RE: size and network value

Actually, Metcalfe's law is a bit naïve.  The number of potential
connections (the abstract model of the network) and the actual load on a
network with many independent and differently equipped nodes (the effective
network) are quite different.  An illustrative example is the use of cell
phones for alerting; if all the potential connections pick up a cell phone
and start dialing friends, the trunks can collapse under the load and that
defeats the purpose of centralizing alerting.

This discussion is discomforting.  It seems to beg the question of the
utility of social network technology without a realistic appraisal of its
implementation and no definitions for its utility values in a real economic
model with attention to microeconomics.  It seems to be a macro approach
with a social science bent and no hard data.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-socialweb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xg-socialweb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry Story
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 4:01 PM
To: Karl Dubost
Cc: Harry Halpin; public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
Subject: Re: size and network value


On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:39, Karl Dubost wrote:

> 
> Le 1 juil. 2010 à 04:17, Henry Story a écrit :
>> This is what Metcalf's law was attempting to do for the
telecommunications network 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf's_law
> 
> Metcalf is for material entities, not people.
> You put in contact phones, but someone will not necessary answers :)
> 
>> What it really gives you is the potential of the network given the size
of a 
>> *telephone* network. How many people can be put in communication. 
> 
> 
> How many telephones can be put in communication. :)

yes, and of course the value lies in the possibility of joining someone.
Hence the value of portable phones, which make it even more likely to
join the person one is trying to contact...

> 
> You have to look at the Dunbar's number.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
> 
> 	"Dunbar's number is a theoretical cognitive 
> 	limit to the number of people with whom one 
> 	can maintain stable social relationships."
> 	[...]
> 	"No precise value has been proposed for 
> 	Dunbar's number, but a commonly cited 
> 	approximation is 150."


Yes, I know dunbar's number. And clearly the aim is not to
contact everybody in the world. Though this does nearly happen on occasions
such as the Olympics, or sending a man to the moon. 

We are speaking of potentialities. With a telephone you can contact pretty
much
anyone in the world. Of course you don't (just as you can drive everywhere
with a car, but
most people don't) But during a catastrophe that potentiality is really
helpful: you can contact people you never would have dreamt of contacting.
Or when travelling
you can call hotels or friends of friends you never met. If those
potentialities did not
exist the telephone network would not be so interesting.

And that was the case of e-mail in the 80ies. Usually they were limited to 
companies or small universities. And people would often point out that this
was 
not so useful for their work. 

Now with email on the phone and available to anyone, this changes
everything.
 
So one good criteria for a theory would be that it would explain the
historical data
of the evolution and usefulness of telephone networks, email, etc...


Now, clearly, having a world wide social network is the same order of
transformation.

> So on metcalf's law let us look at the value of:
>> 
>> France:   65 million^2 = 4225000000000000 potential connections
> 
> 
> For many social networks such as twitter, facebook, etc. and for the
brands 
> who try to monetize these networks, "the word of mouth" is the key,
because 
> people put above everything else the recommendation of a friend above 
> anything a brand could say about a product.

And they are quite right, that is how all trust is built up. As Linus
Torvalds said
in a talk on his access control system Git [1]

[[
The way merging is done is the way real security is done... by a network of
trust. If you have ever done any security work and it did not involve the
concept of network of trust it wasn't security work. It was masturbation.
]]

But what has that to do with the discussion? Perhaps we can tie this back,
by pointing out that you don't know who you are going to trust ahead of
time.  And who their friends are you certainly don't know either. So you
need to be able to work in a space where you can connect to anyone. Clearly
if you know you can't the network is less valuable.


So how much bigger is such a network than any of the existing networks?

Henry


[1] 27 minutes into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8


> You have to consider that the 
> "value" of social networks, so far, is made by brands and their ability to

> sell products and services.
> 
> 
> 	93% - Percentage of customers who identify word of 
> 	mouth as the best, most reliable source about ideas 
> 	and information on products and services - up 26 pts. 
> 	vs. 25 years ago 
> 	Source: NOP World
> 
> 	67% - Percentage of consumer purchase decisions 
> 	primarily influenced by word of mouth, #1 factor 
> 	Source: Mckinsey/Thompson Lightstone
> 
> 	91% - Use social networks to stay in touch with 
> 	friends they see a lot
> 	Source: Pew Internet
> 
> Numbers hunted in this slides.
> http://www.slideshare.net/agentwildfire/agent-wildfire-cheat-sheet
> 
> 
> -- 
> Karl Dubost
> Montréal, QC, Canada
> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
> 
> 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 21:36:14 UTC