Welcome back to Medford/Somerville everyone... While I was in Virginia for thanksgiving I grabbed a UVA newspaper and it finally surfaced in my book bag this morning, and some clever little Cavalier designed this comic:
"
Facebook needs more options than 'Send Friend Request." Lots of people on Facebook are not my friend.
(insert sad face stick figure drawing)
____________
Send a Message
View friends
Send Friend Request
Send Enemy Request
Send Arch Nemesis Request
Send 'I wanna creep on your pictures' Request
So it made me wonder: how will organizations be able to control if they don't want to be linked other organizations, causes, or users? What if Tufts' LCS wanted to send an "arch nemesis request" to Jenn Bollenbacher or Dean Ladin (even if he got accepted by TFA-- congrats)?
I don't remember us discussing this, and only touching on the idea of users being able to connect to other users.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is so true! How are we going to solve this problem if some organization actually don't want to connect with another organization.
ReplyDeleteI think we should set up some sort of a filter system to make sure that the two organizations accept to be connect to each other before they are actually link. Solving the problem before it is created is the most suitable solution.
Another issue that came up to my mind is about applications. Facebook, itself, is already very addicting, but it also created so many applications, including games, to make users even more addicted to it. Are we going to create some interactive applications for organization and individual users? The point is not that get them addicted like Facebook did, but it is for others to perhaps learn more about each other via an interactive application.
I agree that this is an important aspect of the map that we should address—while in the ideal world, two organizations that might be working toward the same end would collaborate, the reality is that they may in fact be competitors. We, not knowing the dynamic between companies, might accidentally create a false portrayal of the relationships between different groups. I think we discussed this to some extent earlier in the year, but never came up with a final decision and considering that the launch of our map is coming up, I think it would be best to discuss this now and reach a decision rather than farther down the line. Some ideas that I have come up with are making the ability to specify what type of relationship that exists optional to the user, and it must be confirmed by the organization/individual it is linking with. We can come up with specific language that, within the context of our map, signifies a specific type of relationship. For example, a “partner organization” could refer to a relationship whereby the organizations have collaborated on a program together in the past, whereas a “supporting organization” could signify monetary support between organizations. Regardless of what terms we use, we should come up with some language to further define relationships.
ReplyDeletethats a really interesting topic. i kind of like the option of having "arch nemisis, creep, or enemy, etc" options as well, as the facebook article suggested. this would add a whole new domain to "friending" people on our map and creating links, etc. it sounds a little complicated but if it could work, it would be nice. however, at the same time, it seems weird to have options like enemy, etc on a networking site where we want to have "positive" vibes of helping. another idea is what facebook has when you friend someone: putting them into a category like friend, family, college, etc. playing off of this, we could have the normal friend request but then have options of to what degree the people are connected (for example, the tags we used when creating nodes).
ReplyDeleteNot only that but when you add the different domain to just "friending" it allows people to connect in new and different ways as well. I feel like you could even attempt to identify the type of interaction that you want to achieve, like a "volunteer for", or "worked for", or collaborated with? Just some thoughts.
ReplyDelete