Who likes what?
Because I study networks and innovation, by default, I should love Google Reader’s recent changes to build in increased social integration/ networking into this rss feeder. And, to be honest, I do… for the most part.
First, a bit of background. I have been obsessed with Google Reader for some time now, and I really as though it has made me a more informed ‘citizen of the world’ (probably more pretentious as well given that I use phrases like citizen of the world). As a supplement to main stream media, I love getting multiple takes/perspectives on the news, for the same reason I like getting multiple tweets on the Tour de France– diversity is bliss when it comes to perspective.
As for the new GR features, I like that I can search out interesting and intelligent people and see what they are reading. If Amartya Sen has a reader page, I would love to see the articles that he thinks are worth reading. Same goes for Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Cass Sunstein. You can learn a lot by seeing what these people think is interesting. I also like being able to target my sharing of an article to a small group of freinds, rather than my entire set of followers. I think this is a decent way to simulate online ‘reading’ groups… something I see as especially worthwhile given the dispersion of close friends across the globe.
And yet, with all that on the table, one feature I am sold on is the new ‘liking’ tags. In the new reader, you can now link to articles you ‘like,’ and Google will compile everyone’s tags and list a count at the top of the post. For example, the Marginal Revolution post above had 6 ‘likes’ when I read it this morning. In a world where the bloggosphere can already be an echo-chamber of like minded voices, I wonder if ‘like-tagging’ only amplifies this problem by focusing our attention onto the attention of others.
As an example, when I get behind in my rss reader feel (multiple unread articles to choose from), I often look for find interesting pieces before I have to archive them all and start a fresh. Now, in scanning, if I can now find that a specific Marginal Revolution post is universally ‘liked,’ I will have a tendency to focus my attention there, using it as a shortcut to save time and effort of reading everything else. In this way, liking tags makes Google Reader function more like a market, ideally with high quality posts getting more attention.
But is this market rational? Or, more specifically, is it still a rational system to identify high value contributions if a majority of people– or even a significant minority– use short-cut strategy described above? Will highly liked posts be higher quality contributions, or just products of a short-cut search gone awry? And from a learning perspective, if I think a post is likable beforehand, will I be more predisposed to like it in reading? The research on the psychology of evaluation seems to suggest yes. Together, this means that we might all be more likely to read the same stuff, all the while tending to homogeneously view it as interesting, regardless of its content.
At the end of the day, I don’t think I would change Google’s approach, as I think it is an interesting addition to a nice free product. And the reality is, I will more than likely continue to pay attention to what everyone likes. I only fear that it will make me just like everyone else!
Jul. 17, 2009 at 9:55 am
I’m curious whether this really exposes you to more diversve viewpoints or is just another way to fine-tune The Daily Me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristof.html
Jul. 17, 2009 at 10:01 am
yeah. good link
that is a really good point. looking at my blog list, I really do filter by authors I think are interesting, i.e. authors who (for the most part) have a very similar view to my own.
I guess one has to be intentional about building in diversity, if thats a value. Its hard to interact with diverse views because we are forced to understand why people think/ believe different things that we do, especially to the extent we see them rationally holding to these views. i think its a good thing, but really hard to do well… and can make us less secure in our own opinions.
pb
Jul. 17, 2009 at 10:47 am
I think this is why the ‘like’ function is actually a bit troubling (note: I’m more familiar with its use on facebook than google reader). I think most people view a ‘like’ as ‘Carrie has posted this article because this represents her view-point well and she *likes* what the author has to say.’ Although that may often be the case, it isn’t always true. Sometimes I post an article not because I agree with the author, but because I think it is worth reading, for any number of reasons.
Maybe there should be ‘read’, ’skim’, ’skip’ tags instead.
Jul. 17, 2009 at 11:02 am
good point carrie… sometimes i have even not ’shared’ an article for fear of people thinking it directly represents my view. maybe i should just care less about what people think of me
Jul. 17, 2009 at 5:19 pm
This is a concept I’ve been thinking about lately as well. There’s a relatively new website called undrln (http://undrln.com) that is a sort of Digg or Reddit for design articles. They’ve made a conscious effort to keep the articles that get listed of a certain quality (think “Design Theory and Business” vs “25 Sweet Photoshop Tricks!”).
As a visitor to undrln I’ve made a change in how I use the site. Because I want it to be a success and a valuable resource, I’ve become very selective in the articles I “vote up” or “like”. A sort of self moderation that can make the whole system better…but only to a certain extent. It only works if the people you ‘follow’ or a good segment of the user base buys into the idea of quantity over voting with the herd.
Good article Peter. Cheers.
Jul. 21, 2009 at 9:31 am
Matt
Good point here… I wonder how many people taking your strategy it would take to tip the system in a more efficient manner.
pb