There is great technology that is getting better every day where you can see others in real time from anywhere in the world but when I hear the idea broached that we might have virtual doctors this just does not sound right. This is a short reminder that social networking is a great tool but only to augment in person communication not eliminate it.
What does not scare me is the idea that if doctors have a rare case that they can consult with each other through a network or build connections to share trends and case information. This is how knowledge grows and flows!
This is a response to: Could a Virtual Nurse or Doctor Be Your Future Facebook Best Friend? Posted by Robert Hughes on March 3, 2009 at Pioneering Ideas
A discussion about breakthrough ideas in health and health care from the Pioneer Portfolio of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Can Everyone Embrace Social Networking?
Today I was asked if every business uses social networking how will we find any businesses and will there still be any value? This got me thinking….oh no! If every business and nonprofit had a blog, a Facebook page, LinkedIn business profile and so many other others things out there would there be even more junk out on the Internet.
Please forgive me in advance for my indecisiveness. Since I don’t have an answer I am going to give a few plausible answers and try to come to a conclusion.
Because people are pulling information and it is not being pushed on them there cannot be too much information. People will find the information they want and as Internet technology evolves so will search. In the short time it may seem like there is too much, however, over time developers will make this work. Look at cable TV and you will see the same problem and solutions are being developed to manage it.
Since there is so much content people will give up and stop looking for commercial content. Just like we have used TiVo to skip past TV commercials we will find ways to skip Internet commercial information. I don’t think this is viable because so much of the information that users want is commercial in nature.
Facebook and other servers won’t be free forever. Even a low cost of entry will take away people who are not serious about making their business social.
Just putting a page on Facebook and starting a blog is not enough. Businesses will need to make their organization social and to do this right the investment in time is greater than the uncommitted will be willing to do.
New and creative campaigns and uses of social tools will make the right places float to the top of the pile. Better search and better content will make things worth seeing available. Also, since part of the power of social networking is the ability to share things of value. Buttons like the Facebook Like button and tools like Digg will clarify what has value to users like you.
The truth is that some hybrid of these answers will be the end result of social networking. Start thinking about what it means to make your business social (watch for the upcoming book Connect and Contribute: Creating a Social Business) and start paying for attention.
Please forgive me in advance for my indecisiveness. Since I don’t have an answer I am going to give a few plausible answers and try to come to a conclusion.
Because people are pulling information and it is not being pushed on them there cannot be too much information. People will find the information they want and as Internet technology evolves so will search. In the short time it may seem like there is too much, however, over time developers will make this work. Look at cable TV and you will see the same problem and solutions are being developed to manage it.
Since there is so much content people will give up and stop looking for commercial content. Just like we have used TiVo to skip past TV commercials we will find ways to skip Internet commercial information. I don’t think this is viable because so much of the information that users want is commercial in nature.
Facebook and other servers won’t be free forever. Even a low cost of entry will take away people who are not serious about making their business social.
Just putting a page on Facebook and starting a blog is not enough. Businesses will need to make their organization social and to do this right the investment in time is greater than the uncommitted will be willing to do.
New and creative campaigns and uses of social tools will make the right places float to the top of the pile. Better search and better content will make things worth seeing available. Also, since part of the power of social networking is the ability to share things of value. Buttons like the Facebook Like button and tools like Digg will clarify what has value to users like you.
The truth is that some hybrid of these answers will be the end result of social networking. Start thinking about what it means to make your business social (watch for the upcoming book Connect and Contribute: Creating a Social Business) and start paying for attention.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Numbers Count
I not a numbers guy, I need to see success and numbers are a good indicator but I would rather hear from someone they were forwarded my blog than have a bunch of people simply read my blog. This is all well and good but it does not mean much in the long run. Numbers count when it comes to the Internet and for so many things. There is no reason not to have these numbers and make the most of them.
5 questions to ask yourself:- How many unique visitors viewed your website last Tuesday?
- How did
visitors last Tuesday find your site? - How long does the average user spend
on your site? - If a user enters your site from a search engine do they spend
more time than if they enter your site directly? - How long does the average
person read the letter that you sent them telling them about your new
service?
The Internet gives us a scary level of access to the way people use our websites. Short of watching everything in our stores our websites give us the next best level of information.This makes for interesting discussions on consumer rights and for very targeted marketing from savvy marketers.These types of information are called analytics. Your website should be connected to a service like Google Analytics that collects information about the use of your website and those who visit it. This information can be used for determining the value of your website, the content you should post and figuring out how to make your website more accessible.
Most things we do on the Internet cannot be tracked with the same granularity as our web presence. Your website and your email blasts are the places where you have the best opportunity to count. Facebook pages and LinkedIn profiles also have some tools as well, but are not nearly as robust as the content we can get from our own web page. There are other tools out there for monitoring your mentions on the web but that is for another post.
Use analytics to track trends and to track success with a specific campaign. I like to look and track specific things, such as how many people visit the page I set up for my radio commercial with the Experience Pros radio show. This is something that tells me a lot of information. Other information is far more valuable over time and also far more valuable when you are ready to start a new project or thinking of adding a new feature. Remember, You Got to Know the Territory.Talk to your web developer and make sure you are collecting this information. Make sure you know how your numbers add up.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Show me an expert?
Recently, I have been pondering and discussing how social media is guiding us to redefine our definition of an expert. True experts will always be those people with the information and skill level to get a job done at the highest possible potential. The key here is sources.
There are three types of sources that we generally accept in our understanding of an expert, and these are not changing. We allow people to show expertise by sharing experiences and observations, by doing qualitative research, and by citing others in research and experiences (case studies). We know that there are times and places for each of these methods; this applies on and off-line. We also know there are different sets of standards; we have different expectations for our doctor than we do for our mechanic.
Wikipedia, the encyclopedia which any Internet user can contribute an addition to the article, receives a lot of flack about its open structure. What does the average person know about writing an encyclopedia entry? Co-founder Jimmy Wales considers himself an anticredentialist who is letting people break down the walls around knowledge to let anyone share content. Wikipedia has a strong community who edit posts and determines if users cite valid sources and stay away from commentary. For example, in this article about Anshe Chung, editors have flagged the content. Here is what the content looked like on March 8th. You can go to the article and see what it looks like now.
In an excellent and extensive article How accurate is Wikipedia's content? out of the Wharton School of Business, a case looks at Wikipedia as a middle ground between academic journals and free-form content. Kendall Whitehouse, senior director of information technology at Wharton, explains the most interesting question is “whether the wisdom of the crowd [in authoring ‘citizen-authored content’] is ultimately a better approach compared to scholarly review and edited content,” pointing out that Wikipedia’s strength is that it has thousands of eyes looking at it. The editorial eyes are there but as the content grows Whitehouse and other critics are still concerned about the process as well as the ability and the willingness to edit all the content.
When I use Wikipedia, I take everything with a grain of salt, and I expect that I need to evaluate the validity of the content. I like Wikipedia for quick lookups and for leading me to other sources. Writing the encyclopedia is hardly ever the main source use to prove a point – it is the resource used to help guide research and lead to primary sources. Peer-reviewed articles have a different place than an encyclopedia.
The eyes on Wikipedia and other content are a valuable tool for defining an expert online. Comments will surface when content might be viewed as inconsistent. If your blog get lots of traffic or well respected, perceived inconsistency may be broadcasted on the evening news as a reason not to trust the blogosphere, but it’s also a triumph of the medium to get instant feedback from a community of interested co-creators.
When I write about social networking, many consider me to be an expert. I get my expertise by citing other research and writing. I also cite case studies both of my own experience and of others. Citing a case study of how a company handled a given situation is a valid a source as more numbers centric research in many cases.
Take a look at LinkedIn Answers, where users establish their own credentials to post about topics ranging from economics to management to technology, but answers are reviewed by all the others users with access to the question. This form of peer-review provides for a higher level of questions and answers. The fact that question askers can award a top answer also helps to give other credentials and creates a system for knowing who an expert is.
Forums online that bring together experts have a slightly different issue; experts like to cite their own opinions. For example a forum exists for carpet cleaners to ask questions of the community on technical issues, business practices, and many other random topics.
I hope (notice this is an opinion) that people don’t fight the change in definition of how we define an expert, but rather force their peers to reach higher standards of citation by supporting those users that do so. If no-one reads a blog, the author won’t post. If the bloggers’ readers write on my blog – please cite a source, authors will hopefully get the idea.
Please let me step on to my soap box. This also means that schools need to teach students to know how to properly evaluate a text. A student should see “I hope,” and know that this is an opinion. Students must learn to cite and care about sources or this shift will result in a population with fewer experts.
Go out, become an expert in your field. Read, write, cite, research, read more, write more, cite more, comment more, become an expert and prove it to others.
There are three types of sources that we generally accept in our understanding of an expert, and these are not changing. We allow people to show expertise by sharing experiences and observations, by doing qualitative research, and by citing others in research and experiences (case studies). We know that there are times and places for each of these methods; this applies on and off-line. We also know there are different sets of standards; we have different expectations for our doctor than we do for our mechanic.
Wikipedia, the encyclopedia which any Internet user can contribute an addition to the article, receives a lot of flack about its open structure. What does the average person know about writing an encyclopedia entry? Co-founder Jimmy Wales considers himself an anticredentialist who is letting people break down the walls around knowledge to let anyone share content. Wikipedia has a strong community who edit posts and determines if users cite valid sources and stay away from commentary. For example, in this article about Anshe Chung, editors have flagged the content. Here is what the content looked like on March 8th. You can go to the article and see what it looks like now.
In an excellent and extensive article How accurate is Wikipedia's content? out of the Wharton School of Business, a case looks at Wikipedia as a middle ground between academic journals and free-form content. Kendall Whitehouse, senior director of information technology at Wharton, explains the most interesting question is “whether the wisdom of the crowd [in authoring ‘citizen-authored content’] is ultimately a better approach compared to scholarly review and edited content,” pointing out that Wikipedia’s strength is that it has thousands of eyes looking at it. The editorial eyes are there but as the content grows Whitehouse and other critics are still concerned about the process as well as the ability and the willingness to edit all the content.
The eyes on Wikipedia and other content are a valuable tool for defining an expert online. Comments will surface when content might be viewed as inconsistent. If your blog get lots of traffic or well respected, perceived inconsistency may be broadcasted on the evening news as a reason not to trust the blogosphere, but it’s also a triumph of the medium to get instant feedback from a community of interested co-creators.
When I write about social networking, many consider me to be an expert. I get my expertise by citing other research and writing. I also cite case studies both of my own experience and of others. Citing a case study of how a company handled a given situation is a valid a source as more numbers centric research in many cases.
Take a look at LinkedIn Answers, where users establish their own credentials to post about topics ranging from economics to management to technology, but answers are reviewed by all the others users with access to the question. This form of peer-review provides for a higher level of questions and answers. The fact that question askers can award a top answer also helps to give other credentials and creates a system for knowing who an expert is.
Forums online that bring together experts have a slightly different issue; experts like to cite their own opinions. For example a forum exists for carpet cleaners to ask questions of the community on technical issues, business practices, and many other random topics.
I hope (notice this is an opinion) that people don’t fight the change in definition of how we define an expert, but rather force their peers to reach higher standards of citation by supporting those users that do so. If no-one reads a blog, the author won’t post. If the bloggers’ readers write on my blog – please cite a source, authors will hopefully get the idea.
Please let me step on to my soap box. This also means that schools need to teach students to know how to properly evaluate a text. A student should see “I hope,” and know that this is an opinion. Students must learn to cite and care about sources or this shift will result in a population with fewer experts.
Go out, become an expert in your field. Read, write, cite, research, read more, write more, cite more, comment more, become an expert and prove it to others.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Leadership in the Internet World
First, what is the social internet or Web 2.0. The social Internet as I use it is the Internet that we experience today where everyone has the ability to interact with all content on the Internet. When the Internet was created users (with lots of skill) had the ability to post pages. As the Internet advanced the skill level to post content was lessened and more people shared content using email and the advent of bulletin boards. Now, social networks are growing and people can share content from short quips to longer pieces like this blog.
In a world where hierarchies are flattened more people can lead and therefore should lead. A flattened world gives us the opportunity to part of many more communities than we might have been able to be in before. Micro communities can form in a community, a church group, and concerned citizens or in any other form. These groups need a leader and not just to type the name of the group but to help create a culture of how the group should be used.
When the South Metro Chamber of Commerce embraced Meetup.com as their tool of choice for their event promotion and RSVP tool they worked to create a culture that meet the Chambers needs. This was lead by the staff and for the most part followed by the members of the Chamber. People are very observant of culture and norms for the most part and will pick up quickly. A leader needs to right the path ship sometimes if things get out of hand.
Leaders need to lead with content. Last week, Denver lost the Rocky which leaves a gap in information gathering and truth telling in the community. This is the perfect opportunity for more people to write online but those who choose to establish themselves as experts must check their sources. We cannot expect citizen journalism to stick if we do not have local news that is covered with accuracy and integrity.
It is often times easy to hide behind the Internet and not have integrity when posting online. Even if you are not worried about your comments being tracked back to you in the future (and you should be) having integrity should not be something that stops when you press keys rather than say something in person or with a pen. Remember that the Internet is an open community and if you would not post it on I-25 it probably should not be posted on social network or other public forum.
Leadership means taking risks. We have ideas about strategies that will work but these strategies need to be fleshed out and tested. As a small business and using the newly opened tool box we can test quickly and little risk. Try a new tactic on Twitter, tell friends about something new on Facebook, run a sale, start a blog, announce a new product in a new way, think outside of the box and embrace the new technology.
Risk does not mean reckless abandon for social norms. Because there is an indelible record of your experiments be wild but keep in mind the culture of your network and who your users are. A friend came to me recently with the idea for the name of a new blog that could be offensive, and though the name of the blog would have garnished lots of attention and 9 out of 10 adults would not have found it offensive I still suggested another name that alluded to the same concept without using a word that some people might find offensive. Be wild, but do it in a way that anyone can see.
No matter what I tell you or experts tell you we are all experimenting. Break the rules. Great leaders always have. They break them and then they set them.
Seth Godin brilliantly discuses leadership in our new Internet world in his book Tribes but he says it all with his subtitle – “We Need You to Lead Us”. Help lead us all to making the best possible communities around our organizations, products, passions and things we crave to be connected to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
