Online Communities are not Social Networks

[Pfeiffer]

This came up in relation to IP.Gallery, but it should be general comment.

Even though integration and connection to social networks are great features, online communities are different to social networks.

So when developing a new Gallery, then it is important to not assume that it will always be used like Facebook, where we are all sharing photos of Jenny's first bike or last summers holiday trip.
It might be used in forums that use the gallery for images other than photos, like computer graphics, tech drawings, blueprints, etc. So cropping of image thumbnails should be an option.

Also, some online communities are groups of professionals, where things like Like or Friends become unwelcome social network features.
So it is important, to be able to have the option to disable the Like/Rate, Reputation, Share, Friends, etc. features both globaly, or for a particular application running on IP.Board.
Presently, some places need to be skinned out.

Now that work is going on in the Calendar, then please also consider that it too, will be used to schedule recurring meetings, seminars, etc. like on the "first monday of every month", links to threads, etc. - not just for birthdays and RSVPs.

[Ikadon]

I totally agree! I never intended to built a competitor to facebook or any other social-network.

[crabpaws]

Also completely agree.

In some contexts, "Like" can be ludicrous.

[sunrisecc]

I also agree.

[Aisha]

All of you may agree, but there are so many customers here on ipb that want the social networking junk on their site because they believe it helps bring activity to the site. So because of them ips has to add the features. You, on the other hand, can just disable them.

[Michael]

A social network is a social structure made up of individuals (or organizations) called "nodes", which are tied (connected) by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship, common interest, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or relationships of beliefs, knowledge or prestige.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network

Sounds like a definition that applies to an 'online community' to me.

EDIT: That's not to say that you don't have a valid point that some things could use toggles to disable them, but I'm just saying a forum absolutely is a 'social network'.

[Pfeiffer]

All of you may agree, but there are so many customers here on ipb that want the social networking junk on their site because they believe it helps bring activity to the site. So because of them ips has to add the features. You, on the other hand, can just disable them.

If you read what I was asking - is precisely that. The ability to disable features that I do not need. Some of them don't have this as an option. Like I've had to skin out the share features in Gallery.

Source: http://en.wikipedia..../Social_network

Sounds like a definition that applies to an 'online community' to me.

EDIT: That's not to say that you don't have a valid point that some things could use toggles to disable them, but I'm just saying a forum absolutely is a 'social network'.

Thanks for the strict "dictionary definition".
In my world, there is a community that comes to a forum founded on a common interest. Be that interest for vintage cars, Santa Claus, professional network of lawyers, class of 67, etc. They use a forum system to gather around and discuss this common interest.
A social network goes beyond the boundaries of a common interest. It is friends, colleagues, family and may/may not also include people that share a common interest as above. Facebook and other social networks also have community and common interest aspects about them.

I have yet to see a community forum that is created solely as a social network without having any common interest.

Of course these areas can overlap each other. And it is therefore nice to have social network features in a forum, because they do have a social aspect. I am just suggesting that they can be readily disabled IF the community does not need them.
Like a closed forum for a community of professional doctors might just see the friends, like and share features as something unwanted on their system.

[crabpaws]

The question being, which features should be default settings on forum software and which should be options?

Rather than supply software loaded with bells and whistles to be turned *off*, I suggest a more strategic approach would be to supply a sound basic forum out of the box -- a smaller feature set -- and allow advanced features to be turned *on*.

Advantages:

1) A cleaner end-user interface out of the box, with cleaner engineering.

2) People looking for a user experience with fewer frills would need less support in finding and editing out unneeded features.

3) Advanced features can be rationally grouped as modules in the ACP. Customer looking for more advanced features -- likely more advanced admins -- are better able than inexperienced admins to figure out how to turn them *on*, more motivated to do so, and will find more satisfaction in fiddling with the software.

4) The approach is expandable, since advanced features can be added as modules rather than interwoven with the interface. This is a development process that's easier to manage also.

5) All the above would be easier to document and support: Start out with a basic site, add stuff to it.

Another way to make the design decisions: Set the defaults for the largest number of customers. Some features *everyone* would want, those definitely go into the basic feature set. Then there's the next tier, features most customers would want -- judgment call there. Next tier: Features less in demand, those go into the ACP as options to turn *on*.

I don't know what features are in the second and third tiers, Invision would have to do some research among its target markets to find that out.

PS For many reasons, whatever is posted in these forums is not necessarily representative of Invision's target markets or even the market for forum software in general.

[bfarber]

The question being, which features should be default settings on forum software and which should be options?

Rather than supply software loaded with bells and whistles to be turned *off*, I suggest a more strategic approach would be to supply a sound basic forum out of the box -- a smaller feature set -- and allow advanced features to be turned *on*.

Advantages:

1) A cleaner end-user interface out of the box, with cleaner engineering.

2) People looking for a user experience with fewer frills would need less support in finding and editing out unneeded features.

3) Advanced features can be rationally grouped as modules in the ACP. Customer looking for more advanced features -- likely more advanced admins -- are better able than inexperienced admins to figure out how to turn them *on*, more motivated to do so, and will find more satisfaction in fiddling with the software.

4) The approach is expandable, since advanced features can be added as modules rather than interwoven with the interface. This is a development process that's easier to manage also.

5) All the above would be easier to document and support: Start out with a basic site, add stuff to it.

Another way to make the design decisions: Set the defaults for the largest number of customers. Some features *everyone* would want, those definitely go into the basic feature set. Then there's the next tier, features most customers would want -- judgment call there. Next tier: Features less in demand, those go into the ACP as options to turn *on*.

I don't know what features are in the second and third tiers, Invision would have to do some research among its target markets to find that out.

PS For many reasons, whatever is posted in these forums is not necessarily representative of Invision's target markets or even the market for forum software in general.

One issue I have with this approach, as a general frame of mind at least, is that if you ship the software with a feature turned off, you really have to ask yourself if that feature is valuable and worth developing and maintaining in the first place.

Some want a cleancut forum out of the box without frills.
Some want a huge suite that can do everything under the sun.

Most people fall somewhere in the middle, and that is why most functionality is enabled out of the box, with the ability to disable individual items you don't want or need. It's hard to find a perfect balance because everyone has a different mindset and approach. :)

[Pfeiffer]

One issue I have with this approach, as a general frame of mind at least, is that if you ship the software with a feature turned off, you really have to ask yourself if that feature is valuable and worth developing and maintaining in the first place.

Some want a cleancut forum out of the box without frills.

Some want a huge suite that can do everything under the sun.

Most people fall somewhere in the middle, and that is why most functionality is enabled out of the box, with the ability to disable individual items you don't want or need. It's hard to find a perfect balance because everyone has a different mindset and approach. :)

As a general frame of mind I agree, if we are talking about a feature here or there. However, when talking of a feature set, then a modular approach is the answer to this.
IPS already has this approach for a variety of "modules", like IP.Seo, IP.Gallery, IP.Nexus, etc. And this is enhanced by plans to make IP.Calendar a separate add-on module too. These are feature sets for different functions, and do not necessarily have to ship with the initial product "out of the box". A lot of users will do without them, without it decreasing the overall value of your product.

What makes this approach neat, is that the customer doesn't have to remembering a feature switch here and there in lots of different places. And I see that is also what a lot of the ACP enhancements announced/planned for IPB 3.2 also work towards clearing up.

So "IP.Social" could be a separate module which has the Social Groups and other features that would fall under this category .

[crabpaws]

One issue I have with this approach, as a general frame of mind at least, is that if you ship the software with a feature turned off, you really have to ask yourself if that feature is valuable and worth developing and maintaining in the first place....

bfarber, I understand when you do good work or even maybe a brilliant piece of engineering, you want people to be able to appreciate it.

In response to a question from a friend, I was just looking at Invision's company home page https://www.invisionpower.com/ and came across this very prominent slogan:

We make communities easy. We're leading providers of turn-key community software.

"Turn-key" is the promise. I've been asking "turn-key for whom?" My personal assumption as a prospective customer was "turn-key for basic communities." If that is what Invision wants to offer, in my opinion it needs to make the basic features more elegant -- make the end-user interface easier to use -- and the fancier optional features easier to turn off and on for the admin without additional coding. This does not mean giving up on cutting-edge software development. But it may mean shipping the software with some features turned off.

That leads to the question of defining a *basic* feature set, which leads to the question of which customer population you're designing for, which leads to the question of what the company sees as its target markets.

I'm very sorry this has been interpreted as criticism of your efforts or anyone else's at Invision. I think it has more to do with the management direction of a maturing company than with engineering.

[Mushxx]

Most people fall somewhere in the middle, and that is why most functionality is enabled out of the box, with the ability to disable individual items you don't want or need. It's hard to find a perfect balance because everyone has a different mindset and approach. :)

You could compare this to Windows 7

Window 7 Business- all features
Windows 7 Home- Most features
Windows 7 N- Basic features

This gives the customer the choice of what they want without having to have features they don't want. so basically you could release 3 versions of IP Board;

IP All Bells and Whistles- All Official IP products in one, IP Board, IP Blogs, IP Gallery etc Plus social networking features
IP Social- IP Board with social networking features such as Facebook like etc
IP Basic- just the board with no frills

This way it would also make it more affordable for people who just want a forum, this means more sales and everyone is happy :)

Also whilst I see the potential of being linked to Twitter and Facebook for traffic and the convenience of them not having to fill in forms, it defeats the purpose of a community as you are basically saying Facebook and Twitter do things better and sending people there instead of keeping them on the forum. Wouldn't it better if the whole registration system was made simpler thus avoiding the need to use these other sites?

Plus IPB should really be looking into creating forums which beat Twitter and Facebook so our members don't want to use Facebook and Twitter in the first place.

For example: simplify everything from registering to posting, improve navigation and search and add fun features such as a community driven arcade, contests people can join in as a community, make the emphasis that it is community driven and concentrate on this. Perhaps it is time to move from the traditional forum index page to a much simpler dynamic page which shows all the recent content across the whole board and is easier to comment on? as the threads are listed you should be able to comment on them from there instead of having to click through. The post screens could be much simpler as well.

[Cyrem]

I agree. I have all these 'social' features turned off. My forum isn't Facebook or Twitter and I don't want my community to be linked with them. My view is, who cares if Johnny clicked 'like' on 500 images. I'm not going to bother looking through what he clicked 'like' on...

I encourage IP focus less on facebook-styling their products and more focus on internal forum workings.

[Mushxx]

Oh and tags, these are very important as people can actually find things related to what they are interested in much easier.

The main problems our new members have are navigation and finding things, second to registering and posting. They find the process complicated whereas it should be simple.

[optrexnz]

All of you may agree, but there are so many customers here on ipb that want the social networking junk on their site because they believe it helps bring activity to the site. So because of them ips has to add the features. You, on the other hand, can just disable them.

Thats the point being made by the OP. Give admins the choice. Don't just remove mini thumbs for square ones. Don't just remove topic icons in a new version release. Otherwise every version of IPB board will become the same. Let the admins CHOOSE the feature set.

[Mushxx]

Along with choice of feature sets, nothing really flows, all the official add ons seem very much stand alone it would be nice if they all came together somehow, so from a post screen you could set up an event, post to a blog page, post a picture to the gallery, submit an issue, donate or buy something, change settings on your account, answer or make PMs without having to go to separate parts to do this. The search should also be in one with filters by choice.

[jackflash]

By the end of April, we'll have 50 IPB licenses. This is in addition to our VB ones. I wouldn't go as far as to generalize that forum communities are not social networks because they often are. Today, the lines are being blurred here a little between what constitutes a social site vs. a forum, however, people do use their favorite forum as a social community.

The larger question, which was already asked, is what components should be included in a future version of IPB? It's obvious that everything cannot be included and even if it could be done, what % of forum operators would use all of it?

The idea of a "social component" or module might have some merit to it.

A while ago, Google asked me if I would be warm to the idea of free forum software. . .we'd split the ad sense revenue with them. I don't know if this will come to fruition, however, the idea of using a forum as a social community has at least been entertained.

I do believe that as companies continue to embrace social media, there will be, to some extent a focus on forums. This is principally because forums provide a target audience for those certain products and or services that a manufacturer needs to promote.

[Pfeiffer]

Today, the lines are being blurred here a little between what constitutes a social site vs. a forum, however, people do use their favorite forum as a social community.

I agree they get blurred. But I still stick to the general statement and think it is important to define your starting point. How it gets blurred along the way is a different story.
People do use communities as social forums. That does not make it strictly a social site from the start without the boundaries of having a target audience. Just because I go to my online motorcycle community and also go out driving with most of them on sundays, doesn't make my community a social site for my friends and family to just come in and discuss beer or roses. We are there because we share the common "definition" of being motorcycle enthusiast.

In the same sense, most will join Facebook as a social network that connects them to friends and family. They will then also find the a fan page for Elvis Presley and other community like things where they find other people that share common interests. That doesn't define Facebook as a online community for Elvis fans.

I do believe that as companies continue to embrace social media, there will be, to some extent a focus on forums. This is principally because forums provide a target audience for those certain products and or services that a manufacturer needs to promote.

Which is why we will agree, it is important to have a clear definition of who your target is. Are they customers of my company, motorcycle enthusiast, amateur photographers, or just people living in the Bay Area?
Then you have a clearer picture of where and how to target your audience: Forum vs Social site, Forum with added social group features vs Facebook with Company brand page, etc etc. Until it gets really grey

I like the IPB approach with having different "modules". Just add IP.Calendar if your community needs it. Just add IP.Gallery if your community needs it. etc. etc.
What I would like, and what I see a lot of others asking, is a simpler feature setup that gives end-users a simpler interface to start up with. Let us (the Admins) open up for advanced features and add the modules we need for our community.

Precisely because more and more people tend to compare to Facebook, etc. and think a forum must function more like that, it is also important to simplify some of the basic things to keep IPB attractive, as the number one choice for online communities.

[crabpaws]

...What I would like, and what I see a lot of others asking, is a simpler feature setup that gives end-users a simpler interface to start up with. Let us (the Admins) open up for advanced features and add the modules we need for our community.

Precisely because more and more people tend to compare to Facebook, etc. and think a forum must function more like that, it is also important to simplify some of the basic things to keep IPB attractive, as the number one choice for online communities.

Agree and agree.

Facebook and Twitter are new and people are enthusiastic about them, but what industry analysts say is that they are *short-form* communication tools. They are telegraphic stop. For longer, more thoughtful conversations -- like this one -- forums or blogs are better media.

Facebook and Twitter are fine for what they do and are attracting people who would never have the patience to get addicted to a forum. Others want to work out their thoughts, carry on long correspondence with people outside of their social circles, and get mental stimulation from long forms of communication.

[Rikki]

We do not view features like the Share Links and "Facebook Like" (or indeed our own Like system) as 'social networking' features. On the whole we are not trying to create a social network. We are topic-focused, not people-focused.

These features are all about spreading your content. Surely the goal of most communities is to encourage as many people as possible to see your content? Giving your members the ability to share topics they like on Facebook, and therefore bring in new visitors to your community, is surely a good thing. If, for some reason, you don't want to allow that, it's a simple switch. I personally don't think it warrants a separate version of IP.Board.

Our aim when adding these kinds of features is to give you tools to promote your content and community, that's it.

[Pfeiffer]

We do not view features like the Share Links and "Facebook Like" (or indeed our own Like system) as 'social networking' features. On the whole we are not trying to create a social network. We are topic-focused, not people-focused.

These features are all about spreading your content. Surely the goal of most communities is to encourage as many people as possible to see your content? Giving your members the ability to share topics they like on Facebook, and therefore bring in new visitors to your community, is surely a good thing. If, for some reason, you don't want to allow that, it's a simple switch. I personally don't think it warrants a separate version of IP.Board.

Our aim when adding these kinds of features is to give you tools to promote your content and community, that's it.

Thanks Rikki.
I will be repeating myself here... But if you look thru the posts, then you will note that we are NOT asking for these features to be removed. I am asking for a cleaner way for Admins to be able to enable/disable them as applicable for their community, without too much customisation.
And also that, in ACP, some of them be grouped in a more intuitive way.

Also I don't think we are asking for a separate IP.Board version, just that you continue and improve on the application add-ons that cater for different feature sets - like you already do with IP.Gallery, IP.Chat, etc.

And also that maybe some of the existing feature sets, can be moved to a separate add-on module to give a cleaner "off the shelf" IP.Board package, like you will be doing with IP.Calendar.

In turn, IP.Calendar should also be designed to cater for more than just social events and IP.Gallery shouldn't only focus on just sharing pictures like on a social network. So for instance, Admins must be able to enable/disable features like the thumbnails issue so we also cater for blueprints, 3D diagrams, etc.

Again, some would like social groups built into IP.Board; that could be a "IP.Social" add-on application that has Social Groups, Facebook/Twitter integration, etc. and lots of other things.

On the other hand, even when we do have the option to disable some feature - some things still need to be skinned out even if disabled in ACP. Like you say No to Enable Share Links, there are still places where the Share button shows up (yes, mostly without links). It just shouldn't be there at all. There are other examples. These things shouldn't require this kind of customisation. Switch it off and its gone.

From your [url=", it seems that you are addressing a lot of these requests regarding a simpler and more intiutive interface for new posts/replies, easier management of ACP, etc. Looking very forward to this.

[crabpaws]

About the history of online communities and forum software, see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12224588

and Youtube

The WELL, an entirely text-based Unix system started in 1989, is the ancestor of forum software everywhere. It was a descendant of Usenet (1980), which was a descendant of ARPAnet (1969). The WELL is still active on the Salon.com site. Usenet is still around, with millions of posts archived in a database now owned by Google.

Is Facebook an evolution or a branch off the bbs family tree? I vote for branch. I would not put my money on Facebook replacing forums, although it now offers private discussion groups to which you may invite your friends.

[Rikki]

private discussion groups to which you may invite your friends.

This is the crucial difference between social networks and forums, in my opinion. Social networks are about people - who you follow, who they're following, and what they like. Forums are different, they're about subjects and discussion, and the people are secondary to that.

The closest thing to forums I think Facebook offers is Pages, where users can add themselves to a topic. Even then, I don't think it's as effective as a full-blown discussion forum, and in many cases is still quite one-way. I think there's certainly room for both, since they're different models.

When we add features that many people class as 'social networking', our ultimate aim is to promote content, foster the community and encourage members to stick around by giving them a sense of belonging :)

[Christophe]

Point is that Facebook sucks donkey ballz when it comes to user privacy and respect of its members.

Its fine that the head of the company is an a**hole but that does not justify screwing people over their privacy. People have lost their job when privacy settings where changed without user approval and the bosses of people who had criticized their company to their friends became public information and these people lost their job. Facebook I hope will die one day a quick and painful death and will be replaced by some other company that care more about its members privacy.

As far as social network I am sorry but I run a 75k board and we do exactly the same thing as what facebook does without the ads and with better privacy controls so IPB IS a social network for us.

The one thing I can not stand is the use of that retarded LIKE feature on all those sites...what if I do NOT like something, why can t I express that as well? You can like or dislike posts, give or take away reputation but you are worried (facebook) that your members will abuse the DISLIKE feature? Why do you think there is thumbs up or down on Youtube for example? So that you can rate a content as good or bad.

If Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle make stupid comments on Facebook, why is the only option to show support and not rate down a comment/post?

Either you provide tools that can promote or burry a post/story/profile or you don't. The half assed LIKE option is for kiddies who are still in school. The LIKE feature needs to die also a slow death.It is as infuriating as the 'no comments allowed and no ratings enabled" on youtube where people spread misinformation and lies and you can not warn others or refute what is being presented. Online communities MUST provide tools to rate content both up and down

[rastaX]

I wish I could give you more than one rep point for that post.......... :thumbsup: