DISQUS

Wow. If that is for real, I'm quite impressed. I would never have thought, in a million years, that a spammer would have called off the hounds due to a blog post. I wish he would have agreed to do the podcast!

I think it's interesting that this article was published five years ago. The more things change, I suppose...

Good stuff. One of things I would add is this:


Start small and build out based on needs.

A lot of folks new to online community building tend to prescribe the structure of the community too early. This might include building an intial set of 10 forums, based on their guesses of what the member will want to discuss. This quickly gives the community that ghost town feel and sets the subject matter too early.



My suggestion is to start with a couple of broad forums and build new ones as the dominant subject matters evolve.



Also, about the guidelines...

They are essential and an important point is how they are used in enforcement. When someone steps over the line, it's much easier to say "Our guidelines state..." than "Watch it, we don't do that here". Good guidelines give the manager an ojective foundation for enforcing proper behaviour.

Hey man- this is a day late- but Congrats!!! I'm about 8 months into my marraige and loving it!

We should have an "add the best caption" contest. I'll start.


"So, I was in Russia and Olga gave me this giant bottle of Vodka..."

Thanks for the differentiation Jake!
My votes are for 4 and 6, with 1 being a close third... If I had to choose 1- it would be 6...

I've had a similar thought Jake. I think the connection is about the attractive nature of "real" people as opposed to fictional characters. Corporate blogs help companies go from communicating like a company to communicating like a real person.

I like the new move toward "Social Connection". I think that is what often preceeds community.


I see that interaction is a key for you. I agree to a certain point and I think that very recently, we've seen a change in what it means to "participate" in a community. It used to be particpation in some sort of interaction online.



In looking at social networking sites (orkut, friendster, tribe, etc.), consider the personal home page. A member can create an identity within the community by adding "friends" and joining "communities". These are displayed on their personal page and become part of their persona. "She knows these people, and has these interests"



In this way, they are particpating and building identity without any real social interaction.



I would say that this is a form of participation that is in between lurking and participating in discussions. Are these people members of a community?

I think your's is one of the best I've seen Jake. One thing I really get stuck on is interaction and community membership. I agree that there has to be interaction for there to be community- the interaction is where the connections are made.


However, I keep thinking about the people who aren't interacting with the community directly- the "lurkers".



I'm curious, if by building a definition around interaction, it excludes those who do not interact with the community, but count themselves as a member?



I do think interaction should be part of the definition and I'm thinking that the individual who counts themselves as a member, but does not express it interactively, could be a part of the definition too.



Does interaction = community membership?



I ask that a bit rhetorically... and having not thought it through much myself.

We missed you Jake. I guess you heard from Jennifer Rice, who sat in front of me today? Small small world.