Daily Archives: June 5, 2003

cataphora

In an interview, Esther Dyson talks about Cataphora, a system that profiles email behaviors:

Then there’s this great company, Cataphora, which works with emails and other documents to do a much better job of searching for and analyzing emails. Their market right now is primarily litigation and [legal] discovery. For example, if you’re looking for emails in a brokerage house, it’s pretty rare that you find something that says “XYZ Company is a piece of shit.’ Instead, there’s something that says “This is an important accommodation for a banking client,’ and you don’t know how to look for that. There is no keyword that would get you to that. So you want to look at patterns of communication, who has talked to whom, and did the chairman of the company talk to the analyst before the analyst raised his ratings? Who talked to whom, before so and so sold their stock? It’s not just the content-you want to look at communication patterns.

Cataphora lets you see how and when people are connected rather than what they said.. but that lets you know where to look for the content you want. It displays the communication patterns in a kind of flowchart that shows the progress of conversations over time, who talks to whom and so forth. So you can you say, “Look at all the emails between this guy and that guy on such and such a date.’ And you see who within the conversation suddenly stopped talking. As Elizabeth Charnock, Cataphora’s founder, says, “One guy who usually talks to everybody is suddenly cut out of the conversation. Maybe they’re planning a surprise birthday party, but usually it’s something else”.’

The question is whether or not the outsider can figure out the something else. For example, in my visualizations, sometimes folks broke up, sometimes people died, sometimes a project ended, etc. But the data owner always knew.

the use of my Ani site

I’m very proud to help a variety of people access Ani Difranco lyrics through my website, but an email today made me realize that my help extends to surprising places:

We went to an Ani gig last night, and because one of us is deaf, the kind folks at RBR gave us a setlist and printed out the lyrics. Rather than getting the words from one of their own sources, Ani’s tour manager went to your site and downloaded them from there.

media mangle

There’s something magical about seeing one’s thoughts in the media. Namely, the awe that is generated when one barely recognizes oneself. I spoke with a columnist from the NYTimes about Friendster and in the printing/editing process, my name ended up being unrecognizable. Not only did it acquire capital letters accidentally, it also morphed into either Danah Boyle or Danah Doyle at various points in the paragraph. I can’t help think i’ve become a digital doily. Boing boing. Splat.

Well, given that i have a blog, perhaps i should dispel the myths that i accidentally generated in the Times. Of course, one day when i have more time, i will actually structure a full story around Friendster, so long as folks continue to contribute their thoughts.

First, i have to smile about my quote that includes the word nuanced… ah, danah speak. The ironic thing is that i cannot make the connection between that and the 60,000 number. Aside from the fact that my 4 degree network is almost 100K in size (which is absurd), the subtle nuances that i would like to see in Friendster concern the structuring the different relationships that we manage. When asked who my friends are, i’m likely to provide lists from a variety of different contexts in my life – lovers, family, professors, colleagues, etc. Of course, in the context of dating, i am not interested in actually dating many of their “friends.” This constitutes a major problem when you have a social networking system that is limited in scope.

60,000 people are not unwieldly, just meaningless. This has mostly to do with how many degrees you are willing to introduce through. For example, i’m glad to introduce friends to friends (and they’re comfortable contacting one another without going through me, although i find that i tend to get a “is this person OK?” message). But when there are two people in between, it’s hard to negotiate. For example, if Alice wants to meet Cathy and Alice is my friend and Cathy is Bob’s friend, it becomes odd. Do i say to Bob, tell me about your friend Cathy and i’ll tell you about Alice and perhaps we can see if they have something in common? Dating networking works best when someone can vouch for both unknown folks. The more degrees, the less meaningful the connections mean. That said, it’s fascinating at how much breadth is covered in 4 degrees.

Oh, and for the record, the defunct Six Degrees is the first site that i know of for non-business digital networks. Of course, it was before its time and died a terrible death due to poor ideas surrounding money and spamming.

::sigh:: I think that my biggest sadness is that there is a lot of interesting concepts that should be addressed in a discussion of Friendster and i have yet to see anyone in the press take them on. For example, 1) what is it about humanity that makes this meme so popular; 2) what are the social reprecussions of such a system; 3) what are the underlying structural flaws that limit the system’s growth? Hopefully as articles emerge, folks will delve into what i think is interesting about Friendster.

Continue reading