Paradise Circus » Paradise Forum » chat

Widening the circle

(41 posts)
  1. @Fiona

    I should have contextualised my comments as being an internal dialogue that has nothing to do with how others see or approach me. I certainly wouldn't want to discourage people from reading me. That would be just weird and wrong.

    I guess I'm edging around some kind tension between my public and personal personas online. This is to be expected and the issue of pseudo-private conversations in the public arena has been around for ages, but it's still something we're figuring out. I've noticed in retrospect that how I approach my personal blog changed quite radically since Created in Birmingham took off and now I'm having similar issues with Twitter. This is nobody's fault but my own, obviously. Crudely, it's like I invited everyone in the world hang out at my home and then realised what they actually meant when a chunk of them took me up on it!

    But this is veering off topic.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. Steve Chapman

    I think the real problem might be the BSM 'scene' doesn't really know what it is - a group or a network. I belong to several of both. For example, my climbing club is a closed group. You have to pay a subscription, events are exclusive and there is a members-only Yahoo group. And you pretty much have to be a climber, or very interested in climbing, to join. My networks are different, tend to be non-exclusive and have a strong interest in getting people to link up, either virtually or physicaly. Both groups and networks are valid and valuable to me.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. The accusations of "clique" often (well, sometimes) occur on the BBC's message board for The Archers, which I host. It's a very strong, long running community (seven years), and as others have said, such feelings are inevitable.

    In the Brum setting, I think we could do ourselves a favour by being a bit less vehement in condemning people who use the tools in ways other that we do. We can still suggest they might get more out of them by using them in different ways, but we could express that in ways less likely to make outsiders, newbies and lurkers react "wo, scary..."

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. i think the most valuable thing is that by being aware we are aware of it - if you see what i mean. That's a bit Schroedinger, but it's true - i doubt we'd be having this conversation if there was really much of a problem other than in perception.

    What Social Media does tho', is enable any 'group' to show it's workings to those that are, or think they are outside it. That's different to even the most open groups or clubs from a few years ago.

    But I don't think it's possible to separate social tools from community completely - many to many communication does create community around users of the tools. There is a Twitter community, in the same way as there is a King's Heath community for example. You could live there but never talk to anyone else who does, but you are still having an effect on the community. So there is a Birmingham Flickr (for example) - it's made up of people that use Flickr to share photos of Brum, levels of interaction are widely different and ever-changing but it's there.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. In seven hours a wide range of people have contributed to this conversation. Many of them were not involved with our clique 6 months ago. That's important to remember - the clique ever widens.

    I think one of the key points made earlier is how getting things done together builds bonds.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. Personally, I am currently waking up at 5.30am and over breakfast with my daughter, using Tweetie's "Nearby" feature and friending every single person on Twitter within a 5 mile radius of my home. As far as I'm concerned I'm interested in what happens when you are in direct personal contact with 2000 people in your immediate vicinity (or as close to that number as Twitter will allow).

    But as Pete says, Social Media doesn't scale. Beyond that number Twitter does not allow. That's it - you can _only_ have a reciprocal relationship with that number of people. But more importantly than that (and this is arguable with some tools like TweetDeck) to have meaningful relationships with more than 150 people (according to Gladwell in The Tipping Point) is more or less impossible. Anything past that is just a partial brushing up against each other type interaction in an online train carriage.

    To me, there are a four words that are going to be important over the next few years: Trust, Filter, Local, Family.

    I see the little scene we have going on here as just the first bubble in what will become an overlapping bubblebath of social media use in the city.

    We trust other people to tell us things and we value their opinions. You don't need to be connected to thousands of people - you just need to be connected to a few hundred that you trust. These people you trust, filter the outside world and you pick things up from them. Usually those people are local to you because there are things about where you live that have an immediate bearing on your life and also affect the likelihood of you experiencing similar things in your everyday life. But by far the strongest connections are with your family and they are your most trusted local filters.

    A 'clique' is an important social device to enable people to share things with eachother and 'cut the cruft'- it reinforces thinking, enables people to talk at the same level as others and to learn based on what has been said before.

    So I think the premise that a 'clique' is a bad thing is fine to consider but let's not gloss over the fact that we do have a small, strongly connected group of people who are unusually public and well connected online in this city. To be honest it still surprises me that there aren't more hyperconnector (Pete, Bounder) types around. And then as if by magic yesterday I stumbled across someone who lives two miles away from me that I had never heard of online, whose name had never come up in conversation, and he had about 1500 followers on Twitter.

    I thought that was great. And we're going to see a lot more of that happening this year. It's a good thing. Yes - there's a little clique of geeky blogger types around, myself included, but 2009 is the year that this stuff is going to go mainstream. I've seen Emily's reaction to Twitter and the iphone and once I'd explained a little about how I use it, she was away and really enjoying using these tools we've all explored around and used so heavily, but with fresh eyes, and applied to her own personal niche that I know absolutely nothing about!

    The exact same thing happened two years ago with Flickr when we all kicked off on how amazing it was to take photos of the city and put them on a map and connect and chat to eachother. I've kind of dropped off Flickr recently, and I'm expecting the same thing to happen with lots of stuff I still use now (email anyone?)

    Fiona raised a good point about people feeling excluded and I've felt this myself - I've ranted online about how if 'you're' (apparently there is no 'you') organising a meetup for blogger or socially medially people that it needs to bear in mind that people like me, Emily, Dave, Charlotte all have kids nowadays, and 6pm just doesn't work. 8am - sure, no problem. Lunch - ace. 8pm, possibly, if the baby's gone to sleep okay.

    It's the details, it's the invitations to join the conversations, and I guess I just have to spend a little more time considering what people might think when I put out blog posts about this. Seriously, that 50+ People you need to follow on Twitter post came out of frustration of people saying to me 'I tried out Twitter but didn't know what to do after I signed up', and the number of people that have told me it was useful far outweighs the ones that have said it felt elitist. TBH - I had trouble making up that list of 50 of people I was following and that were actually using every day.

    It was the same urge for connectivity that a lot of us feel, the thing that spawned Flickrmeets, Created in Birmingham and a bunch of other stuff we've done - connect to others, then let it go... as Pete says, build yourself out of whatever you're doing.

    The result of the 50+ thing was that it worked, and loads more links were formed between people - yes it was a device, but it did the job I wanted it to do.

    As Dubber said to me (in jest) afterwards "Damn. Now I'm going to have to follow all these people instead of just you." Exactly.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. Great discussion. I read through it twice to make sure I got all the goodness out of it. It seems there are really two questions here.

    The original question was: So - how do we widen the circle?

    As I interpret it, what Jon is asking here is: how we can expand the community of strongly-interacting (micro-)bloggers in Birmingham. How can we encourage more people to join our particular group.

    The general principles for any such group apply. I've seen it from samba bands to circus schools. Be welcoming, inclusive and humble (there are some excellent examples in brumbloggers). Dodge esoteric references and any identification of an 'inner circle'. They reinforce group bonding but can also produce a hard 'kernal'.

    The more interesting question that naturally emerged with Pete's 10k Twitterers was: how to actually separate the tool from the community - 'personal irrelevance'. How to make the current network of social media types just another crowd alongside Birmingham flashmobbers, bouncers or EMO kids. How to create other circles. This is a tricky one that I suspect its getting harder over time as the Twitter community fortifies itself with Twestivals and Twierarchies.

    Meanwhile, other online communities are going from strength to strength mainly on the back of Facebook and MySpace. Their increasing experience of these on their mobile devices nicely prepares them for passive, local, real-time interactions of the serendipitous sort. It's inevitable and we don't need to worry about evangelising or educating users. The tools will be compelling enough in themselves. We ought to be thinking how to make them so as early as possible.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. >As I interpret it, what Jon is asking here is: how we can expand the community of strongly-interacting (micro-)bloggers in Birmingham. How can we encourage more people to join our particular group.

    That's not quite what I'm saying, I'm asking how we can make sure how anyone who feels that they'd like to join (but perceives barriers) is able to.

    I don't hold with the (New Labour) assertion that things must grow to get better - i couldn't give a damn how big any group is, just that people who want to be involved are.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. The Brum Bloggers meetups are open, inclusive and welcoming. I went to my first meetup in summer 2008 after an invite from Nick Booth - I didn't write a blog of my own, I wasn't using Twitter and didn't know anyone else who was going to the meetup. Why go? I was interested and thought I'd see what it was all about.

    The barrier to going to the meetup was personal, nothing to do with Brum Bloggers: walking into a room full of people you've never met is pretty daunting.

    > I'm asking how we can make sure how anyone who feels that they'd like to join (but perceives barriers) is able to

    A personal invitation did the trick for me. Nothing to do with social tools or technology.

    I threw myself in and the experience was fine and I've kept returning. The group is friendly, makes a special effort to welcome new people and keep in contact with them after the meets. For example, supporting people in setting up their blogs, commenting on posts and genuinely showing an interest.

    The 'Brum social media scene' (not sure what else to call it) didn't feel cliquey to me when I first started dabbling, whether in person at meetups, on Twitter or on discussion boards like this one. In fact, it was the opposite. Open and inclusive.

    A great thing about Brum Bloggers - in contrast to a few technology or creative-focused groups I've interacted with in the past - is the absence of obsessive arguments around tiny details and dominating personalities. Yes, there are debates but they don't spiral off into pedantry or one-up-personship. Yes, there are very experienced and talented people in this group; this doesn't mean that you have to be an expert to join in.

    There's always something you can share that might be valuable to someone else - irrespective of how you may perceive the value of your own knowledge - and this is the real nub of why Brum Bloggers is a great example of a social media scene that is actually connecting out rather than enclosing in on itself.

    The social media surgeries are a good example of this working and achieving something worthwhile. Brum Bloggers pull together people who are good at writing, campaigning, organising, networking or using technology. That's a diverse mix.

    Perhaps this is because those who have been involved for a while in the social media scene understand that it's really about people and relationships, a natural attraction to others with similar interests and (spot on Nick) the bonds that form when accomplishing something worthwhile in a group.

    Keep doing what you are doing. You're great at it.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. >>As I interpret it, what Jon is asking here is: how we can expand the community of strongly-interacting (micro-)bloggers in Birmingham. How can we encourage more people to join our particular group.

    >That's not quite what I'm saying, I'm asking how we can make sure how anyone who feels that they'd like to join (but perceives barriers) is able to.

    >I don't hold with the (New Labour) assertion that things must grow to get better - i couldn't give a damn how big any group is, just that people who want to be involved are.

    Thanks for correcting that poorly-worded interpretation, Jon.

    I've always found the Birmingham blogging community extremely open and welcoming, both online and at meets. I'd expect anyone who was interested in participating to be able to do so with very little resistance. And I don't consider myself to be the member of any 'clique' (or am I?).

    Naturally there are some who are more involved than others, particularly if it intersects with their work. This means they will interact more heavily with each other and become more highly recognised within the group. I guess this is what people are thinking of as an intimidating 'clique'. It's not intentional, merely a consequence of that extra degree of involvement over time.

    The solution - or at least part of it - is for old hats to continue to go out of their way to connect with relative newcomers and smudge the difference between them. I think we're pretty damn good at this already even though it often requires that extra little effort.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. Hello,

    Just found this site, and have read this discussion with some interest, and a smile. Clique's are interesting things, but I must admit that the idea of being 'in' or 'on the fringe' of the Birmingham blogging community quite funny. I live in the Birmingham area, and I post 3 blogs, 4 twitter accounts and have a couple of websites with Birmingham themes. Does this include me in the Birmingham blogging community even though I do not know one person virtually or otherwise in this scene??

    Anyway, I'm glad i've come across this site and will drop in now and again.

    Cheers!!

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.