Where should web discussions live?


I’ll rephrase that question, where do web discussions want to live?

Disconnected islands of social information exist throughout the web and beyond to other internet communication channels. IRC and Instant Messaging have been standard exchange mediums that cater to real time interaction. Email provides an asynchronous digital channel for connectivity. Forums, blogs and social platforms cater to near real time exchange for larger groups, funneling visitor attention. Social audio and video are growing alternatives to text based communication.

I’ve had my share of experience with forums in the past decade as an avid online gamer, enough to know that discussions break down when constrained by one never ending chain. The conversation quickly diverges from the original topic and sprouts out to more casual exchanges and goofy jokes. Even if the updates remain focused on the post topic, the information is formatted in a less than ideal, continuous stream of divergent thoughts. New visitors can’t get a quick high quality answer, or reasonably understand what’s going on. We knew there had to be a better way, and if there’s one thing that’s done brilliantly on the web, it’s iterating and experimenting with different information forms.

I came across a related question on Quora concerning Twitter conversations. Should discussions on Twitter evolve to those on FriendFeed, Facebook, or Google Buzz? The following was my off the cuff answer:

Twitter is a great jump point, a focal point of concentrated attention for news and what’s happening now in the areas you are most interested. But conversations about topics are too limited and would result in additional noise on the channel (unless hid by default).

The current follow model flows all updates from people you subscribe to which is subject to noise. Not many twitter accounts are topic specific. Updates cover a range of interest areas and you have to filter out what’s not immediately interesting or necessary from what is.

That’s where utilities like Quora, Stack Overflow, blog posts and Disqus can come in handy. The conversations can grow outside of the update service and maintain a relationship to the source. Now what would be useful is a connected or linked network from tweets, buzz updates, and posts to all the conversations that happen about them. Conversations have a way of growing in many different web kingdoms, Hacker News and Reddit are obvious sources. But add to that thousands of blog posts about a specific event or decision and all the comments about those posts. There are literally unbounded conversation locations that result from compelling posts.

But that’s ok. That’s what the web is designed to handle. Unbounded information growth and exchange

I’ll zero in on this quoted idea:

conversations can grow outside of the update service and maintain a relationship to the source

What I refer to above is value in adding machine readable structure to human conversations. It’s the motivation behind semantic formats like rdf. Relations between data can be written into the data so that more meaning and higher utility information can be delivered to those in need. A link between two resources can have qualities beyond an href, such as sentiment, topics of association, or descriptive verbs.

I see future web conversations moving far beyond text in a single language, on a single host/domain. With the growing strength of machine intelligence translators and speech to text tools, detailed conversations between people all over the world will be possible, in languages they are most familiar with. Both real time, and asynchronous text, audio, and social video will serve as viable conversation conduits between motivated minds.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
  • Pingback: Should discussions on Twitter evolve to those of FriendFeed, Facebook or Google Buzz? - Quora

  • http://www.wyman.us/ bobwyman

    The Salmon protocol can help in allowing conversations to grow “outside of the update service” yet still maintain a relationship to the subject of the discussion. See: http://www.salmon-protocol.org/

    With Salmon, you should be able to comment anywhere, yet have your comments “swim back” to the post or object that you are commenting on. This means, for instance, that you should be able to create comments on your own web site or blog and still have them appear on the post on which you’re commenting. The nice thing about that is that you are then able to maintain and control a collection of the comments you have written — even if the post goes away or the owner of the post deletes your comment… Check out Salmon. It provides a general mechanism for broadcasting linked content around the web.

  • http://www.victusspiritus.com/ Mark Essel

    Thanks for your input Bob. Although I’m familiar with Salmon I have yet to implement it, and as far as I understand it, the host has to implement a way of catching the slap as it swims back up stream. So it’s utility is limited by a lack of widespread adoption. Adoption by one or two popular services will give it life.

  • http://wave-france.blogspot.com Supercopter

    Where should web discussions live ?
    I’d definitely say in Google Wave !

    Wave may not have had the mass adoption expected by Google chairmans, it’s a revolutionary communication tool that could have changed the web… And it’s not over yet as the Wave Protocol is open-source and it’s certainly going to get better now that Wave’s code has been donated to the Apache Software Foundation.

    Wave is real time, has asynchronous text, rich audio and video content, social extensions + robots and gadgets to serve as a all-integrated conversation conduit between motivated minds ! ;-)

    As English is not my native language, I’ll quote to friends who may have expressed this clearer than me :

    ” I thought the biggest breakthrough in Wave was the idea of one format that could do everything. It may not be amazing at all those things, but IMO having one tool to do ten things is better then ten separate tools. “

    ” Wave is a medium in which people express themselves not only with words but with functionality. Be it voting tools, embedded maps, “napkin” doodling gadgets or whatever, the completely fluid transition between a simple conversation into sophisticated collaborations based on embedded functionality is a huge, huge strength of Wave. “

    Thanks for your blog Mark !

  • http://www.victusspiritus.com/ Mark Essel

    I too am a fan of wave, my only regret was that it wasn’t more html/web friendly. In fact that may have been the only thing stopping it from broader adoption. Hope to see it make a phoenix like comeback from open source.

    Thanks for stopping by and saying hi.

  • FAKE GRIMLOCK

    DISQUS STEP IN RIGHT DIRECTION FOR THIS.

    IT NOT TAKE MUCH TO ADD TO DISQUS TO MAKE IT REPLACEMENT FOR QUORA, STACKOVERFLOW, ETC. CONVERSATION INSTIGATED THERE WITH POST, LIVE INDEPENDENTLY.

    ADD BRANCHING, SO BRANCHES LEAVE HOST SITE, LIVE ONLY ON DISQUS.

    SOON THAT GROW INTO HUGE, ONGOING COMMUNITY/CONVERSATION (SAME THING, REALLY), AND BECOME MORE POWERFUL THAN INDIVIDUAL CONVERSATION STARTING SITES.

    ME, GRIMLOCK, HOPE DISQUS THAT AMBITIOUS. IF NOT THEM, SOMEONE ELSE DO IT.

  • http://www.victusspiritus.com/ Mark Essel

    Agreed! I have high hopes for Disqus, and am
    confident that they’ll continue to grow because they move deliberately and with great discipline. There are many technical hurdles to having a distributed service deeply embedded in other sites while centralizing the conversation, and Disqus doesn’t have Facebook money. They are the most capable Facebook competitor from my vantage point.

  • FAKE GRIMLOCK

    TECHNICAL HURDLES JUST SIGN OF PROBLEM WORTH SOLVING!