Communities do not scale they divide
The very first part of the Web2Open in San Francisco I was able to sit in on, for only a few minutes, was answering the question: “Do communities scale?”. Of course, there were many opinions as to whether or not they do, whose doing it best, and how to improve in the future. But in my observations thus far they scale to a certain point and then divide - and I feel this is a good thing.
One of the good examples of scaling communities mentioned was Flickr. Obviously they’ve become the community poster-child and rightly so. They’ve put a lot of thought and hard work into making their communities thrive, grow, and in some ways scale very nicely. However, there is still a limit that any community will hit and then it is forced to divide regardless of the feature-set that the service offers.
Online communities reflect their real-world counterparts so lets use New York City as an example of community division. Everyone that lives in New York City is part of a community. They all feel it. They all take pride in it. And in some way or another they all take part in it. However, none of them are familiar with everyone inside of their community. Most of them will never meet face to face. But each one of them has their own much smaller communities that they belong to. Maybe they work at a company, or visit the same coffee shop everyday, or play basketball with their same five friends in the park on Saturdays. Regardless, they’ve divided themselves from the much larger community and created or taken part in a much smaller community inside of the one that surrounds them.
Flickr has given some really great features to its group administrators allowing them to setup their own communities under the much larger Flickr community. That’s the first divide. Flickr has worked really hard to make those communities work well whether there are only two members of that group or ten thousand. But, is there a limit? I feel there is and it might be different for every community.
Once a group gets too large, other groups begin to emerge that may do things very much in the same way as the much larger group - yet they divide in order to find elbow room. To help themselves separate the signal from the noise or even just to pull their friends along. I’ve done this myself. I belong to both the 365days group and the MeToday group. However I’m far more active as a MeToday group member than I am a 365day group member because the MeToday group seems like its my friends getting together and posting their 365day shots. I’m a member of the enormous Macintosh group but I also belong to the Macbook and Apple symbol groups.
On Viddler I’ve noticed other divisions occurring too. We’ve not released any group type features, though we plan to, and yet already groups of people are banding together to create their own social groups. This is done a combination of ways and obviously marking each other as friends is one way, or tagging videos the same way is another. But then we have our forums where small grass roots efforts to form communities (like our newly formed Viral Marketing Team, which is too freaking cool) are taking place. This is the first divide. I’m sure we’ll begin to see others in the near future and I can’t wait for those days to come.
When you put people into the same place with similar interests they all band together with common goals. When that group reaches “the community limit”, they begin to divide while still being loyal to the larger group. I do not think that any set of features can help to stop this and I don’t think too much time should be put into trying to stop it either.


May 18th, 2007 at 9:55 am
These are some great points, Colin. Reminds me of Dunbar’s number, which is a concept I can’t stop returning to ever since Mark Pesce’s brilliant closing keynote at Web Directions last year
There are definitely points in a community’s growth at which it splits. I think the only way for that to work is if the splits are non-divergent, eg. despite some people identifying more with Mopeds than Motorcycles, they’re still motivated to maintain their membership in the Two-Wheeled Transport community. Flickr works because everybody still loves sharing their photos, regardless of if they’re family snaps, moody self-portraits, studio work or soft porn (not that any of those groups are necessarily exclusive on Flickr…)
I guess the trick for Viddler is to work out ways to help those groups form in a cohesive fashion, rather than a divisive one. Paving the cowpaths already pioneered by your users would have to be the first option, surely? Group profile pages for friends or machine tagging to specify the group(s) are the first things that come to mind late at night when I should be working
May 18th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Lachlan: Wow. I’ve not heard of the Dunbar’s number theory, thanks for point it out to me. I definitely concur, on some level, with it.
Also, regarding your tips for Viddler - you are correct. There are several ways we’re going to be joining these communities together - most of which came from how they are already doing it themselves.
Thanks for the comment, now get back to taking over the world from down under.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Nice article, Colin.
Sociology always intrigues me. In this case, you could call it HiveLogic, too. heheh.
I’ve considered clubs, groups, affiliations, and gatherings in an effort to be a ‘part’ of something. I think it satisfies a part of human psyche to ‘belong’.
Where it gets really strange is when you combine human’s innate sense of belonging with it’s additional sense of uniqueness. We want to belong to a group (if you will), but we also want it to be exclusive to those that qualify for that particular elite status.
Consider Apple Fanboys. It used to be a cult status symbol to put an Apple sticker on your car. You were ‘bucking’ the trend, displaying your underground fanaticism for Apple computers and that you should be revered in some manner.
Blinging something you love is a related topic as well. You like to parade your exclusive affiliations to show that (in essence) you are unique. Is it the desire to be unique that drives this? Probably. [heavy discussion ensues.]
I’m sure that allowing individualism on viddler will promote growth of groups and help spawn cliques, categories, rooms, clubs, pools, et al.
This is a long topic, and I’ll stop there, but I thought I’d mention it. Some of this stuff you know more about than I.
Cheers.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Luke: The desire for uniqueness is definitely part of it. Or, even just the desire for your voice to stand out even just slightly above the crowd.
I have some ideas on how we’re going to try to have this happen on Viddler so that less dividing happens outside of the group structure, but can actually happen within it, while keeping the main group intact.
Thanks for jotting down your thoughts!