Social Design Patterns
In Computer Science, there is a common quest amongst object-oriented programmers to seek out and implement design patterns (Design patterns are standard solutions to common problems in object-oriented software design). For many, computer science, and programming, is cryptic in nature. Of course, most programmers will quickly argue that it's logical and direct. I tend to agree.
Another key aspect of programming is "laziness". This is not meant as an insult, however. If you take a very loose definition of the term, it can be said that laziness breeds efficiency. And that is, in many ways, the fascination with design patterns as a whole.
Of course, it's important to note that Design Patterns are not lamented to the darkened cubicles of IT folk. In reality, there are patterns all around us - assuming we want to see them.
Over the past few days, I've noted a couple of familiar faces digesting the whole and coming up with some interesting patterns/descriptors for the social networking space.
Ash Maurya of WiredReach describes "network patterns". He's identified three different, dominant patterns:
Individual Trusted Network - "It is important that this network be constructed bottoms-up, one relationship at a time, so that it is defined explicitly and built on 1 degree trust. Done right, the intent here is to model an individual's current strong ties."
Affinity Groups - "Groups serve to connect people otherwise not connected through the group context. People join these groups because they share a common cause or interest and are willing to collaborate and exchange ideas at a group level."
Shared Spaces - "Shared Spaces are user created groups that allow members to share content and collaborate in real-time. Unlike affinity groups though, where most content must be searched, content in shared spaces are pushed out to all members ensuring they always have the latest information."
Peter Caputa has also been busy looking at the vectors of communication. He's also identified three different vectors:
Bi-Directional Connections - "his is ideal for creating many connections quickly, because both people have incentives to create the connections. The incentive is that they can collaborate."
Outbound Uni-Directional - "The connection is defined by one person (the sender) and no approval by the receiver is necessary. This is ideal when people want to show their appreciation and respect."
Inbound Uni-Directional - "This type of connection is defined by the receiver and approval is either inherent or optional from the sender. Permission email marketing or double-opt-in marketing is the prime example of this."
Source: pc4media, "What Does a Connection Mean in a Social Network?"
Interestingly enough. These two sets of interpretations seem to talk about different sides of the same coin. Ash's descriptors are looking at the network topology (from the network's point of view). Peter's review considers the motivation and the nature of those relationships (from the node's point of view).
How would you match up these two sets of patterns?