Personal Network Effect
= for any person at any given time, a certain finite number of connections to other members of the network produces maximal value.
Description
Stephen Downes [1]:
"Fewer connections, and important sources of information may be missing. More connections, and the additional information received begins to detract from the value of the network.
Most people can experience the personal network effect for themselves by participating in social networks. One's Facebook account, for example, is minimally valuable when only a few friends are connected. As the number grows over 100, however, Facebook begins to become as effective as it can be. If you keep on adding friends, however, it begins to become less effective.
This is true not only for Facebook but for networks in general. For any given network, for any given individual in the network, here will be a certain number of connections that produces maximum value for that member in that network." (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/11/personal-network-effect.html)
Implications
Stephen Downes:
"This has several implications.
First, it means that when designing network applications, it is important to build in constraints that allow people to limit the number of connections they have. This is why the opt-in networks such as Facebook produce more value per message than open networks such as email. Imagine what Twitter would be like is anyone could send you a message! The value in Twitter lies in the user being able to restrict incoming messages to a certain set of friends.
Second, it provides the basis for a metric describing what will constitute valuable communications in a network. Specifically, we want out communications to be new, salient, utile, timely, cognate, true and contiguous.
Third, it demonstrates that there is no single set of best connections. A connection that is very relevant to one person might not be relevant to me at all. This may be because we have different interests, different world views, or speak different languages. But even if we have exactly the same needs and interests, we may get the same information from different sources. By the time your source gets to me, the 'new' information it gave you might be very 'old' to me." (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/11/personal-network-effect.html)
Discussion
Designing Networks for maximal value
Stephen Downes:
"One final point: if we change the way we design the network, we can change the point of maximal value:
It is toward this effect that much of my previous writing about networks has been directed. How can we structure the network in such a way as to maximize the maximal value? I have suggested four criteria: diversity, autonomy, openness, and connectedness (or interactivity).
For example, networks that are more diverse - in which each individual has a different set of connections, for example - produce a greater maximal value than networks that are not. Compare a community of people where people only read each other. You can read ten people, say, of a fifty person community, and hear pretty quickly what every person is thinking. But reading an eleventh will produce almost no value at all; you will just be getting the same information you were already getting. Compare this to the value of a connection from outside the community. Now you are reading things nobody else has thought about; you learn new things, and your comments have more value to the community as a whole.
It is valuable to have a certain amount of clustering in a network. This is a consequence of the criterion for semantic relevance. This is that people like Clark are getting at when they talk about the need for a common ground, or what Wenger means by a shared domain of interest. However, an excessive focus on clustering, on what I have characterized as group criteria, results in a decrease in the semantic relevance of messages from community members." (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/11/personal-network-effect.html)
Not all nodes are 'equal'
Leonard Low [2]:
"A fairly accurate perspective... but it does miss the importance of "node quality" - not all network nodes (people in your personal network) are equal!
You can maximise the maximal value of your personal network by selecting from all those nodes available a subset of high quality members - for example, original thinkers, accomplished creators, or knowledgeable analysts.
Whether your network is in the blogosphere or in Facebook, it's possible to create "garbage networks" - networks of people who only serve to reinforce each others' misconceptions.
Some of the most useful nodes, therefore, are "synthesisers" - people who neither trust everything they read (no matter how reputable the source), nor think their own ideas are infallible, but instead provide analysis that is both accurately critical and humbly reflective.
At the other extreme, I value "specialists" - people who are terrific in just one or two things, and are prepared to argue a case from one (or another) perspective. These are often the people who are the best creators or discoverers of original content... but due to their particular specialisations, not always the best broad analysts across a full range of issues.
The combination of a select group of first-class synthesisers and specialists makes my personal network as strong as possible, for me." (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/11/personal-network-effect.html)
More Information
- Paul Saffo, at http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9990635, interprets the Personal Network Effect as the opposite of Metcalfe's Law
Also: