About the blog
\r\n![\"biglistseoblogs\"](\"http://changemod.com/755/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/biglistseoblogs.gif\" "\\"biglistseoblogs\\"")
About the author
\r\n![\"Holy_me\"](\"http://changemod.com/755/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/i.jpg\")
\r\n\r\nMy name is Jiannis Sotiropoulos, I'm a 25 year old person, currently living in Berlin. I have studied sociology and media sciences and I'm currently working on various projects concerning (mostly) online media.
\r\nI'm an active member of stumbleUpon, LibraryThing, Last.fm, del.icio.us, friendfeed and Mixx.
\r\n\r\nIn a personal level:\r\n\r\nI'm 65% open to new experiences, 69% conscientious, 42% extrovert, 74% agreeable and 4% neurotic (!)\r\nAlso running...
\r\nI'm an official contributor at the PandemicBlog, where we mostly concentrate on social media and online marketing subjects.\r\n\r\nI also contribute my CSS designs at the OpenDesigns Community. You can check my profile to see the designs or just click on the downloads section.\r\n07.04.08
" .Contact-Form for lazy people
\r\n[CONTACT-FORM]\r\nE-mail for hasty people
\r\nme@changemod.com\r\nChat for chatters
\r\ngmail - robojiannis@gmail.com\r\n\r\nskype - robojiannis" .- \r\n
- It is called repetition. Advertising has been based on repetition for decades. The more posters and tv spots we see about the new iPhone, the more it gets our attention. \r\n
- Catchy headlines have the same magnetic function. Like reading a newspaper; which title will draw our attention? \r\n
- mouth-to-mouth dispersion (the way digg or slashdot function) of a message is also a subject of mass psychology. \r\n
The users
\r\nThe top diggers yesterday revolted against Digg, because it enabled a new, more 'strict' algorithm. The debatable part of this algorithm is, that when a post is dugg by you and your 100 friends, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will reach the frontpage.\r\n\r\nSo what the algorithm brings in, is diversity. Top diggers disregarded this variable, since it treats their posts (and consequently their network) unfair. The logic behind this revolt is, that\r\nTop users are top users because they submit high qaulity material. They should not be required to get more diggs simply because of the great job they have been doing to reach that top user status.\r\nI don't see this as a plausible argument. These communities give control to the end user; every end user and not only a ruling few. Regardless of the quality of content these top-users provide, they are considered authorities in their platforms (may it be digg, stumbleupon, slashdot, etc) and their opinion is highly praised. This authority alone, is a reason for their content to be promoted. Sometimes regular users are digging top-user content, just because it is top-user content.\r\n
The network
\r\nDigg (and all sites of the kind) started out with a main principle of self-organization. They provided the tools for the creation of an active community, which discovers and promotes content - and let it self-organize.\r\nIndeed, the presence of administrators is very subtle in most cases.\r\n\r\nBut the functionality of such communities doesn't rely only on self-organization.\r\nIndirect control is sometimes required. When users post spam, when they have multiple accounts, when they behave improperly, an administrator is needed to set things right.\r\n\r\nSimilarly when these networks are actually managed by few top users, then another main principle of the system is at stake. Diversity.\r\nWithout diversity, the content is usually about the same subjects and very often from the same sources.\r\nBut when Digg decided to control this behavior and give the opportunity to other users to bring content forward, the ruling diggers revolted.\r\n\r\nIt is of course logical. They have worked hard to create a steady friends network, which in a way guarantees lots of diggs for every post they make.\r\nThe resolution
\r\nAfter this mini-revolution, digg founders came forward and explained their position. The way I see it, they diplomatically remained on their position on the subject, saying that content will not be directly undermined when posted by a top digger, but it will have trouble reaching the front page if it is promoted only by their friends. I find it fair.\r\nIn the drilldown, where the discussion was held the question posed at their last post is:\r\nIf Digg is a game then we are ready to play for keeps. What happens if the most powerful users in the community decide to leave? Will others join? Is Digg anything without us? Letâs prove it.\r\nWould the community fall apart because the top users aren't a part of it anymore? Would the quality of the content degrade?\r\nI don't think so. Digg is a very popular social network. The move, that digg did opens the road\r\n
- \r\n
- for more users to submit content \r\n
- for more users to join the network (hence more diversity) \r\n
- for more users to participate actively in the community \r\n
The issue
\r\nI believe that the value of a network is mostly defined by the users participating in it. But the way the network indirectly regulates the community is a fundamental aspect for the success of the system.\r\nWhat do you think? Should digg stay out of the way and let the community evolve the way it was evolving, or was it a good decision to endorse a more strict perspective of popularity?" .Defining social representation
\r\nSocial representations are a part of the studies of social psychology and were first introduced in the scientific community in the 1960s from Serge Moscovici. He mentions that social representations have 2 roles:\r\n- \r\n
- First they make objects, persons or events we encounter conventional.This is a form of categorization, where people ascribe objects to certain models. The association of communism with the color red is an example. When a new element does not conform to a specific type, we then â...constrain it to assume given form, to enter a given category, in fact to become identical to the others, at the risk of its being neither understood nor decoded.â \r\n
- \r\n
- Additionally, representations are â as the author describes â prescriptive, meaning âthey impose themselves upon us with an irresistible force.â Their power comes exactly from the fact, that they control the reality of today through that of yesterday, may it be through tradition, social institutions or media. These representations are not believes, which are constructed by each single individual but instead reside in the collective mind, they are shared by many, they are re-cited and re-presented. \r\n
The role of the individual
\r\nBut this transition of the unfamiliar to familiar is set in motion by each individual's thought processes of anchoring and objectifying.\r\n- \r\n
- Anchoring: It compares a foreign object to already known systems or categories and classifies it, namely sets it in a familiar context. Individuals do that either by generalizing or particularizing information. In the first case, they select randomly a feature and use it as a category. Thus this feature is also attributed to all the members of this category. In the second case of particularization, they consider a specific feature as a deviation to the norm and try to identify its distinctions in comparison to the already classified prototypes. For example, the image of a psychoanalyst is connected with features of wealth, status and relentlessness (generalization). But these features can also be modified to produce a paradigm of the american psychoanalyst (particularization). \r\n
- \r\n
- Objectification; This process combines â or even better, saturates - the unfamiliar idea with the reality. In this process the concept loses its abstract character and acquires âan almost physical, independent existence.â During objectification, the foreign idea adopts an iconic quality and is therefore easier understood and perceived. Political or other authorities often take advantage of this process to lead the masses, since the crowd thinks and is manipulated through images. \r\n
Food for thought
\r\nAs noticed, individuals and groups produce and communicate representations themselves. They start discussions, comment on certain topics according to their personal interests and spread information among them horizontally. On the other hand though, they reproduce material provided by their social environment, namely family, tradition, school and media. Under this perspective one could presume that the public receives the ideas as 'food for thought', which are unconsciously absorbed and re-created.\r\n\r\nSince the involvement of mass media in everyday life is very prominent, it is logical to assume, that their role in providing this 'food for thought' is profound. The massive production, that mass media bring, is not considered â...in terms of size, but of an instant inclusive embrace.â Indeed mass media do not just provide a vast variety of subjects to the public, but mostly accomplish to uniform it and thus create a passive mass of consumers â not necessarily of products but also of ideas. Culture, as Niklas Luhmann said, is a product of mass media.\r\nConcluding social Representations
\r\nBy introducing the theory of social representations, we observed the thought processes of individuals and groups, which guide them to â...construct a stable, predictable world out of such diversity.â Social representations help us understand, that this tendency to conformity is on the one hand an inner-directed procedure, which is subconsciously executed from the individual. Namely, the attention of a person is orientated according to her own thoughts and morals.\r\n\r\nBut it is on the other hand an outer-directed procedure. Society is in such way constructed, that this outer-directed process has a fundamental role in the social structure. Political parties have a representative leading figure, tradition is connected with a nostalgic feeling, the media are present in almost every part of the private and public sphere and so on. Society is full of outer-directed sources, which provide people thoughts and morals to reproduce. Understanding how individuals recreate knowledge is also an introductory step to fully comprehend how to attract its interest.\r\nSocial Representations in the blogosphere
\r\nMalcolm Gladwell in his 'tipping point' suggests that in order to make an information 'sticky', to make remain in the mind of the receiver, one should not necessarily change its content, but instead its package. What does all this mean for social media?\r\n- \r\n
- Social represantations is a study of social psychology, which helps us see how we unconsciously think. We adopt behaviors and ideas from our environment. That's one of the reasons why popular blogs become more popular: If everybody is reading it, then we suppose it is worth reading. \r\n
- Social represantations also tell us that the image of an object can have an impact on people, an impact so strong, that can influence their views about a subject, a person, a topic, a blog. \r\n
- Finally, social represantations also tell us that the thought process of the human brain is extremely complicated. A blogger might to do everything correctly to get heard in the blogosphere and still pass unnoticed. The context a blog is set can make a difference and this is something that the administrator cannot influence. \r\n
[The same content, but written for print. What's easier to read? 11/12/2007]
\r\nHow does an individual categorize information; how does she recreate knowledge? Introducing the basic mental functions of people, how they manage information, will show us why they choose a certain content over another. Taking this assumption one step further (maybe with the risk of taking it too far), I will try to explain what makes content so interesting. Social representations are a part of the studies of social psychology and were first introduced in the scientific community in the 1960s from Serge Moscovici. He mentions that social representations have two roles. First they make objects, persons or events we encounter conventional. This is a form of categorization, where people ascribe objects to certain models. The association of communism with the color red is an example. When a new element does not conform to a specific type, we then â...constrain it to assume given form, to enter a given category, in fact to become identical to the others, at the risk of its being neither understood nor decoded.â Additionally, representations are â as the author describes â prescriptive, meaning âthey impose themselves upon us with an irresistible force.â Their power comes exactly from the fact, that they control the reality of today through that of yesterday, may it be through tradition, social institutions or media. These representations are not believes, which are constructed by each single individual but instead reside in the collective mind, they are shared by many, they are re-cited and re-presented. To express the concept more simplified, social representations alter an unfamiliar element into a familiar one. But this transition of the unfamiliar to familiar is set in motion by each individual's thought processes of anchoring and objectifying.\r\n- \r\n
- Anchoring: It compares a foreign object to already known systems or categories and classifies it, namely sets it in a familiar context. Individuals do that either by generalizing or particularizing information. In the first case, they select randomly a feature and use it as a category. Thus this feature is also attributed to all the members of this category. In the second case of particularization, they consider a specific feature as a deviation to the norm and try to identify its distinctions in comparison to the already classified prototypes. For example, the image of a psychoanalyst is connected with features of wealth, status and relentlessness (generalization). But these features can also be modified to produce a paradigm of the american psychoanalyst (particularization). \r\n
- \r\n
- Objectification; This process combines â or even better, saturates - the unfamiliar idea with the reality. In this process the concept loses its abstract character and acquires âan almost physical, independent existence.â During objectification, the foreign idea adopts an iconic quality and is therefore easier understood and perceived. Political or other authorities often take advantage of this process to lead the masses, since the crowd thinks and is manipulated through images. Both processes (anchoring and objectifying) can be perceived as ways of handling memory. The first puts in and takes out objects, events or people and allocates them according to their type; the second draws images from the known categorization and unifies them with unknown concepts. In a way anchoring is inner-directed (the individual makes the classification alone) while objectifying is other-directed (the unification is made by a leading figure or the media). \r\n
- \r\n
- Concentrate on your about page (unlike me): it is completely different to say you are 4% neurotic (although your friends say its more) and to say that you are an executive producer of Hollywood or a manager in Google. Your about page gives you credibility. \r\n
- Concentrate on the design of the blog (unlike me): It gives a first impression of the blog and shows your engagement to it. \r\n
![\"scaling](\"http://changemod.com/755/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/metcalfef2.jpg\")
\r\n\r\nIllustration found at http://spectrum.ieee.org/print/4109\r\n\r\nWe see that both Metcalfe's and Reed's laws are associating the linkage of a network with its value. The connections in a system multiply faster the more users are part of it. Reed's law assigns one more variable to this thesis. It declares that in a networked system, participation can exponentially boost its value. Though at first this increase may be small, it can eventually grow rapidly â and indeed faster than any other power law. Under that perspective, it is logical to assume that the possibility of group forming networks to expand into vast interconnected systems, systems that can function as hubs in the social web, is much higher than any other non-social network.\r\n\r\nThe transition that we are witnessing in traditional hubs (Amazon.com, google, etc.) verifies this assumption. These sites were providing services, which could be understood under Metcalfe's law. They were connecting people and sites, but they were not giving them the option to form their own communities. But the rise of group forming networks and their expansion potential forced these sites to change. Amazon is now providing user review services and google several blogging and document sharing functions. These traditional hubs saw that social networking has the ability to create rapidly a vast system; a fact that made 'fit' (fitness as expressed by Albert-Là szlo Barabà si) social websites strong competitors. The only way to stay on top was to add group forming services, which would allow the development of their network and keep users interested.\r\n\r\nIn Conclusion\r\n\r\nThere has been a great controversy about the role of Metcalfe's law in the internet and if it actually can be applied to it. But if we disregard this debate and go a little bit further to Reed's Law, we will see that a network, which encourages user interaction and group formation is able to grow much faster than other networks and - as I previously noticed - faster than any power law. This may be a mathematical explanation, why the blogosphere has grown so rapidly. It includes the parameter of socializing; blogs do not connect only computers but also people.\r\n\r\nBut its development makes me nonetheless wonder: In what frequency and degree does interaction between bloggers actually take place? Is the blogosphere also evolving in a 'one-to-many' medium or does the social aspect constantly win ground?" .
Random networks
\r\nIt is a theory developed by Paul Erdòs and Alfred Rènyi in 1959, called random graph theory. It relies on clustering, that is to say that most people's friends are also to some extent friends of each other [Duncan J. Watts; Six Degrees]. It explains that the connection of small groups (clusters) will result into a single giant component. In a random network each node can contact any other node in very few steps and the more nodes the network has, the harder it is to find an isolated one.\r\nIf you want to translate random networks in attentiveness, the theory implies that drawing the attention of the public (namely the other nodes) is not such a complicated process. Everyone on the system receives more or less the same amount of links, namely interest. If you were to create a blog in a random network, sooner or later you would have roughly as many viewers as Google has. But we know (experience says) that the blogosphere - and the Internet in general - that we are not dealing with a random network. You do not randomly link to other blogs in your blogroll (or do you?), you choose them according to your interests and preferences. Therefore a new approach should be considered.\r\nWhat random network theory did not take into account, was that most real networks (organisms, social relations, the web, etc.) are not static objects. New links are constantly created, while old ones abandoned. Apart from that, clustering takes place by virtue of individuals having a number of affiliations, which are not all equally alike, meaning that our new acquaintances depend sometimes from our old ones. Indeed our actions directly deprive from our characteristics and these actions may lead us to completely new connections, which have no relation to our previous ones.\r\n\r\n
![\"Distribution](\"http://changemod.com/755/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/bell_curve.jpg\")
![](\"http://changemod.com/755/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/powerlaw_distribution.jpeg\")
\r\n[Both pictures taken from the book 'Linked' from Albert-Là szlo Barabà si]\r\n
Scale Free Networks
\r\n In 1998 Albert-Là szlò Barabà si with his co-workers were having their doubts, if the web was actually a random network (as thought until then). They started by creating a map of the internet (in reality a representational part of it), to research if its structure complied with the random model. They noticed that on the one hand 80% of the nodes researched had an average of four links while on the other hand 0.01% had more than 1000 links.\r\nThe architecture of the World Wide Web, Barabà si's group concluded, is dominated by few highly connected hubs (like Amazon.com, or Google). These hubs are visible to everyone â there is a link in most sites pointing to them. On the other side there are sites, which are on the borders of the map, receiving almost no attention at all. Such a network (named scale-free network) follows a power law distribution. It is a continuously decreasing curve, which shows that many nodes have a few incoming links, while a few hubs have a lot.\r\nAttributes of scale free networks
\r\n A primary property of scale-free networks and the power law distribution is that the rich get richer. This happens because we usually prefer to link to webpages that are not ordinary nodes, but hubs. If you want to point to an online shop, the chances are you would point to Amazon. This means, that the more links a site attracts the more popular it gets and the more easier it is to find it.\r\nBut, this also implies that the oldest node on a network will always have the most incoming links, since it had the longest time to collect them. Still, we have seen examples of sites and blogs, which although not popular when first online, receive great amount of attention, sometimes over night. This happens due to the webpage's ability to offer better content, updates, or services than its competitors. In such case of a competitive environment, each node has a certain fitness a degree, which defines how often the node will be linked. For example, between two nodes with the same number of links, the fitter one acquires links more quickly. While an old site might still draw attention of the users, a fit one will do so much faster. In other words, seniority is a great asset to draw interest, but fitness â which is independent of seniority - defines the speed at which nodes acquire links and therefore a senior node is not necessarily â or will eventually not be - the most popular.\r\n\r\n[a good introduction to the subject was written by Michael Schuster; it helped me a lot // also a good article with nice recommendations was written by Jason Kottke] \r\nWhat do scale-free networks tell us
\r\n- \r\n
- First of all the obvious. If you want to get heard in the blogosphere, you need lots of links - inbound and outbound. That the blogosphere is actually a competitive environment (whether we accept it or not) and we are all competing for links.That content can have a great deal of impact. And by content I don't just mean text, but any type of services you could provide. May it be fancy CSS stylesheets, theoretical articles, beautiful pictures, groovy videos. If your fitness degree is high, you have nothing to worry about. \r\n
action | space
\r\nIssues relating to the experiential, interactional and cognitive dimensions of computer game play.\r\n\r\nWhat is the nature of perceptual experience in game space? How should we understand the relationship between action, interaction and space in computer game environments? How should we think about players' aesthetic, emotive and(/or) rational responses to what goes on inside the game space?\r\nethics / politics
\r\nWhat are the ethical responsibilities of game-makers in exerting influence on individual gamers and society in general? What role, if any, can games serve as a critical cultural corrective in relation to traditional forms of media and communicative practices, for example in economy and politics?\r\n\r\nAlso: what is the nature of the ethical norms that apply within the gaming context, and what are the factors that allow or delimit philosophical justifications of their application there or elsewhere?\r\nborders between play and reality
\r\nTerms such as \"fictionality\", \"virtuality\", \"simulation\" or \"representation\" are often used to indicate specific functions of objects in games.\r\n\r\nBut what is the nature of the phenomena these terms refer to in the interactive field of game play? And what is the structure of gaming-processes? What is the mediality of digital games?\r\n\r\nWe are especially interested in discussions that aim at how the notion of a self-contained \"magic circle\" - representing an imagined border between play and reality, or the internal and external limits of game-programs - is being challenged by forms of individual action and social inter action which tend to transcend such limits.\r\nOpen Invitation
\r\nThese are just some subjects that will be covered in the conference. If you have any work regarding the topic, you are invited to submit it until the 15th of February.\r\n\r\nI know, there is not much time left, but it is certainly worth it. This is an international conference with the collaboration of Universities from Germany, Oslo, Italy and Denmark. Your work will certainly be heard here.\r\n\r\nOf course you are also invited to visit the conference. The University of Potsdam has started an effort to provide residence to visitors having a hard time finding a place to stay. Students and conference organizers are welcoming visitors and doing their best locating accommodation and even opening their own homes.\r\n\r\nFor more information about the conference visit gamephilosophy.org.\r\n\r\nFor more information about the philosophy of computer games take a look at: The Digiplay Initiative: A collaborative effort on understanding digital games." ." .
" .
- \r\n
- I believe that copycats, like the farmers of the example above, collect information and in a way or another add something (maybe something very little) to the original source. \r\n
- \r\n
- I have complete trust in the users constituting the social web, to expose any dishonest intentions. \r\n
- I find the web so intriguing exactly because there is no control of the data running in its streams. I prefer it, when people use my work without giving me any credit, than have a central control, choosing who posts what, when. \r\n
" .