Design idea: Analysis of demand characteristics Sina Weibo product design

Small talk a few words Sina Weibo

Just read the wheat field of "chat a few words Sina Weibo", I would like to look at this product from another angle of thinking. In fact, I always think that for product design, whether the ultimate success or not, depends largely on the grasp of demand characteristics, and the need to grasp the characteristics of demand often require qualitative and quantitative analysis, and quantitative analyses for external observers, because it is often difficult to get the actual operating data, so can not be effective reference. On the other hand, for interactive Community products, product function settings and the operation itself will have a great impact on the data, so this part of the impact also need to be a number of methods to quantitative analysis, exclusion, and finally be able to see the logic of the product itself and user requirements of the real relationship between the characteristics.
In this review of the wheat field, I personally feel that there is a place where I have seen some confusion, even the feeling is contradictory, on the one hand, the wheat field thinks the microblog should remove the comment, only stays reprint, raises the user to brush the screen the custom; But on the other hand, the wheat field hopes that Sina should "give up the media mentality", and I think this is contradictory in itself, Because the former is to give full play to media thinking, micro-bo as a more thorough new media, and the reality is that Sina Weibo in the media and community, look forward to communication and interaction.
Back to the theme-demand characteristics analysis.
1, first of all, for the word limit, I fully agree with the wheat field, word limit is in the control of information granularity, for a focus on high communication platform, information granularity control, it can be the dissemination of information efficiency maximization.
2. The need for reprint and commentary is different. Functionally it all looks the same, because reprint can also attach comments, and it does seem that most functions are approximate. But it is precisely the difference between the two functional differences that the wheat field ignores, which makes the application scenarios and the value provided by the two completely different.
When to use reprint, when to use comments? We look at the different results of the 3 characters in this one operation that can be discerned. A-original author, B-Reprint or reviewer, C-concerned person.
For a, whether B is reprint or commented, he was able to get the notice; for reprint, he could get more comment (c sees feedback after B's reprint), which allows a to receive more feedback on its original content, adding 2 parameters, One is personal attention (a lot of people get more fans through good meager reprint), and the other is more interactive opportunities.
If the action of B is a comment, then a can only get the interaction with B.
And for C, only b reprint, he can see, and b if it is a comment, C is unable to learn.
From here we can see that the problem is that when B has a different attitude to the topic content and to author A, it takes two different actions.when you want your fans to be involved in the discussion of this topic, and if you're willing to broadcast your comments on a topic, you'll use reprint, whereas if you just want to communicate with a alone and don't want your fans involved, you'll use comments.
In fact, both of these requirements are needed, and from the nature of the requirements, such a relatively free setting is conducive to the benign development of information and networking. Because, in the people you care about and your fans, different people, the intimacy of the relationship is different, your fans, the point of attention you are different. Although the Twitter fans have grouped functions, I think this function is a chicken, because it greatly increases the user's cost of use. The internal mechanism of reprint and commentary makes the user can satisfy most of the information communication and interactive control.
I think, for Weibo, it is a community product, but it is different from other Community products, it emphasizes "light", but light, not necessarily is the pan-media, not necessarily can not have depth, and I think its depth is that users can manage information through the path of communication and interactive way to maintain and manage relationships. Of course, this is not a very well-connected relationship, on Weibo, relationships are more focused on "information channels," and people you care about have different types of information available to you, but on the other hand, you're also someone else's information channel--you're being watched by your fans. Therefore, you are not reconciled to just being a communication node (even if you can add additional information to your communication process), and you want to be able to create a different interaction between you and other information nodes.

In my opinion, Twitter and Weibo are designed precisely because they meet the needs of both users, so that the media and community relationships of Weibo are well balanced, rather than just focusing on one of the points.

Recently saw a lot of web sites, and community, there are e-commerce, I think good site, whether it is subjective will or objective facts in line with the needs of the target group characteristics, it can finally achieve success. But I think that the depth of mining and analysis of the requirements characteristics of the entire Internet area is very scarce. Personally, this is precisely the source of China's lack of innovation in the Internet.