Comments on: Musing about Social Objects: Molluscs that Matter

By: N:Sight Research » Blog Archive » Was steckt eigentlich hinter dem ‘Social Object’?

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:36:57 +0000

[...] Musing about Social Objects: Molluscs that Matter [...]

By: Social objects in the enterprise: some early thoughts – confused of calcutta

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:05:17 +0000

[...] I’ve been writing about social objects for a while, as you can see here from three years ago here, or more recently here and, only three months ago, [...]

By: Thinking about social objects – confused of calcutta

Thinking about social objects – confused of calcutta — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:13:17 +0000

[...] written about social objects a few times, even touched on the topic of something analogous to a graphic equaliser for an [...]

By: Hacking Behaviours: Looking back at the Social Business Design Summit in London (2010) « :microinformation

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:24:54 +0000

[...] not the facebookisation of the enterprise. It is about "object-centered sociality" (#, #, #): What Web 2.0 applications really are doing is to make visible the loose structures that [...]

By: How to design a social networking site using social objects | Kyle Mathews :: Dreams With In

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:21:34 +0000

[...] Rangaswami created, what I think, is a brilliant metaphor for understanding how social objects grow through conversations. He compared the growth in value of a social object to the gradual adding of new layers to a pearl [...]

By: Go Big Always - Don’t dump on me: The 4 behaviors of the social web

Go Big Always - Don’t dump on me: The 4 behaviors of the social web — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:08:11 +0000

[...] follow up thoughts. For example, in this post I’m polishing ideas I read from JP Rangaswami (Pearls) who was polishing something he read Hugh McCloud (social objects). Polishers dimensionalize ideas [...]

By: Robin Raven

Robin Raven — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:45:37 +0000

I agree with much of what you say – especially the connection between the social objects and conversations.
Iim interested in the idea of “good” social objects. Good in what sense? True, just, correct, interesting, successful?
Cultivating (pun intended!) the pearl analogy; are “good” social objects above all valuable -i.e. the market will pay a premium in some sense for them, or to be associated with them, over inferior ones?

By: Treat concepts imported from the external web with caution « sandyblair

Treat concepts imported from the external web with caution « sandyblair — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:41:43 +0000

[...] just too wasteful if the contributor resource is limited. This seems to tie in nicely with JPs pearl analogy. Sure, natural pearls are better than cultured ones, but cultured ones are better than fake pearls [...]

By: Laurent Blondeau (Evidences)

Laurent Blondeau (Evidences) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:39:07 +0000

Hi JP,
more about to come, but see things came like TV history channels in some ways (I wrote here : http://tinyurl.com/2fm7yc on this subject).
UGC makes social objects to the bulk, that’s the change in web2.0 state ; it provides one shot and all day long, improvement of our knowledge, senses, feelings and points of view. Maybe we can be only viewers without conversations, it’s a difference we can’t avoid totally, don’t you think ?

By: Frymaster

Frymaster — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:12:35 +0000

And, like actual pearls, a discerning buyer knows the difference between natural (authentic) and cultured (spun) examples. A less informed buyer may not.