Designing Online Communities

First, I must begin with a brief introduction. I develop web applications, including e-commerce and content management applications. My opinions may perhaps be influenced by my own contextual vantage point in relation to this reading.

I believe Preece has a valid point when she says, "[the] commercialization of the Internet is sweeping online communities along in its wake, thereby diluting the potency of the concept" (14). Many of Preece's observations stem from discussions on UseNet, ICQ, bulletin boards, and mailing lists. These old forms of communication originated from early uses of the Internet. For example, ARPANET began as a method to communicate with and share computer resources among mainly scientific users at connected institutions; the Internet was a medium for document and information exchange. However, users quickly realized there was a killing to be made (i.e., money money money). Current trends encourage developers to find ways to draw visitors to their websites — to increase participation and, therefore, to increase potential profit through direct sales or through advertisement click-through (Google Adsense). This entire evolution can be seen in the development of Facebook. Facebook began as a portal for information exchange and maintaining relationships. Recently, Facebook has exposed an API for third party applications. Facebook has also been including inline advertising in News Feeds, and Facebook has sold a stake in the company to Microsoft to sell banner ad space. This trend of monetization has enveloped many many more web sites in the social sphere. Where there is a community there is potential money to be made.

Of course, I blame Google (others too, but Google is a great example). There will be individuals with truly novel ideas (i.e., YouTube, StumbleUpon, Jaiku, Writely). These communities and tools successfully enable users to share information and ideas. However, I feel that many newer communities are no longer built for the noble or novel intention of community-building. Instead, many communities (but not all, of course) are built hoping to be bought by Google (or others) for millions upon millions of dollars.

This want for profit leads to several worthy concerns, the primary concern being usability. Usability encourages and facilitates easier participation, and therefore a higher probability that the user will purchase a product or encourage others to participate in the community. Preece cites many examples and characteristics of usability, participation, and design: how users communicate (159), how types of users influence communication (125), the "Magic Number Seven, Plus Or Minus Two" by George Miller, and more. But I feel that communities nowadays focus more on money than on "community".

E-commerce and monetization also leads to the restriction of "community" and communication. For example, Preece describes the specialization of conversation on e-commerce sites on page 68. E-commerce sites must create a sense of privacy and trust amongst its users. Preece cites Amazon.com and REI.com as examples of restricted (or focused) communication to aid user participation and increase potential sales. Both web sites implement forms of communication that help users find information; however, both forms of communication ultimately help further the "bottom line" — profit.

Do others see this trend? Is this trend only a branch of the larger "online community" tree? Or does this represent a more global shift in the philosophy of the online community?