ACK, this document is a mess. The quote characters and such got messed up when transferring the entry to this new software. I'll try to clean it up soon. Sorry 'bout this!
Back in August 2004, a Google
friend who knows how passionate I am about online communities and social
networks urged
me
to present the orkut.com team with a set of recommendations. Admittedly,
I went a bit overboard, and submitted the sizeable document (originally MS
Word, half-heartedly cleaned up into HTML) that you see below. I've not made
any content changes except to remove some personally-identifying information
(mostly names) and also remove or edit a couple confusing sentences. I haven't
added any new content, but I think you'll still find my commentary rather
relevant to the state of orkut.com today.
I welcome your feedback, and thank you for reading. More to
come...
Regards,
Adam
http://www.lasnik.net/
* * *
Table of Contents
text-underline:none'>2
text-underline:none'>2
text-underline:none'>3
text-underline:none'>3
text-underline:none'>3
text-underline:none'>4
text-underline:none'>6
other
text-underline:none'>6
text-underline:none'>..
text-underline:none'>6
text-underline:none'>6
text-underline:none'>.
text-underline:none'>7
text-underline:none'>7
text-underline:none'>7
text-underline:none'>7
text-underline:none'>8
text-underline:none'>8
text-underline:none'>8
text-underline:none'>8
text-underline:none'>.
text-underline:none'>9
text-underline:none'>9
text-underline:none'>9
text-underline:none'>9
text-underline:none'>10
text-underline:none'>.
text-underline:none'>10
text-underline:none'>10
text-underline:none'>10
text-underline:none'>10
text-underline:none'>10
sowing confusion
text-underline:none'>11
text-underline:none'>11
text-underline:none'>.
text-underline:none'>12
text-underline:none'>12
Introduction
Hi [name],
Well, it?s taken me longer to get around to this than I expected, and I
hope that you?re still able to find my orkut comments useful. I don?t have
the time to go into all topics about orkut that interest me, nor can I afford
to go into the depth on each topic that I?d like at this point. If you?d
like more specific input on particular issues or features, we can talk about
that after you read my initial commentary below.
And one more thing before I get started: I figure I ought to give you an
idea of my familiarity with and interest in the social networking space:
- I?ve
been involved with online communities since I was 15. - I
helped out the Prodigy Online Service a great deal, spearheading the
creation of a new forum, beta testing their offline board reader, and providing
lots
of UI feedback. - I
was a forum leader for two different areas of AOL. - I?ve
created, moderated, or significantly contributed - I?ve
beta tested quite a few social networking services: Friendster,
Tribe.net, Linked In,
Here?s what I?ll be tackling in this note:
- Grand
overview (?vision?) stuff - General
UI suggestions / concerns
...and not comprehensively tackling:
that?s already been widely harped on (server speed, not enough search
options, etc.)- Things
I?ve already discussed in
Okay, and with no further ado, I?ll get on with the show
The foundation of a trusted
network.
Orkut advertises itself as a trusted network, and I believe that a trusted
network must include all of the following:
- Clearly
articulated rules and goals - A
collaboratively based structure - Useful
delineations and appropriate disclosure of ties
Clearly articulated rules and goals
In order for people to be able to assess and behave according to the trustworthiness
of others on a service, they must first understand the actual service?s rules
and goals. Orkut has already taken steps in this direction by articulating
that the service is to be, ideally, one that encourages communications amongst
actual people, not ?characters.? But beyond this, orkut hasn?t really expressed
what the service is about, who it?s designed for (?everyone? isn?t, in itself,
a useful answer), and what its goals are. This ambiguity (accentuated by
a not-very-informative front login page) is discouraging to prospective users
and also makes current users less apt to understand and trust the network.
A collaboratively based structure
Smart Filtering to better interpret and adapt to
members? interests
Right now, people are thrown in ?orkut jail? when they ?misbehave,? either
judged and sentenced by automated processes, by orkut administrators,
or by an unsegmented group of peers. This suffers
from lack of appropriateness (computers are only so smart), scalability
issues, and untargeted group-think problems respectively. While I understand
that a Slashdot karma system has its own flaws, I think that a system based
upon a mixture of this and the user-moderation in Craig?s List is an appropriate
solution for orkut.
Over time, such moderation could affect (limit / throttle) privileges in
the area of messaging, posting, scrapping, and so on. Eventually, it could
also contribute to a scheme whereby communications and search results are
prioritized based upon similar-group preferences... that is to say, what
I see would be sorted and/or filtered based upon the preferences and behaviors
of those I?ve linked to, what and who I?ve modded,
and what those I?m strongly linked to have viewed, rated, and modded.
For instance, let?s say I get yet another
I consider it ?not interesting,? Portuguese speakers might find it to be
really funny or useful. Therefore, based upon user/group past behaviors
(deleting, replying, etc.), the absolute messaging privileges of the sender
should not be revoked, but rather, I shouldn?t see messages from that person
(or his/her associated group, perhaps).
About the current karma system
I think the trusty, sexy, cool evaluation system should
be scrapped. Here?s why:
- It?s
cheesy & a put-off for those who want to use orkut for business
networking, or for those who are over 25, married, etc. - The
concept of ?sexiness? is simply too variable amongst different
groups of people. Even within my close group of friends, there?s a wide range
of disagreement regarding who (or what) is ?sexy.? Sexiness is
interpreted in completely different ways by age, interest, status,
and so on.
perception of another?s ?trustiness? really depends upon their
interactions. I?m
going to have a much different take on someone?s trustiness if
I?m their business partner than if I?m their gym buddy.
So here?s my admittedly somewhat-radical idea: Scrap the trusty/sexy/cool
thing, and instead implement a system of connection strength metrics, tie
descriptors, and enhanced testimonials.
Connection Strength and Type ? Delineating and disclosing
ties appropriately
On ?friends?
First of all, change the label of ?friend? to contact. I know it may seem
impersonal, but overall, it?s a better description of current and future
connections. One?s boss is not one?s friend, typically, but many might want
to link to their boss or subordinates or other colleagues on orkut. I like
my family members, but it just seems weird to call my Grandpa or Mom a ?friend.?
And frankly, the word ?friend? is widely overused and abused. [Name] once
invited me to link to him, and I did so gladly. I greatly respect him and
was honored at what I felt he was implying. But ? though we had initially
planned a lunch meeting ? [Name] and I have not yet met. We haven?t even
exchanged more than a few quick e-mails. So I?d hardly consider him a friend...
and I mean that in the most honest yet non-mean-spirited way. I?m sure you
understand.
Orkut (the service) should not be about (just) friendships. It?s about
ties. Strong ties, weak ties... amongst contacts. Maybe you can
come up with a better word. But let?s ditch the online ?friends? pretense. Like Friendster,
it?s so 1999.
All connections are not equal
Imagine someone using orkut to find a date for an upcoming concert. And
another person using orkut to hire a nanny for their daughter. Two
drastically different interests and needs... but both greatly potentially
assisted by a smart delineation and disclosure of member ties.
In the first case, the member wants to see who his contacts know socially...
and be able to assess a fit by looks, personality, musical tastes,
and so on. Unfortunately, as orkut works right now, he can?t tell how his
contacts are really connected to that hottie he
spied while browsing. Sure, he shows that HisName --> Jane
--> Fred -->ThatHottie... but how well does
Fred really know
is Fred just someone who ?friends? every ?hot chick? on orkut? And
for that matter, how does Jane know Fred... and, more importantly,
how well?
The person seeking the nanny obviously has different needs. She looked
up ?Mary Smith? on Orkut after seeing Mary post an ad on Craig?s
List looking for nanny work, and she sees that she is connected to Mary by
three degrees
of separation. But, again, she has no idea how she is connected;
do these folks know Mary from her previous nannying work,
from the gym, or from dating, or...?
Therefore, it?s critical that orkut offer the ability to specify AND view
(either directly or indirectly) the strength and type of ties
between people.
Members should be invited to score the strength of their connection with
each of their contacts numerically on two axes from 1-100: Professional and Social,
with (again) boundaries placed or statistical adjustments made in this context
so as to take into account those who give the max points to all their contacts
and so on.
Then, when viewing a network path, one might see this:
Me --> Jane -->
'> Fred --> Marta [briefcase icon] 87, [martini icon] 13
You have strong connections to Marta socially,
but weak ties to her professionally.
In this example, Marta would be a more appropriate contact for the person
seeking a Nanny; the potential employer would probably have a better chance
learning about Marta?s professionalism than how well she holds her liquor.
Beyond quantitative-tie listing, I think it?d be very useful for people
to be able to simply note (in a small free-form field) how they are linked
to someone, so that when I link to Jane, I could specify that she?s my piano
teacher... and this information would be visible when someone
How is this better than the current system of haven?t
met, acquaintance, friend, good friend, and best
friend? Let me count the ways!
The
current system doesn?t fit nicely in a business context.- Haven?t
met is interesting but orthogonal to the issue of strength-of-tie,
and should not be part of this scale! For instance, I once
corresponded regularly with a penpal for
many years before meeting him, and I certainly considered him
a friend (more than an acquaintance)
well before I met up with him. This situation is especially common nowadays,
with people having friendships (even quasi-romances) with people they?ve
?met? only on the Internet. On the flip side, I think it?s
quite possible to have very weak ties with someone you?ve met.
In contrast, my proposed system (with tie-strength and connection descriptor):
for ties with family, significant other, work colleagues, etc.- Doesn?t
make a false distinction between those people we?ve met in person and those
we haven?t. - Lets
people accept link requests from others with the understanding
that they can indicate their connection appropriately. For instance, right
now I?ve noticed that many people link to others to suggest ?I like you,
even though
we?re not yet friends.? With my proposed system, the
recipient could decide that, hey, this (requester) person looks
cool even if don?t know them
at all; I?ll accept their connection request and simply give
them zeros for both professional and social tie strengths (to
be later adjusted as appropriate). - Provides
value by letting people understand and take into account connections (?Hmm...
this guy knows her from his college marching band, so maybe he could tell
me if she?s got good chops for the new quintet I?m putting together.?) - Could
be a super-valuable companion to messaging and profile-item-disclosure /
privacy (I?ll talk more about these issues later).
Understandably, there?s also a sticky point associated with my proposed
quantitative system: the awkwardness in potentially learning (and knowing
that others could possibly learn) how one is rated by friends. Therefore
? while perhaps not foolproof ? one protective measure could be to avoid
publicly listing connection strengths with single ties. That is to say,
with Me ? Betty,
there?d be no indication of tie strengths.
From a UI and functionality perspective, on the Your Connections (formerly
?Friends?) screen I?d like to see each contact listed on a separate row with
(and
- Photo
- Name (underneath)
- Link
description: ?gym partner? or ?college friend? or ?former colleague?
etc. - They
updated: The date of the last time they updated their profile or photo
gallery and what they most recently updated, e.g., ?7/3/04 ? New job description? - Tie
#s added/changed: The date when you added them to your
list, or when you most recently changed your tie strength
ratings for them. This would
help (especially with sorting/filtering) members update such
ratings over time by noticing, for instance, hmm... I haven?t
updated his ratings recently,
and we?ve become much closer friends in the last month. - Social
tie strength: In the form of a simple 3-character text
entry box, possibly augmented by a Flash-based slider. - Professional
tie strength: Same as above.
You?ll note that I have omitted the age, gender, and location in this listing. While
I suppose it could be included in a different view, I think that I?m already
aware of such information for most of my contacts. If I can?t recall something
as basic as someone?s gender, why am I even linking to them? ;-)
Who?s yer daddy?
In an effort to help users ferret out fakesters and
also add some transparent accountability to the system, I?d like for orkut
to show ?invite trees? of at least two degrees. In other words, we should
be able to click on a link and see ?Tara Jones was invited by _Suzanne Johnson_,
who was invited by _Matt Smith_.? With this, people could have additional
info-ammunition when there is a group of, well, jerks in a particular community;
?Hmm... all of these twits were invited directly/indirectly by one guy!? It?d
also be useful when looking at testimonials: ?Hmm... he only has testimonials
from people he?s directly invited!?
Defining how we describe and see each other
Fandom
Let?s tackle the most basic issue first, even though it?s something I think
you?ve heard time and time again. The ?fan? concept as currently implemented
is absolutely broken.
First of all, I question the value of fan indications in general. What
use (or even fun) is it for me to see that some ?hot babe? has lots of fans? Or
that Orkut ? the creator of the service being used ? has lots of fans. No
duh!
But if, for some reason, this feature must be kept in, then at least make
it work more like fandom in the real world. I?m a fan of Larry and Sergey. They
don?t know me from Adam. This is not a connection in the way that Fans on
orkut is currently implemented (e.g., that Larry and Sergey must first acknowledge
my existence). This is merely a one-way indicator.
In other words, members should be able to ?fan? anyone they want. The current
?fan only if already friends? is both useless and also harmful, since it
often incents people to request connections from
others with whom they really hold no (reciprocated) connection.
On a somewhat related note, perhaps orkut should move to a system whereby
anyone can link to anyone and reciprocation is noted but not required. This
is something that definitely should be considered, but I don?t have the time
to delve into it at the moment... sorry.
Testimonials
I?d like to be able to offer testimonials on any orkut member, not just
my friends... though of course I think such testimonials should be displayed
separately from ?friend? (or ?connection?) testimonials.
Additionally, I?d like to see testimonials contain two fields: the current
main text box for a testimonial-type message, and a separate ?adjectives?
box. After someone has accumulated more than [x] total testimonials (including
descriptors), it?d be neat to display something like the following on their
profile:
Andrea has been frequently described in the following ways by others:
- By those with whom she has strong professional ties
[suitcase icon]: Decisive,
funny, smart - By those with whom she has strong social or family
ties [martini icon]: Loving,
smart, athletic - By others: Active, sexy, driven
An aggregate-variety of this descriptor field would also be neat to show
in orkut search results.
Profiles and Privacy
Do folks want their business colleagues knowing their turn-
Do I want friends-of-friends to know about my career (?Wow, he must be rich!?
or ?He does that for a living?!?)
I?d like to see more fine-grained user-controls in the profile sections...
perhaps based upon strength-of-connection levels and/or connection degrees. For
instance, it might be useful to say:
this field only to strong social connections, limited by two degrees- Show
these fields only to weak social and professional connections, not limited
by degree
For instance, I might want my sexual orientation viewable only to people
with weak professional connections AND strong social connections, but not
limited by degree. Or I might want my entire profile viewable only to those
within three degrees.
I think this sort of control would enable folks to worry less about bleed-through
of social and professional information, since many of us do like to keep
our work and social ?lives? separate.
Navigation
The current navigation is neither intuitive nor consistent.
Here?s what I?d change:
should be under Help, and any new announcement
should be listed on the front page. News archives could
be under Help. After all, why
should News take up part of the coveted top navigation UI when it?s
so seldom useful navigationally (news is updated infrequently, and users
aren?t notified when there are updates anyway).- Don?t
remove options willy-nilly! When I?m viewing my profile,
I should still have access to the regular options. - Don?t
switch navigation/edit options from side to side. When
I?m editing my profile, the profile-segment links shouldn?t
be moved suddenly to the right-hand side. - Overall,
be consistent! You already have section links at the
top and action links along the
Private messaging
Filtering incoming messages
Messaging issues are the bane of orkut?s existence,
to the point where many of my friends are now putting ?orkut? in the same
mental category as ?spam.?
Personally, I?d say ? without exaggeration ? that about 95+% of the messages
I receive via orkut are completely uninteresting to me. I?d turn off FoaF and
community messaging entirely in my preferences (as I?m sure countless others
have done), but it?s that 5% that grudgingly keeps me from doing this.
The solution, I think, lies in a mixture or selection amongst Bayesian filtering,
collaborative filtering, strength-of-tie factors, and other user-specified
restrictions.
Bayesian filtering
From an implementation perspective, Bayesian filtering could be potentially
handled via thumbs-up / thumbs-down buttons in the orkut mail interface...
but this admittedly wouldn?t work for people viewing orkut messages in their
regular e-mail.
Strength-of-tie factoring
Ideally, users should be able to specify a ?strength-of-tie? threshold for
receiving FoaF messages. For instance:
I?d like to receive Friend of a Friend messages only from connections with
weighted/aggregate strength-of-tie scores in the following categories:
[checkbox] Social connection stronger than ___
on 100 point scale
[checkbox] Professional connection
stronger than ___ on a 100 point scale.
This way, people could opt to receive messages, say, only from people who
are strongly connected to them socially, or from people with weak social
ties but strong business ties, and so on.
Other user-specified restrictions
This could be in the form of ?Send me 2nd degree but not 3rd degree FoaF messages?
or ?Send me messages from females aged 20-30? or ?Send me messages from people
who are in my communities and are 2nd degree contacts? and so
on. This has the potential to get quite complicated, so perhaps these ?filters?
could be part of an ?advanced? user interface option.
Limiting message sending
Initially I thought that perhaps there should be some limitations or throttling
on orkut messaging so, say, Jeff Bezos doesn?t
get 50,000 messages from excited fans or disgruntled shoppers. But then
I realized that this issue is indeed better handled from the receiving end. After
all, why should I be limited from writing 7th degree contacts
when some of those folks may want to hear from everybody... or may
want to filter on criteria other than degrees-of-separation and so on. In
other words, aside from extreme cases requiring throttling (someone shouldn?t
be allowed to send more than 200 messages in an hour!), I
think orkut should let messaging restrictions be handled solely by recipients
(with admittedly perhaps some default filters in place).
With that said, I think there should be some awareness involved when people
are sending group messages, such as an alert like: ?WARNING! This message
will be sent to as many as 3,719 people. Please consider whether it would
be more appropriate to contact a smaller group of contacts individually,
or post a note on one of the community forums.?
Showing messages
I think that you should show orkut messages only in orkut, and not allow
for the receipt of actual messages within one?s personal e-mail for the following
reasons:
- This
thwarts the privacy concern that stems from people accidentally writing people
back without realizing that their reply will disclose their identity. - By
placing all communications-reading within orkut, you can amass data on clickthrus,
immediate-deletes, and so on. This, in turn, will contribute to user-based
and group-based filtering initiatives. For instance, if 98% of recipients
delete John Smith?s mail without reading it, then it?s likely he?s sending
unwanted communications. Additionally, showing all
mail headers in orkut (rather than an external reader)
allows orkut to show clickable thumbs-up
/ thumbs-down icons, further facilitating collaborative filtering.
Communities
Grouping
One?s communities quickly become unwieldy, at least for those of us with
more than 30-40 communities. Therefore, user-grouping of communities is
something that?d be quite
(?I want people to know I am affiliated with or love [x], even though I don?t
plan on writing a lot of stuff about it?).
For instance, it?d be great if we could group according to anything we want...
topics (?Geeky stuff?) apart from orkut?s default
categorizations, level of interest (?Favorite groups,? ?Not
daily.?) and so on. From there, we could also set permission and notification
preferences (?Tell me anytime someone posts something in these communities,?
?Make my posts in these communities not accessible by the main [future] orkut
Community Search tool?) and so on. Also ?Show info on these communities
on my orkut home page? and ?Include / exclude these communities from the
list on my profile? (useful for memberships in personal/sensitive-topic communities,
such as spousal abuse discussions, etc.).
Functionality beyond forums
I understand that there?s likely some tension between orkut and GG2 in terms
of overlap, future functionality, and so on. However, GG2 aside, I?d love
to see polls, file archives, photo galleries, and bookmarks (orkut-internal
and also Web-external) in the communities.
Moderation and privacy
Moderators should be able to mark forums as only readable by members, mark
forums as inaccessible by orkut community title and/or message content searches,
and should also be able to permanently ban (not just kick) users even from
public communities.
Additionally, moderators should be able to appoint co-moderators and/or
temporary (vacation) moderators.
The forums
I?d like to see the forums support basic HTML (my fingers are trained to
type <strong> not ) and/or actual BBcode (I?m
so used to type either <a href...> or [
I think you know the rest in terms of what needs to be done forum-functionality
wise. Look at
of karma / collaborative filtering discussed earlier here.
Or if you really want to get fancy, introduce Gmail-style conversational
expand/collapse functionality. Yum!
At minimum, you need to include read/unread awareness within the forums
and in the community listing overall. And yes, I realize this (like many
of my other suggestions) is resource intensive.
Notifications
I don?t care whether it?s e-mail, RSS, a separate page, etc. People need
to know when folks have replied to their threads, period.
Presence detection and live communications
One of the most common complaints I?ve heard about orkut is that there?s
?nothing to do.? While I?m sure that more folks would use the boards more
if certain forum-issues were addressed, I?m also confident that the establishment
of presence-awareness and live interaction features would greatly increase
the ?stickiness? of the service. By ?online? below, I?m referring to a state
of ?active within past [x] minutes? (with the threshold increased for those
who most recently clicked on a ?compose? link).
Detection
Specifically, I would like to see the online status of:
contacts and 2nd degree contacts- People
in each community (from the community page) - From
a search results page, both proactively and otherwise (?Show me all people
within 5 miles of my zip who are interested in hiking and are online now?) - Anyone
whose profile I?m looking at.
This would help make communities feel ?active? rather than simply Web pages
to browse occasionally.
One-to-one chat
In addition to seeing who is online, I?d also like to be able to
initiate communication with individuals. orkut could
be a great test platform for GIM (Google Instant Messenger). In
the meantime, orkut could facilitate one-to-one IM
communications by hyperlinking one?s
name throughout the service to YahooIM or
AIM (click on the name, a Yahoo or AIM window pops
up, assuming the user has the relevant client installed).
Group chat
Of equal importance, I think that it?d be amazingly useful and fun to be
able to have a live chat box on the front page of every community. This
would augment, rather than by a substitute for posting and reading messages
in each forum.
Chat implementations
You could even kludge a chat implementation to begin with, since there are
no worries about permanence (e.g., unlike with message forums in which message
links should be permanent and accessible over time, chat is ? by its nature
? preferably transient). For instance, you could simply create and iframe a
window into a logically named and described IRC room (?orkut-[
would then not be limited to orkut members, though I suppose savvy moderators
could simply password protect rooms to enhance privacy.
Highlighting interesting data appropriately
I was hugely dismayed at the original statistics and very pleased when they
were taken down. They just encouraged an obnoxious feedback loop... making
those who were
?hot chick? instincts and behaviors.
When showing statistics, the following should be taken into consideration:
1)
these statistics useful or interesting? (obviously!)
2)
they incent desirable behaviors rather than encouraging
harmful or annoying behaviors?
See
detailed ideas and commentary on interesting statistics to show.
Providing greater control without sowing confusion
I love the way the Google AdWords interface uses
?custom report? section) and yet allows for the tweaking of more ?minor?
options via expand/collapse functionality. Orkut should do the same throughout
the service... in the context of moderator settings and ? more importantly
? user settings.
For instance, this UI would be nice for allowing users to either turn off
all messages from communities or opt to select messages from specific communities
or (future) groups of communities. In fact, this sort of expand/collapse
UI would be wonderful for permissioning / searching
/ filtering on orkut in general!
Miscellaneous UI and other stuff
And now the moment you?ve been waiting for... where I actually talk about
(mostly) small changes you could implement that would make the existing orkut
service a lot more useful and pleasant. As noted in the intro, I?ll try
not to harp on the obvious stuff that everyone has already (often justifiably)
ragged on (e.g., optionally persistent logins, etc.)
- Show
more useful data in lists! For instance, on the my community
list, there are little three-pronged icons to the
left of every group. Why? This
fancy but useless bullet point would be great to
replace with an icon or text indicator of sorts...
whether a group is moderated or not, whether I?ve
accessed it in the last [x] days, the name of the
last thread AUTHOR, anything
at all! - The
current classify-a-friend widget is really horrible
from a usability standpoint! Anything in
this area would be an improvement... a dropdown menu, radio buttons, etc. - Allow
users to indicate languages they speak. Correspondingly,
have people note the language in any FoaF messages
they send. And
then... don?t send messages written in French to
people who don?t speak French, and so on.
confirmations more consistently! When someone
clicks on the delete link
on a post, this request should be confirmed!- Include
useful icons on more buttons... e.g., include an arrow for next page, a pen+paper for
new topic, etc.
put critical links next to each other without padding... e.g., edit and delete!
(icons here would also be useful)- Don?t
allow identically-named communities. I guess it?s a bit late for this,
but... - Throughout
the service, it?s important that you indicate change. The ?news?
link is largely useless because there?s no reason to click on it. It
should be bright red when there?s news a user hasn?t
yet seen - The
upcoming birthday thing should be reworked into ?Upcoming events? and should
be minimizeable.
steps? should be smarter (I?ve already filled out my profile, darnit).
the dumb fortune. This could be replaced with
much more relevant text (?Bee Ling has recently
added new pictures? or ?Your
needs a moderator. Interested?? or ?Did you know
that on orkut you can...? and so on)- Allow
users to specify pagination (max records per page) that they like per section.
network connections like Kartoo does! J Or at least in a graphical format of some sort.
the love of God, please move the location
of the ?Send message? button. For
an action that is appropriate only on rare occasions,
it should not be
in the (highly visible) upper-left location! And
while you?re at it, kindly add the warning above the text entry box, so people will see it before writing
a message that?s bound to annoy several thousand people.- I?m
especially fond of
and (honestly!) not just because of the head-swelling compliment at the
Discovery
I definitely enjoy orkut?s new ?related communities?
feature, and I also noticed that there were some personal recommendations
in a recent orkut newsletter. I?d like to see more of this! Perhaps orkut
could highlight a different person on one?s homepage at each logon, including
their pic, info from a random field, and an explanation
of the connection (?Joanna is in many of the same communities you are.? Or
?Many of your friends are also friends with Joanna.? etc.)
The bottom line
Here?s my harsh but heartfelt recommendation:
Scrap the existing orkut, or at least the entire UI.
Take what you?ve learned and apply it to a new system built from the ground
up, structured and coded by a substantial team of UI folks, social scientists,
experienced online community people, collaborative filtering geniuses, and
so on. Make goals up front and communicate them internally to engineers
and externally to members and potential members. Establish a team presence
as a group of facilitators / moderators, not policemen. Actively solicit
input and assistance from members constantly. Hire more customer service
people; temps are cheap (I?d think).
Google would then easily have the ability to envision and implement a truly
outstanding trust-based social & professional networking service with
the UI simple-elegance of Gmail and the far-reaching change-the-world-power
of Google search.
Great job and excellent efforts, Adam.
ReplyDeleteWell to long to read but need more patient to digest it.
hi frnd
ReplyDeletesir there is a complain regarding powerscrap chat.
There are few people who has been made as moderator and they are misusing that rights by banning few innocent people.
so i want to make u r attention towards such moderator.
Thanking you
Deepak
What about themes which are providing on orkut, It may be dangerous and contain suspisious scripts, and they are doing promotions it in automated scraps as well as well as by sending an emails.
ReplyDelete