Why Facebook Groups Will Revolutionize Social Networking

The secret to an enjoyable social networking experience is the ability to properly manage your content.  Better content management control equals a better experience.  Despite the fact that it originated from a user-unfriendly design that was aimed at college kids looking to poke (online or off) each other, Facebook finally seems to get this, and they are constantly introducing new features that will serve both Facebook’s purpose (internet domination) and ours (a better user experience).

As I was dragged, typing and clicking, onto Facebook (Friend me if we are), the first thing that struck me was the sheer volume of posts relating to Farmville and other similar nonsense.  For a while I was amazed at the amount of gibberish that crossed my screen.  It was almost as chaotic as Twitter (Follow me), except that nothing else can be that chaotic.

Facebook filters were the first and biggest step in my Facebook content management initiative.  In one or two clicks I can forever rid my stream of Farmville and all sorts of other so-called games that inspire so many seemingly sane people to obsessively hunt for and/or give away livestock and implements (or whatever one does in Farmville) while the developers of Farmville undoubtedly pinch themselves repetitively on their way to the bank.

Filters helped me avoid much of the bad stuff, but I wanted a way to find the good stuff.  Like most people, my list of Facebook “Friends” spans various segments of my real life.  I have hometown friends, college friends, local friends, and tech friends.  Lists allow us to separate content into buckets of people, but separating content by person doesn’t work very well.   For example, if one of my college friends says something interesting about a tech topic, I won’t see it if I’m reading my “Tech” list.

We needed a way to manage content by topic.  The recently released Facebook Groups feature gives us this.  It’s really early, but I think Facebook has hit a homerun with Groups.  Here’s why.

They Are Topic Based and Deeper

As noted above, segmenting your Facebook stream into buckets of people is not an elegant solution.  Groups, at least the ones I am involved in so far, are generally topic based.  My  favorite Group so far is a tech group, set up by one of my Facebook friends.  It allows me to quickly consume lots of good, non-spammy content written by people who are invested in the topic.  Additionally, it allows me to share information and interact with a lot of people who share the interest but are not my Facebook “Friends.”  As long as the Groups can be properly managed (more on that below), I think Groups will quickly become the go-to place to discuss topics on Facebook.

Being topic based also helps reduce the amount of other content which, while not quite Farmville-stupid, isn’t interesting to me.   I’m primarily talking about party-spoon-fed political hate-regurgitation (I’m really bored with all the Obama-bashing) and supposedly, but not really, uplifting quotes.  If I can tune my Facebook content like a TV channel, my Facebook experience will be more efficient and more enjoyable.

All of this makes me think Groups will very quickly become the default Facebook hangout for most people.

In fact, I think Groups will eventually become the backbone of Facebook, content-wise, design-wise and revenue-wise.  Think about what topic-based Group pages will mean for advertisers.  Sounds a little Google-like, huh?

There’s No Imported Content Which Leads to More Interaction

Unlike my main Facebook stream, where many people import content they create other places (such as Twitter), all of the content in Facebook Groups originates from within the group.  I have actually filtered out real-world friends on my main Facebook stream because so much of their content is imported that they don’t even see Comments and stuff.  If we can’t talk, then all you’re really doing is spamming me.  That is much less of a concern within Groups.

Meaningful interaction is the primary mover for much of the internet herd.  And it is about 100 times better in the main Facebook stream than on Twitter, and it’s about 10 times better in Facebook Groups than in the general Facebook stream.  That’s a lot.  Of content, interaction, and potential ad dollars.

There is the Potential for Proper Curation

Over time Facebook is going to have to give Group administrators a way to police members and probably even membership.  Years of online community building has taught me that there will be a segment of any group (lower or upper case) who only wants to harass and/or spam.  This is an absolute.  It will, at least initially, be less of a problem in “closed” Groups, like the tech group I am spending a lot of time reading, but it will be an issue for all Groups.  Probably sooner than later.

Note that I said “proper” curation.  The one thing that will drive me away from Groups and possibly Facebook as a whole is if Groups become like merit badges, and we end up in some new Gatekeeper controversy.  Proper curation should toss troublemakers out, but not serve as an implement of exclusion.

Done correctly, however, Facebook Groups can increase the quality of content geometrically.  Quality content, properly managed is the holy grail of online communities.

Facebook has some work to do, but I think Groups are going to be huge.

And About Google.Me (or Leave My Email Alone)

As a brief aside, the only other platform that has the potential to create this sort of curated interaction is Google Reader.  It’s too bad Google has largely abandoned Google Reader in its now redundant effort to create a content management tool inside of Gmail (which was obviously done to co-opt the huge Gmail user base).  I’m so in love with Chrome, that I’d try like hell to support any sane attempt by Google at social networking, but I am not optimistic that Google is going to present us with anything compelling.  My one hope (and remember this) is that Google.Me ends up embedded in Chrome (both the browser and the OS) instead of Gmail.  By itself, that won’t guarantee success, but it would be enough to make me take a long look.  And to pull for them.

Is It Time to Dump Netflix?

netflix

I love me some Netflix.  Well, at least I used to.  But lately I’ve been thinking it might be time to cancel my subscription.  Here’s why.

First and foremost, there’s nothing I want to watch.  I have had the same three DVDs sitting on a shelf in my office for months: The Hangover (I think I’d like it, if I ever get around to watching it), Yellowstone: Battle for Life (I have no idea what I was thinking), and The Hills Run Red (I don’t even recognize that name, but I generally like B-movie horror films).  I’d either watch these or send them back for something better, if I could find something better.  And there lies the issue.

It has been literally months since I have seen anything on the Netflix new releases list that I really want to watch.

Here’s the list of new releases for this week.

image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously?

For one, there’s the consumer-be-damned 28 day delay for new releases.  I’m not going to buy a DVD to watch it once, and I’m sure as hell not going to drive to a brick and mortar video store (do people even do that anymore?).  So all this does is irritate me, and hurt Netflix.  Because the result is that I spend a lot more time browsing iTunes looking for something I can watch, you know, immediately.

It’s crazy that what used to seem so fast (2-day shipping) now seems so incredibly slow.  Anything I’m really excited about gets watched via iTunes, before I would otherwise get it via Netflix.

At this point, only inertia and the low monthly cost is keeping me from abandoning ship.

Clearly, the future of movie rentals is online, via downloads and streaming.  Now that Blockbuster is giving Toni Braxton and Hollywood Video a run for their money in the bankruptcy filer department, maybe Netflix will hang on long enough to become the other primary source of online video (behind Apple, of course).  Progress is clearly being made, but there is much work to be done.

Netflix better hurry, because new release lists like this won’t keep me around for long.

Why Chrome is Going to Win the Browser War

Jolie O’Dell reports that Internet Explorer’s share of the internet browser market has fallen below 50% for the first time in a very long time.  Meanwhile Firefox’s share grew by half a percent during September 2010.

Three things seem pretty clear to me.  One, Internet Explorer is fighting a war it can’t win.  Two, Firefox is going to have to scramble to stay in the game.  Three, Chrome is going to beat everybody.  Maybe sooner than later.

Internet Explorer had a good ride, replacing Navigator and becoming the people’s (default) choice for a decade or so.  I moved from Navigator to Internet Explorer back in the day (after much urging from my IT friends at my old firm), and then from Internet Explorer to Firefox a few years ago (also at the suggestion of my IT friends).  Internet Explorer seemed bloated, and Firefox seemed lithe and nimble, and offered a web-full of excellent extensions that allowed me to create something akin to a custom-made browser.  But over time, Firefox started to get a little pudgy.

Then came Chrome.

I tried Chrome when it was first released and was very under-whelmed.  I ran straight back to Firefox for another year and a half.  A few months ago I tried Chrome again, and, wow, what a difference!

Chrome, at least so far, is the best combination of efficiency (e.g., non-bloat), speed, good design (both looks and usability) and customization.  It’s both minimalist and robust.  I love it.

The universe of extensions kept me tethered to Firefox for a long time- probably too long.  When I took another look at Chrome I realized that you don’t need as many extensions with Chrome.  And I realized that the ones I really need are available.  I only use 7 extensions, but they are 7 great ones:  AdBlock, Google Dictionary, Google Mail Checker, Google Voice, iReader, NPR and RSS Subscription Extension.

Chrome is, hands down, the best browser right now.  Add Chrome’s elegant (and strategically advantageous) integration with other Google products, and Google’s obvious commitment to push out upgrades and new features, and I just don’t see how the other browsers can compete.

I’ve moved my entire family to Chrome and, unlike my disastrous attempt to move my family from Word to Google Docs (which resulted in an immediate and simultaneous mutiny on the part of every other member of my family), everybody is happy.

Are the Boy Scouts Trying to Self-Destruct?

Look, I was a Boy Scout.  Heck, I am an Eagle Scout, and went to the 1975 Boy Scout World Jamboree in Norway.  Boy Scouts were a material part of my youth.  So I’m not a hater.

But (and this is a big ol’ but, oh yeah), in order to stay relevant, organizations have to evolve smartly.  By smartly, I mean in a way that preserves your fundamental goal and purpose, while reflecting the overall direction of society.

boyscouts

Need some examples?  Freddy losing the ascot is smart evolution.  Every major network TV show glorifying tobacco, drugs, sex and general disrespectful behavior is bad evolution.  In other words, there is a sweet spot somewhere between Father Knows Best and 16 and Pregnant.

I’ve expressed previously my concern about the direction the Boy Scouts seem to be taking.  At that point, my mental jury was still out, but I was trying to be supportive.  My son is only 4, so I have some time to decide if and how I will nudge him towards scouting.

But when the Boy Scouts ignore technology, cultural trends, copyright law and common sense at the same time, then I’ve had enough.

In fact, I could sit in a quiet place all day and not come up with anything more ludicrous than the idea that parents shouldn’t listen to legally burned CDs because they look like pirated CDs:

So how can Scouters teach ethical behavior related to music downloading? One way: Set a good example. When you haul around Scouts in your car, for example, only play CDs that you’ve purchased. If you play CDs that you’ve burned—even if they’re legal—your Scouts may not recognize the difference between those and the pirated CDs friends have given them.

Seriously?  Do these guys have any idea how the world works now?  Does the dude who wrote this drive a horse and buggy to work?  Take off the ascot and look around you, dude.

There’s more:

Piracy relates to the concept of honor, but Aretz points out that it also relates to bravery. “Technology makes it easier to be dishonorable in some ways. Therefore, you have to have more courage to act honorably.”

Maybe mathematically, but under the same logic, not only do guns make it easier to kill, but doors make it easier to run away.  I have a feeling all of this data and much of this bad logic was hand-fed to whoever decided to hit the publish button on this unfortunate article by the RIAA and the MPAA.

I don’t pirate music, and I haven’t bought a CD that was available in downloadable format in years and years.  Almost all of my music comes via MP3 download from Amazon.  Even on the rare occasion where MP3 versions of old records I want are not available for purchase, I buy the CD, rip it to my (non-shared) music server and shred the CD.

So. . .

If I ever want to listen to my legally purchased music in my truck, I have to legally burn the purchased MP3s to a perfectly legal and ethical CD-R.

Furthermore, none of my kids or their friends own any CDs, burned or otherwise, as far as I can tell.  They get all of their music via iTunes and tote it around on their iPods and iPhones.

In sum, avoiding CD-Rs because kids are too dumb to know the difference between legally burned media and pirated music was bad advice in the nineties.  It’s ascot-level idiotic in 2010.

Current odds of me nudging my son towards Boy Scouts: down 20% based on this.  Currently standing at 39%.