Re: size and network value

On 1 Jul 2010, at 23:36, Len Bullard wrote:

> 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.


yes, the point of Metcalf's calculation is not to predict how many calls will be made at one time. It is to calcultate quite simply how many links are POSSIBLE.

So it is not Naive. You cannot apply this thinking to every sauce. It is what it
is and not more, but it is helpful in showing how the value = the potential linking possibilities
of the network grows as the number of people that can be joined grows.

> 
> 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.

There are certainly many issues in Social Networking and telecommunications that
are important. Some of these are going to be more complicated than others to solve,
and some are going to be of use to people in the field.

We are here looking at how to build a GLOBAL distributed Social Network.
So the issue of the relative potential of such compared to a the current 
closed networks, is a legitimate issue to bring up.

>  It seems to be a macro approach
> with a social science bent and no hard data.

We are looking at architectural issues here of the highest level, and so 
the macro may be a good place to look at. Other views could be complementary.

Perhaps this is an issue of Tim Berners Lee's web science field. Perhaps we should
see there.

Henry

-----------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are NOT confidential and are intended to be spread for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and beyond. If you have received this email in error but like the content please send it on. This message contains NO confidential information and is intended for ANYONE interested in the debate. If you are not the named addressee you MAY  disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail, or let us know, because we don't intend to spam you.
------------------


> 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 21:57:10 UTC