SNS: Relationship development or relationship maintenance

This article is a part of my understanding of the six Degrees of separation theory and SNS in the relevant questions and answers to some of the views raised, because it is not able to talk about the long, so here are some additions, and published a blog. The full text reads as follows:

The six degree separation theory refers to the minimum number of links that any two nodes in a human network have associated with other interconnected nodes in the network. This is a process of transformation and transmission of different relationship links. A basic assumption of this theory is that no two nodes in the network have direct links (i.e. there is no direct relationship link). This is a common reality in social networks. In the Internet, this situation also exists, but because of its openness to the characteristics of the network, the possibility of establishing direct links, then, the assumption of the existence of conditions, has been shaken. So we see more new networks of relationships that are trying to create a more innovative relationship that allows people to establish or manage their own networks more directly or easily.

There are two basic needs for relationships, namely, relationship expansion and relationship maintenance. At the beginning of the Internet, because people are still immersed in the unprecedented openness of the Internet, more Internet applications are based on extensive relationship development needs, that is, the establishment of the pan-relationship based on the relationship between multiple relationships. such as early BBS, chat room and other applications, its users more personal preference as a relationship, and these applications, but also around different preferences to build different social sections. At this time, the role of relationship expansion is greater than the relationship between the maintenance. That is, making friends is the basic requirement.

After a long period of development in the BBS and the Forum, the change of MySpace is that although it is still a social network of multiple ties, the concept of the public preference plate is greatly weakened in the past. Instead, there is the form of a personal homepage, where personal preference is still, but it is no longer confined to a certain set of preferences, and relationships can be established within a larger context. This development seems reasonable, but it also contains a lot of dangers, this risk is mainly manifested in the degree of freedom of the establishment of relations is too large, the link between the relationship is too biased towards networked virtualization, which makes seemingly unlimited opportunities to make friends, in fact, it is difficult to establish a truly effective relationship, especially, MySpace does not provide people with a more realistic framework or direction for content creation, and this is not in line with the real need for relationships. Frankly speaking, just keep on expanding relations (for the sake of relationship), people always have an annoying day, people also always have management not come over so many relations that day. The need for relationship maintenance, and the need for content, is already in the dark.

At home, MySpace's social networking sites have not been a big business, but the need for relationship expansion has not stopped, but is being replaced by other forms of web apps. Almost with MySpace at the same time or earlier, with the Internet in the further popularization of the domestic, QQ in the domestic set off a wave of internet. In fact, QQ in the early days, but also to meet the needs of people to expand, this and MySpace is the same. People are busy using QQ to expand relations, feeling from all over the lively and fresh, and frequently add friends, enjoy the open network brings the relationship dividend. But soon, too, people began to get bored.

The question now is, as people get bored with online dating, why doesn't QQ turn to decline like MySpace? There may be three reasons for the survival of QQ and still maintain a strong vitality: first, there are quite a number of QQ network virtual relations, not QQ native, but from the original BBS, Forums and other communities turned around. The key to this shift is people began to unconsciously QQ from a place of relationship expansion, as a relationship between the site, the network virtual relationship is maintained and strengthened here; second, the internet in China's rapid popularization, to some extent, can also be called the rapid popularity of QQ, at this time, With the increasing number of QQ people, a lot of the reality of the relationship, but also was naturally transferred to the QQ above; third, QQ space in time, but also make up for the QQ in the content of the construction of deficiencies. In this case, the relationship between the maintenance and expansion in the QQ such IM tools, began to coexist. At this time, the relationship between the personal relationship network is still multiple, but the real relationship and virtual relationship has been at the same time, strong relationship and weak relationship in the IM is mixed together, to be managed simultaneously. Above three points, may be QQ in China has not become a short-lived network application of two important reasons.

Facebook and Twitter, perhaps the product of further evolution in the online community, have evolved in a different direction. Their different understanding of relationship development and relationship maintenance leads to two important directions of the current network community development. Their evolution has nothing in common in nature, but there is also a form of the same, that is, they are keen to do subtraction, not like many communities in the country as keen to do addition.

Facebook's subtraction is about maintaining the relationship, especially the real relationship. It simplifies the extensive use of the multiple, relying on people's personal preferences of the weak link, and retains a strong relationship based on the relationship between the link. This change has undoubtedly led to a significant increase in the efficiency of the relational network. In Facebook, even if you're developing new relationships, this new relationship is still based on real relationships, not the ones that rely on online virtual relationships in the past, and it's more plausible to expand this relationship in the current fashion. Of course, the biggest factor in Facebook's success, as well as the reasons for the open platform, is no longer in this discussion.

And Twitter, perhaps, is moving towards a relationship expansion. First, it's like MySpace, minus the natural formation of the Internet at the beginning of different preferences of the block segmentation, breaking the separation between the plates, so that the relationship between the more generalized; Secondly, in the content, it makes the content of the community from the minority preference to the main public preference, so that the media of its community greatly improved; , Twitter also makes it easier to build a generic relationship under multiple links through a user's one-way attention, and on that basis, allows users to easily filter content by subscribing to it. What does all this mean? This means that they are moving toward a network of weak relationships, and the expansion of relationships is well integrated with the creative power of content.

SNS is still evolving so far. Such social networks, for example. Its core is that relationship ties, which are further generalized to establish a link between users with no boundaries of question and answer as a link, are clearly more extensive than previous public preference ties, and any two nodes in their network can have a single question and answer to establish a direct connection. Of course, the strength of this link is also relatively weak. But on the whole, it should be the direction of Twitter-like relationship expansion, not the way Facebook is maintained.

Another extreme example is the path of the United States, a community called the third type of social networking site, which is closer to a strong relationship network than Facebook. The circle of relationships is limited in number, and there is no other social network in its privacy nature. In other words, here, it will be a pure relationship to maintain the place, the relationship between the expansion of the demand, it seems completely out of consideration.

To sum up, relationship development and relationship maintenance are the two most basic needs of people's relationship. According to the "Deng Ba Digital" theory, the strong relationship that people can manage is limited. So it looks like Facebook has a better outlook, but on the other hand, it is impossible to give up the need to expand the relationship, the real person in life, is also constantly expanding relations, in particular, perhaps our brain has not evolved to manage more than 150 strong relations, but we should not forget, We still have computers and endless innovations, so maybe in the future, who says we don't have cloud relationships? That might be a bigger network of relationships than the current pan-network. Therefore, in my opinion, strong relationship network and weak relationship network, is far from the time to decide the outcome.