Category Archives: social capital
Duping by the crowd vs. building community among neighbors
Greg Sterling blogged today (in part)…
The Sunday Times in the UK writes that Yell employees wrote 6,700 reviews for the site (TrustedPlaces) in a month for an internal contest. According to secondary reports:
Staff at the firm’s Reading HQ were encouraged to write reviews for the company’s website Trusted Places – a site boasting user-generated recommendations of places to visit – by the offer of prizes such as an iPad and Amazon vouchers, according to the Sunday Times.
The article and information are presented as something of an expose or scandal. However I don’t necessarily agree. If the reviews are real and authentic they’re not illegitimate in my mind. But it’s a close call…
Well… I’m not sure how 6,700 reviews written by paid staff for some kind of internal contest could be considered “real and authentic.” More importantly, this fuels a not uncommon suspicion that many online reviews are B.S. It’s just too easy to stack the deck with reviews from people who have a stake in the business being reviewed or in the host site itself.
We often hear from people who place a high value on reviews read on Front Porch Forum. They use terms like “real” and “authentic” because that’s what they are… postings from clearly identified nearby neighbors typically offered in response to a request from a neighbor… “can anyone recommend a good plumber?”
Also, each recommendation is seen by everyone in the neighborhood, not just those few who happen to be searching for a plumber. This leads to conversation among neighbors… sometimes on FPF, often via email, and even more commonly face-to-face.
So… a huge database of potentially bogus reviews from strangers… vs. a few reviews from clearly identified nearby neighbors that lead to conversations among neighbors on the sidewalk. Two different propositions.
Feelings lead to action
Richard Millington’s post today got me thinking…
Feelings provoke actions… Focus on making members feel more engaged, not act more engaged.
Many times a day, Front Porch Forum pilot members are moved to be more engaged in FPF… and, more importantly, many are move to be more engaged in their actual/non-virtual neighborhood. This is often brought about by feelings elicited by an FPF posting from a neighbor.
Here are two key references from Millington…
You’ve probably come across the technographics ladder or the socialgraphics engagement pyramid. These categorize members by their actions. Lurkers are at the bottom, creators at the top. Sharing, reading, tagging are in-between.
First, the technographics ladder…
And the socialgraphics engagement pyramid…
Our mutual aid muscles are out of shape and pretty flabby
From Sarah Byrnes in YES! Magazine…
If there’s anything I’ve learned while helping to organize Common Security Clubs in communities around the nation, it’s that there is no “one size fits all” club. They are as different as the individuals who comprise them.
But a common thread is that clubs provide a way for people get to know each other. It’s an old-fashioned concept—knowing your community—but it’s badly needed in our time of increasing insecurity and isolation.
“We usually spend about 45 minutes on a ‘check-in’ with each other,” says Paul Miller in Boston, whose club has been meeting for two years. “The focus is simply on hearing each other, and providing support whenever possible. People get to air their concerns and receive affirmation.”
“We’re taking baby steps toward a new type of community,” adds Jared Gardner, a facilitator in Portland, Oregon. “We want people to feel connected and empowered. That’s what the groups are all about.”
In the past, neighbors knew each other and engaged more naturally in mutual aid, sharing common resources and helping those in need. Nowadays, our mutual aid muscles are out of shape and pretty flabby. Clubs help us to start flexing and stretching them again, little by little.
New study: Neighborhood websites build community and get people involved
Congratulations to UK’s Hugh Flouch and Kevin Harris on the publication of the results of their new study…
Do neighbourhood websites have a positive social impact locally? For those who’ve suspected and long wanted convincing evidence, we think the wait is over.
The report of the Online neighbourhood networks study was launched yesterday during a lively conference in London…
Our study looked at three neighbourhood sites in London. The research shows that they serve to enhance the sense of belonging, democratic influence, neighbourliness and involvement in their area. Participants claim more positive attitudes towards public agencies where representatives of those agencies are engaging online.
We’ve produced a short (4-page) summary, an extended summary, a full report divided into digestible chunks, a selection of video interviews, together a number of other papers, and we will continue to add to these.
We see similar trends with Front Porch Forum in our pilot region. That is, FPF members report… (1) better connection to neighbors and neighborhood, (2) a more prominent voice in local decision-making, (3) a friendlier environment, and (4) increased civic engagement.
Miscellaneous findings from the UK report…
95% – Feel more informed about neighborhood
92% – Neighbors are helpful if asked for advice
69% – Increased sense of belonging within neighborhood
92% – Useful information gets shared efficiently
82% – People pull together to improve neighborhood
63% – Main source of local news
44% – Neighbors more likely to lend items or exchange favors
42% – Met a neighbor
54% – More likely to see a neighbor you recognize due to website – Active member
14% – More likely to see a neighbor you recognize due to website – Passive member
This collection of materials is worth a close look!
How many needed to make community planning successful?
Bill Roper asks today “What constitutes successful participation in your community”…
Over the years, we at the Orton Family Foundation have debated how much citizen participation constitutes success in our projects. This discussion gets complicated as the “how many” quickly and appropriately gives way to a deeper conversation about the “who” in the room and the opportunity and level of participation rather than just a simple head count…
As I often say, the only thing harder than planning in the midst of a crisis is planning without a crisis at all. So: when there is no crisis at hand and a community is trying to bring citizens together for authentic, thoughtful discussions about its future, what constitutes a successful turnout? From my observations, achieving 10 percent community participation is pretty amazing (even though it doesn’t sound so great). And if this happens two or three times in a row, there’s really something going on.
Another way I’ve tried to calculate success in the numbers is to find out how many people turned out for the most controversial issue in the last five years, (i. e. a development proposal, school bond, crime, etc.). If the community then meets or exceeds that number in the context of a proactive planning discussion, that equals success.
But I’m still not satisfied. This may be setting the bar too low.
In dozens of Vermont towns and neighborhoods, more than 40% of the households subscribe to Front Porch Forum, where planning-relevant discussion often occurs. In one town that we studied, about three-quarters had posted in the first year.
Of course, ongoing online exchange among neighbors is different than face-to-face planning sessions, but we have seen many times where community turnout swells for such gatherings once FPF is up and running well. Frequent communication among clearly identified nearby neighbors gets folks informed and engaged.
Not all types of communications are equal
Richard Millington wrote today on FeverBee…
Not all types of communications are equal. When you meet someone in person you form a deeper relationship with them than thousands of online interactions.
We’re increasingly seeing a hierarchy of contact. At the lowest levels members talk via contributing content which others read. It’s slow, thoughtful and not interactive.
At the higher levels are immediate response, real-time communication and stronger context (i.e. talking by IM is stronger than chat-rooms – you had to add that person to your instant messenger).
- Members communicate in person.
- Members communicate by phone.
- Members communicate by voice-chat.
- Members communicate in IM/SMS.
- Members communicate in chat-rooms.
- Members communicate by social networks.
- Members communicate by forums.
- Members communicate via Twitter.
- Members communicate by blog posts/videos/UGC.
You do well when you try to get members communicating at the higher levels. Members form closer bonds and participation increases.
Front Porch Forum often starts with one person’s posting that is read by many. Then the fun begins… it sparks responses on FPF, as well as direct emails to the original author, phone calls, etc. And… highest on Richard’s list… that one posting leads to face to face conversation among neighbors on actual front porches (and sidewalks, country stores, playgrounds, etc.).
Measuring civic engagement
The California Civic Health Index 2010 was just released (PDF). A compelling attempt to quantify people’s involvement in their local community.
The term “civic engagement” has become one of the more vague in public policy discussions. More than any other national organization, the Congressionally chartered National Conference on Citizenship (NCoC) has sought to bring clarity to this very important subject through survey research and promoting civic participation. Their annual “Civic Health Index” studies American civic engagement on activities ranging from voting to volunteering to many in between. For the last three years, NCoC has also focused on California for one of its state-level reports. To help dfine the term, this year’s report is divided into “political civic engagement” (voting and registering to vote, discussing politics with friends/neighbors) and “social civic engagement” (volunteering, having dinner with family, working on community problems).
Vermont shows up in some of the charts comparing all 50 U.S. states (plus DC, etc.)…
6th – Discuss politics with family and friends (44%)
3rd – Participate in one or more non-electoral political activities (39%)
mid – Voter registration (71%) and turn-out (64%)
13th – Eat dinner with family and household members (91%)
Further…
As technology rapidly changes the landscape of social networks and norms, this report looks at the kinds of connectivity Californians have to their families, neighbors, and communities. In a recent essay that questioned the impact of internet-based social networks on social movements, Malcolm Gladwell speculates that although online connectivity makes it easy to proliferate ideas, the kind of collectivist action that was a hallmark of our Civil Rights Movement and other important social revolutions depends more on strong leadership and close, in-person relationships between movement participants. Whether or not Gladwell is correct, it is certainly true that our community relationships, news consumption, and methods of conceptualizing solutions are rapidly changing with the advent of new forms of communication. As Californians work to effect change in their communities, proliferation of information and forms of social interactions both will play a large role.
Over the last few years, the rate at which Americans report working with neighbors to improve the community has increased: 8.3% of Californians say they work with neighbors to improve the community, slightly below a national average of 8.8%.
In this measure of engagement, California ranks 33rd in the nation. On a less formal level, 13.8% of Californians exchange favors with neighbors a few times a week, while the average for the entire country is 15.9%. These informal actions are greatly affected by geography: Californians who live in rural communities are far more likely to regularly exchange favors (21.9%) than those in urban areas (11.9%).
About Blog
Ghost of Midnight is an online journal about fostering community within neighborhoods, with a special focus on Front Porch Forum (FPF). My wife, Valerie, and I founded FPF in 2006... read more
Post Categories
- Uncategorized
- PDF2009
- Calendar
- podcast
- Northeast Kingdom
- Peer Rental
- Big Tech
- Localization
- Events
- Google AdSense
- Web Traffic
- PDF2007
- Elections
- Pay It Forward
- berkmansunlight
- Maps
- Video
- Upstate New York
- Mobile
- Coupons
- Wildlife
- Raffle
- Viral Marketing
- Donations
- Crisis Response
- Lost & Found
- Gratitude
- College Students
- Real Estate
- Social Responsibility
- Orton Family Foundation
- Start ups
- Make It Your Own Awards
- Online Civility
- Clay Shirky
- Newspapers
- Humor
- How To Use FPF
- Online Classified Ads
- Peer Reviews
- Politics
- Community Management
- Best of FPF
- Economic Development
- Local Reviews
- Case Foundation
- Borrow and Lend
- Neighborhood Watch
- Good Government
- Small Business Advertising
- Citizen Journalism
- e-Vermont
- Democracy
- Local Search
- Knight Foundation
- Burlington
- MacArthur Fellows
- Civic Engagement
- Social Media
- social capital
- Social Networking
- Vermont
- Neighborhood
- Community Building
- Local Online
- Front Porch Forum