Nice post :) Foken refs

- NEENEISLIGN

Pandora jewelry sale

- Pandora jewelry sale

This message is posted here using XRumer + XEvil 4.0

XEvil 4.0 is a revolutionary application that can solve almost any antibot protection.
Captcha Bypass Google (ReCaptcha-1, ReCaptcha-2), Facebook, BING, Hotmail, Yahoo,
Yandex, VKontakte, Captcha Com - and over 8.4 million other types!

You read this - it means it works! ;)
Details on the official website of XEvil.Net, there is a free demo version.

Check YouTube video "XEvil ReCaptcha2"
- Mashacrups

Gladwell's ideas are a nice way to start thinking about that complexity - certainly some kind of overlay would help. It's the qualitative differences in relationships that are hard to bring out, and that's certainly one way to start doing so (I have a vague recollection of reading about someone having tested Gladwell's hypothesis using social network analysis, but can't recall the outcome: does anyone know of any?)

It might also be interesting to consider different kinds of social capital in this respect - bonding, bridging, linking - which seem to fit quite well with the weak tie/strong tie notion and might be more in line with Eric's thoughts on temporary relationship management. What we want in such a context is probably both bridging and linking social capital, but probably not bonding social capital.

I understand Gladwell's "Mavens" and "Connectors" to be much the same as Rogers (Diffusion of Innovations) "Opinion Leaders" and "Change Agents" would this be appropriate?

On a different note. Rogers Generalization 8-12 States: Individuals tend to be linked to others who are close to them in physical distance and who are relatively homophilous in social characteristics. Would this then suggest social networking systems and virtual worlds should be effective because they provide rich communication effectively reducing the impact of physical distance.

I'd agree with that. Interesting discussion.

Again, it's risky to over-generalise though - a tendency tends to veil the specifics and very far from all communities involve physically close, socially homophilous people. For instance, it's worth distinguishing geographical communities, communities of action, communities of practice, communities of interest etc (there are many dozens of definitions of 'community' and thousands of sub-types). The benefits probably apply in most cases but they probably apply differently and it's not all about physical distance. 

In many cases I'm unconvinced that SNs and virtual worlds provide 'rich' communication, though I guess it depends on your definition. In fact, once we leave the physical environment, it's pretty ambiguous what the benefits of richer communication are and it is sometimes the lack of richness that gives benefits. For example, it's easier to tell if someone is lying if you hear them on the phone than if you are talking to them in real life. Discussion forum posts tend to be more thought-through and offer different (not necessarily better) value to learners than real-time conversations. Twitter posts work differently than blog posts and give us more control over the pace in some ways (less in others). It's not so much that communication is rich, perhaps, as that it is possible in a broader range of ways and contexts. None of them, including the most immersive video conference, come close to being with a person in a physical space but each shapes and influences how we interact in different ways, sometimes offering something more suited to our needs (often not). I'd suggest maybe it's the breadth and specialisation rather than the depth that brings benefits?

Gladwell's ideas are a nice way to start thinking about that complexity - certainly some kind of overlay would help. It's the qualitative differences in relationships that are hard to bring out, and that's certainly one way to start doing so (I have a vague recollection of reading about someone having tested Gladwell's hypothesis using social network analysis, but can't recall the outcome: does anyone know of any?)

It might also be interesting to consider different kinds of social capital in this respect - bonding, bridging, linking - which seem to fit quite well with the weak tie/strong tie notion and might be more in line with Eric's thoughts on temporary relationship management. What we want in such a context is probably both bridging and linking social capital, but probably not bonding social capital.

I understand Gladwell's "Mavens" and "Connectors" to be much the same as Rogers (Diffusion of Innovations) "Opinion Leaders" and "Change Agents" would this be appropriate?

On a different note. Rogers Generalization 8-12 States: Individuals tend to be linked to others who are close to them in physical distance and who are relatively homophilous in social characteristics. Would this then suggest social networking systems and virtual worlds should be effective because they provide rich communication effectively reducing the impact of physical distance.

I'd agree with that. Interesting discussion.

Again, it's risky to over-generalise though - a tendency tends to veil the specifics and very far from all communities involve physically close, socially homophilous people. For instance, it's worth distinguishing geographical communities, communities of action, communities of practice, communities of interest etc (there are many dozens of definitions of 'community' and thousands of sub-types). The benefits probably apply in most cases but they probably apply differently and it's not all about physical distance. 

In many cases I'm unconvinced that SNs and virtual worlds provide 'rich' communication, though I guess it depends on your definition. In fact, once we leave the physical environment, it's pretty ambiguous what the benefits of richer communication are and it is sometimes the lack of richness that gives benefits. For example, it's easier to tell if someone is lying if you hear them on the phone than if you are talking to them in real life. Discussion forum posts tend to be more thought-through and offer different (not necessarily better) value to learners than real-time conversations. Twitter posts work differently than blog posts and give us more control over the pace in some ways (less in others). It's not so much that communication is rich, perhaps, as that it is possible in a broader range of ways and contexts. None of them, including the most immersive video conference, come close to being with a person in a physical space but each shapes and influences how we interact in different ways, sometimes offering something more suited to our needs (often not). I'd suggest maybe it's the breadth and specialisation rather than the depth that brings benefits?

Gladwell's ideas are a nice way to start thinking about that complexity - certainly some kind of overlay would help. It's the qualitative differences in relationships that are hard to bring out, and that's certainly one way to start doing so (I have a vague recollection of reading about someone having tested Gladwell's hypothesis using social network analysis, but can't recall the outcome: does anyone know of any?)

It might also be interesting to consider different kinds of social capital in this respect - bonding, bridging, linking - which seem to fit quite well with the weak tie/strong tie notion and might be more in line with Eric's thoughts on temporary relationship management. What we want in such a context is probably both bridging and linking social capital, but probably not bonding social capital.

I understand Gladwell's "Mavens" and "Connectors" to be much the same as Rogers (Diffusion of Innovations) "Opinion Leaders" and "Change Agents" would this be appropriate?

On a different note. Rogers Generalization 8-12 States: Individuals tend to be linked to others who are close to them in physical distance and who are relatively homophilous in social characteristics. Would this then suggest social networking systems and virtual worlds should be effective because they provide rich communication effectively reducing the impact of physical distance.

I'd agree with that. Interesting discussion.

Again, it's risky to over-generalise though - a tendency tends to veil the specifics and very far from all communities involve physically close, socially homophilous people. For instance, it's worth distinguishing geographical communities, communities of action, communities of practice, communities of interest etc (there are many dozens of definitions of 'community' and thousands of sub-types). The benefits probably apply in most cases but they probably apply differently and it's not all about physical distance. 

In many cases I'm unconvinced that SNs and virtual worlds provide 'rich' communication, though I guess it depends on your definition. In fact, once we leave the physical environment, it's pretty ambiguous what the benefits of richer communication are and it is sometimes the lack of richness that gives benefits. For example, it's easier to tell if someone is lying if you hear them on the phone than if you are talking to them in real life. Discussion forum posts tend to be more thought-through and offer different (not necessarily better) value to learners than real-time conversations. Twitter posts work differently than blog posts and give us more control over the pace in some ways (less in others). It's not so much that communication is rich, perhaps, as that it is possible in a broader range of ways and contexts. None of them, including the most immersive video conference, come close to being with a person in a physical space but each shapes and influences how we interact in different ways, sometimes offering something more suited to our needs (often not). I'd suggest maybe it's the breadth and specialisation rather than the depth that brings benefits?