can search the world for their perfect partner. I had a friend from a book group move to Australia because she met THE ONE...apparently he was worth moving across the globe for.

According to Linton's article, "...social media do present an underexplored dimension in human relations..."We are connecting two people largely through text. Text is an impoverished medium for communicating emotion, intent, real meaning." It can be difficult to represent and express your personality in an online community. I was communicating with a potential date online and was getting really short emails. I figured this person was very quiet, but they turned out to be a nonstop talker at dinner. I got a posting from “Fishtaco" who said, “It seems to me it requires a different set of skills in order to meet people online. So if you do the online thing, not only do you need to learn how to project a winning persona through some text and pictures, you also need to learn how to do the same in person as well. I mean it's not uncommon to have people finally meet in person after interacting online for a while, only to have it fizzle.” It’s easy to add pizzazz to someone’s emailed responses and then when you meet, they have a monotone voice like the Clear Eye commercial guy.

In Rosen’s article it was mentioned that "In the offline world, communities typically are responsible for enforcing norms of privacy and general etiquette. In the online world, which is unfettered by the boundaries of real-world communities, new etiquette challenges abound. "I myself can vouch for this new etiquette being a challenge, especially in the online dating community. People in online communities often forget themselves and take on a bold expression of exhibitionism. The sense of detachment and anonymity makes rejection a non issue. I've gotten many a surprising picture confirming that my potential date is a natural blonde! That’s not real world dating etiquette at all.

It was great to get a broad and diverse set of responses by posting in an online community. If I were to talk in person, it would be a small group made up of married family members who all met through real life interactions before the internet and a small group of girl friends whom I usually swap lowered expectation stories with. By posting online, I got quick responses, a diverse group, and a wide range of experiences that I would not be available to me in real life. I think there is a wealth of information available in online communities. It’s a great place to ask questions that you may not be comfortable asking the people in your real life world.


Reaction to the readings:

Galston
Galston’s article talked about communities being “what members of groups have in common, not the nature of the communication among them.” I think a community is a place where you can voice your opinion, feel a sense of belonging, and have interaction with people of your choosing. Sometimes online communities can serve one’s needs better than real life communities. There may not be enough people in your area with the same interest to form a group. According to one of the examples of community, “Jews in the diaspora would constitute a community, even if the majority never meet one another face to face.” This seems counter intuitive to me, even though I understand the concept. I would define the “Jews in the diaspora” as a group rather than a community. I see the group as the larger scale and community on a smaller scale.

LaRose
LaRoses’ article talks about the link between internet use and depression. “In support of the Internet paradox hypothesis, other scholars have warned about the potential harmful effects of online interpersonal communication, blaming online technology for disrupting real world networks (Heim, 1993; Stoll, 1995) and creating a "lonely crowd" in cyberspace.” I disagree. I think that real world networks will remain intact if people want them too. I still see my grandma even though I email her. People will continue to have real world connections with those they are close to and they may just be using email to keep the rest at arm’s length. Ahem, if I only email you, then take the hint. I also disagree that the internet is creating a lonely crowd. It may seem that way, but I think it is actually a place for people who would have been forever lonely to meet others. The lonely crowd was always there, just unknown. Shy people can meet other shy people online. Slowly get to know people at their own comfort level before getting involved.

Linton
This article was almost shocking as I was reading about the events of the bipolar mom. I recognized the posting as the mother asking for support and attention instead of seeing the statement as an actual threat. I understand the social responsibility people felt for the safety of the child, but I think the real needs of the mother were ignored and unmet. It would have been more socially responsible for people to respond on two accounts both for the safety of the child AND for the wellbeing of the mother.

Rosen
I agree with Rosen that there is a big risk involved in putting too much personal information online. But it’s also a way to differentiate ourselves from the sea of profiles and other users, more information will get you more attention, and the more self revealing you are the more you draw a connection with other users and/ or your readers. I enjoy reading cooking blogs and relationship blogs. It’s more interesting when people add personal details it almost gives me a false sense that I know and relate to this person.

ICS 691

"Social computing is an umbrella term for technologies and virtual spaces that allow users to create, describe and share content, and for the communities that arise around them. "

Mmmm, it's difficult to challenge the definition when it fits so well. It's like challenging E=Mc2...Uhhhh (cricket noises emanating softly in the background. )

The term social computing relates to:

Online communities: is the perfect example of social computing. Bloggers create a personal space where they can create and share content with a community. Readers have a chance to respond and exchange ideas.

Social networks: "SNSs are primarily organized around people, not interests. social network sites are structured as personal networks, with the individual at the center of their own community."

Web 2.0 : allows users to create and change text and information content openly.

My definition of Social Computing:

Social computing- to actively participate and create a network of one's own making.

Comments to the articles:

Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship

"While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homogeneous populations initially so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typically segment society (Hargittai, this issue), even if that was not the intention of the designers. "

What struck me about this was the humanness that gets translated through the use of technology. No matter if we are in real life or virtual life, we are always looking for ways to categorize and find identity.

Web 2.0 Cultural Downfall:

I had a greater response to web 2.0. Much of the article was about the fear of people abandoning reliable resources and only subscribing to social networks for information. That's a little too broad and a tab ridiculous.
There is no need for this all or nothing thinking. Credible resources have their place and Web 2.0 has it's own purpose and value to bring to the table as well.

"Keen responded that editors and peer reviews make sure that only the most reliable and highest-quality science is published under a journal's good name."

This format can actually keep new ideas at bay. New ideas that may not be accepted into the journal because it does not fit the paradigm or support previous articles. I had an Anthropology professor spend a good portion of the lecture lamenting about his rejected article. The article was rejected and he was told to look at previous articles that differed from his opinion. Poor chum.

Keen contends that all “old media” are in danger of being replaced by widespread social networking sites where “ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule.” He fears we may replace trustworthy old media products with the “digital narcissism” of blogs, YouTube, and MySpace.

Too all or nothing thinking…I believe people know the difference when reading info from myspace and do not take it as professional advice.

Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary?

This article compared blogs to diaries. It was found that bloggers enjoyed having an audience. Knowing that people are reading motivated bloggers to continue to write. People write blogs to influence others with ideas, possiblities for interaction and personal growth through the blog, stay connected, think things through by writing it out. I liked how they compared blogs to diaries, but differentiated by saying that "blogs are more like radio shows..." Very true and well put…more like a sharing and update for your audience rather than delving into deep personal thoughts.

Hopefully I'll have more to say as we progress and learn more...anybody still hear the cricket noises??