Just getting back online and picking up on some of the subjects you’re discussing. I agree with all that’s said above, including some of the show (diagrams etc may make it easier to understand the principles,some videos also help and I often find this with the videos I see from Commoncraft – http://www.commoncraft.com/)

With regards to your explanation, I understand it so it must be work You may want to think about adding some more examples, for instance one of the things I’ve found through blogging is that even when I’m not posting I’m still gaining hits and views, and obviously producing something that is of interest. This increases when I do post and I would hope is the start of the dialogue, conversations etc and a potential network effect (my network has definately grown through blogging and following other peoples blogs.)

I think theres maybe a broader challenge to take on too towards getting useful online conversations/networking going. The problem at the moment is the most active online are those either with a particular interest in the geek side of things, or those trying to promote themselves – because of this its likely that the conversations that end up dominating your networks can quickly become boring. Likewise especially with twitter people can understandably be put off by the gossipy stuff or “I need a cup of tea” posts, and yet its these little snippets that are maybe more towards fostering community than those that broadcast.

I wonder if something that allowed people to find people according to subjects and discussions they are interested in would help? At the mo we search people out according to how relevant they may seem by their job title etc. but maybe we need something thats more focussed on what people want to talk about ie. a “charity fundraiser” might seem relevant but they’re not if all they do is talk about their fundraising services – what we really want is to take part in discussions about how to fundraise, & sources of fundraising.

Personally I spend more time reading results from the search terms in nambu than I do from those I follow on twitter now – but while this is more interesting and relevant for me I don’t tend to engage in those discussions because largely they are people I don’t follow and wouldn’t likely follow me, so although their post is maybe interesting to me theres little prospect of actual networking or ongoing dialogue.

So maybe if we could crate something that helps link together relevant debates people could see more relevance and would more likely have useful conversations?

That does help indeed. I think what I’m trying to get to by explaining ‘network effects’ is to show that, unless your interests match with a ready-made online community of interest (.e.g. people talking tech… you can always find those…) you need to take a slow organic approach to growing your use of social tools.

However, talking ‘network effects’ may not be the best way to get at this?

It strikes as worth reflecting on how engaging in online spaces can increase one or more of the:

* Breadth
* Depth
and
* Velocity

of conversations and dialogue. And different strategies are appropriate to building your own networks as suited for these different goals.

It may be interesting in a pedagogical resource to offer a decision tool – that helps people to consider which form of network they wish to build for themselves…

So maybe if we can really stress quality, dialogue and sharing and steer people away from quantity and from too much self-serving/self promotion we can help a little towards encouraging better quality networks?

Actually I’m not sure if that helps at all towards your question?!

In this case I’m looking to equip people with an understanding of tools that is based on principles. Understanding of principles can be helped by demonstration – but demonstration alone cannot reveal underlying principles.