Managing the mob

A response to monkeys with megaphones

Technology trends and news by Bambi Francisco Roizen
August 25, 2008 | Comments (3)
Short URL: http://vator.tv/n/3bb

5

 Recently, Seth Godin - author and prolific blogger - wrote a piece titled: Monkeys with megaphones, in which he asked the rhetorical question: "Now that everyone has their own channel, their own newspaper, their own station, it's pretty shocking how low the average has sunk. The question is: will it be so noisy and offensive that the rest of us just tune it out completely?"

This piece reminded me of a post I wrote while I was a journalist at Dow Jones MarketWatch. It was called Managing the mob. In it, I was more wont to control the mob than tune it out. The piece was written in response to some of the inordinate number of comments I used to receive on my Bambi Blog posts, when I was analyzing stocks, such as Google and Yahoo, and, oh writing about religion. In the post, I asked similar rhetorical questions. How does one "control this mob?... How do you manage, organize and measure what is relevant?"

Now, these posts probably refer to two different scenarios. Seth was referring to the increasing amount of information written online, often by a bunch of monkeys. Indeed, when I first started writing about Internet stocks and trends back in 1998, there were a handful of reporters I'd read. Today, there's an overwhelming crop of voices, notably bloggers - who do not check off the box next to "journalist" when they describe their profession. 

In my post written two years ago, I was referring to the inbound replies and rants directed at the writer, and the irrelevant side conversations that happen along the way. These comments are as additive as they are distracting. They help reveal the truth as much as distort it. 

Nonetheless, we both tried, and I guess we're still trying, to understand how to filter information. Seth asked whether we'd eventually tune it out. I asked whether we'd be able to manage it.

I didn't have an answer back then, when I wrote this piece in 2006. But I think Jason Kolb put his finger on it, in his recent post "The size of the network doesn't matter."

"I don't think the answer is that complicated at all," wrote Jason, who wrote in response to Seth's piece. "Doesn't the answer lie in our network of trusted people which is available via social technology?  One of the things that just really doesn't sit well with me is the tendency we have these days of establishing "connections" to anyone and everyone we meet.  It's almost as automatic as a handshake these days.  Your network shouldn't really be "the bigger the better", it should represent the network of people that you trust, and it should be of high quality."

I totally agree. I've always been of this mindset. When I was a journalist full-time, I always made it a point to have a handful of trusted sources - super smart people I could run things by. I touched base with them every week, if not daily. I would call on many to provide data to support my thesis. But it was the trusted few who could influence the direction of my stories.

In like vein, I had applied the same strategy to my LinkedIn profiles. Truth be told, it's been a game. On LinkedIn, the game for me has been to have the least number of connections, but the biggest extended network. My aim was to keep my connections as small as Mike Moritz's (he's at about 25 today, even though his VC firm Sequoia is an investor in LinkedIn!), but amass an extended network as large as Marc Andreessen's. Through Marc's connections and his connections' connections, Marc has an overwhelmingly huge extended network. At one point, LinkedIn made these networks visible. Since I'm connected to Marc, my extended network is big, even though I have far fewer connections. The strategy? Connect with people with significantly large connections to people with significantly large connections. Today, I have 57 connections, twice as many as Mike Moritz, but about two-thirds of Jason's. But my reach is huge!

At VatorNews, I'm hoping to do the same - gather the essays and opinions of those I believe are of high quality. Essentially, I'm managing the mob by curating insightful writers whose words I believe will or are already resonating with many.

As for the inbound comments. Well, I've tuned them out. As Twitter CEO and co-founder says of the information on the Web, it's part of the "ambient noise."

(Image source: Winningcommunities.com)


Related companies, investors and entrepreneurs

7352
Seth Godin
Original Squid,
Squidoo.com
Bio: Seth writes the most popular business blog in the world. He's the founder of Squidoo.com and was formerly VP of Direct Marketing at Yahoo...

Related news


Comments

Mark Evans
Mark Evans, on August 26, 2008

Excellent points and commentary on a topic of great interest to me. Thank you.

"Doesn't the answer lie in our network of trusted people which is available via social technology?"

And to your note, how do we filter information? I think FriendFeed is doing an interesting experiment now with FF Beta. http://beta.friendfeed.com/

Mark


Bambi Francisco Roizen
Bambi Francisco Roizen, on August 26, 2008

Hey, Mark
Funny you mention FriendFeed, I wanted to mention them in the piece, but couldn't figure out where exactly to put them. But if you notice, I added my interview with Paul Buchheit (FriendFeed founder and Vator investor) as a related story.


Comment_gbg
Matt Weeks, on August 27, 2008

When information and data become "accessible" the challenge becomes not to unlock the data, but to sift, sort, and find meaning and context for the data. Then it becomes "information" and has the potential to become useful and actionable. This process regresses back to a kind of "discovery" that we recognize from our early search engine experiences. What's new and often more frustrating is that today we often already possess the raw data, and need help organizing, sifting and visualizing it in order to gain value from it (and to make it "actionable").
What we need next is "interpretation."
What we don't have yet are robust tools and processes to make sense of the data that we experience.
One of my colleagues is working on what he calls "sense-making" - to help organize machine-sorting into patterns and tuning tools that reflect human sorting and mapping.
Aggregation is part of the solution, but it also adds to the sheer volume of noise. It is a great start nonetheless.
In the aggregation category, I was excited at seeing the ease-of-use exemplified by friendfeed.com. It also has the hint of sorting ("fake follow"). Until they add some real sifting /sorting and contextual tuning, they will remain in the legacy "aggregation" category, which eventually won't add much value except as a tool, and as a conduit to a smart system further on down the line. I'm sure they're thinking along these lines. I hope they avoid becoming the plumbing.
We call so much data to ourselves in feeds, subscriptions, alerts that it becomes the proverbial fire-hose. Not to mention the "ocean" of data out there that we don't (yet) even know about. Discovery and contextual sense-making" will be a combination of machine tools (including "smart" interpretation tools) and sorting/sifting tools, as well as the use of community discovery and sorting, which is where I see so much promise. Often it is friends and colleagues (who "know how I think, and what is important to me") who alert me to the most actionable and valuable information. They mimic what the "sense-making" software will be doing to a great extent. What if I could tap a dozen or even a hundred people who "think like I do" and "care about what I care about" to piggyback their sifting, and reduce the fire-hose to a garden-hose, and then let me use the tools to organizes, tune and sift? This is what some of us are working to figure out.


Rich Reader
Rich Reader, on August 27, 2008

Reach can not be optimized through this approach, because you cannot rely on the large networks closest to you to transmit your message effectively. That's not a service that they do a good job of, unless they are properly incented, which is a distinct business proposition (though not easily supported by influence traders in smaller networks).
It's a little like the challenge of affiliate networking optimization. One might want to build level one from medium-sized networks that are not so overlapping or duplicating of each other.
At the end of the day it's still very much a mater of how we filter, distill, leverage, and activate the intelligence that we collect from our extended networks. As Matt Weeks points out, aggregation builds noise much faster than it extracts actionable knowledge.


blog comments powered by Disqus
Find your friends' startup new!
Vator is more valuable if you know who's here.
Discover who has a startup and help their success by following their progress!

Featured Stories

Latest company news bites on Vator

Cognitive Code Corporation - Mimi Chen (Co-Founder and President)
Crowdfunding is cool - pre-order SILVIA for your Android here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cogcode/silvia-for-android
See more
BuildingLayer - Nick Such (Co-founder and CEO)
BuildingLayer co-founder and Chief Scientist, John Kiffmeyer, is a Featured Engineer this week on EEWeb http://www.eeweb.com/spotlight/interview-with-john-p.-kiffmeyer
See more
AllowanceTree CEO named Today's Entrepreneur by Vator: http://vator.tv/news/2012-05-25-todays-entrepreneur-arnie-benn
See more
Cognitive Code Corporation - Mimi Chen (Co-Founder and President)