<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BlogTalk Reloaded: danah boyd</title>
	<atom:link href="http://strange.corante.com/2006/10/02/blogtalk-reloaded-danah-boyd/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://strange.corante.com/2006/10/02/blogtalk-reloaded-danah-boyd</link>
	<description>Picking out patterns in the chaos</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 20:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bud</title>
		<link>http://strange.corante.com/2006/10/02/blogtalk-reloaded-danah-boyd#comment-2216</link>
		<dc:creator>Bud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strange.corante.com/2006/10/02/blogtalk-reloaded-danah-boyd#comment-2216</guid>
		<description>Provocative thoughts, Suw, about the balance between control and openness in the design of social software, and the consequences for both cultural and financial viability of an online service. Seems to me that there are a few intertwined strands of design that have to be kept in mind simultaneously, and problems appear when you decide to "worry about that one later." I am thinking: (1) who is my community / market, (2) what experience / value do I offer them, (3) what does my software need to offer to deliver that value, (4) what opportunities for revenue will attract investors? "Everybody in the world" is not an answer to #1, "They'll create the value themselves," while largely true, is not an answer to #2, "Whatever they want" is not an answer to #3, and "We'll get the eyballs first and think about that later" is not an answer to #4. As I think you are saying in some of the examples you cited, I believe the originators of a community need to stay involved, keep focus on these marketing basics, collaborate with the community but not cede control to it. But then, maybe I am just an old-fashioned kind of guy ;-)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Provocative thoughts, Suw, about the balance between control and openness in the design of social software, and the consequences for both cultural and financial viability of an online service. Seems to me that there are a few intertwined strands of design that have to be kept in mind simultaneously, and problems appear when you decide to &#8220;worry about that one later.&#8221; I am thinking: (1) who is my community / market, (2) what experience / value do I offer them, (3) what does my software need to offer to deliver that value, (4) what opportunities for revenue will attract investors? &#8220;Everybody in the world&#8221; is not an answer to #1, &#8220;They&#8217;ll create the value themselves,&#8221; while largely true, is not an answer to #2, &#8220;Whatever they want&#8221; is not an answer to #3, and &#8220;We&#8217;ll get the eyballs first and think about that later&#8221; is not an answer to #4. As I think you are saying in some of the examples you cited, I believe the originators of a community need to stay involved, keep focus on these marketing basics, collaborate with the community but not cede control to it. But then, maybe I am just an old-fashioned kind of guy <img src='http://strange.corante.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

