Here is the next installment of my thesis The Noisy Idiot Dilemma. The methodology section outlines the groups I studied and how I studied them. In summary, my main aim was to absorb myself in the ebb and flow of conversation, to find out the recurring themes, the personalities and the general tone of the discussions. Think of it more as a high level ethnographic approach rather than a detailed, purely quantitative analysis.

3. Methodology

This paper seeks to observe online discussion and conversations that span a wide range of topics, with a variety of moderation methods. In doing so, qualitative observations will be tethered to quantitative analysis such as group size and length of threads. Specifically, the dynamics of the group will be considered and the impact on the level of Noisy Idiot behavior. The paper will discuss techniques that worked well in forums: success stories help to improve existing models. Just as above where the State Department’s online presence is discussed as a successful use of social media, this research seeks similar ‘grade A’ techniques.

Six groups were selected for initial observation (described below). Studying conversations in an online forum and providing measurable results is challenging. In order to obtain results in order some kind of quantitative analysis could be achieved, the method of analysis employed was as follows:

• On the day of analysis, pick the top 6 threads at the time, and if analysis takes more than a day, continue observing those conversations selected initially on the first day of analysis.
• When observing conversations, note the number of participants in the thread, and the times different people post.
• Look for arguments, inflammatory behavior, personal attacks, note how many of the 6 conversations have some kind of dispute.
• Where there is dispute, note how it is dealt with – by one person, by many? In a provocative manner or by ignoring it?
• Note the subject matter of the conversation.

By following this approach, data is provided on the following:

• How the topic matter affects the behavior of the group, do certain types of subject matter provoke increased Noisy Idiot behavior?
• Does the size of the group affect the Noisy Idiot behavior, or the way it is dealt with?
• Are the same people exhibiting Noisy Idiot behavior?
• Are the same people dealing with the Noisy Idiot behavior?
• Does the construction of the forum (level of moderation, rules, geographic spread of participants, age of participants, anonymity) affect the level of Noisy Idiot behavior?

In addition, in undertaking the first study on this type of behavior [1], it should be noted that many of the observations were purely qualitative and yielded much insight into behavior. With this in mind, in addition to the above metrics, there are extensive notes of general qualitative observations.

3. 1 Groups Studied

A brief description of the 6 groups selected for study follows:

3.1.1. Urban Baby

UrbanBaby.com is a forum for parents (mostly mothers posting) to discuss matters relating to raising children. The site was launched in 1999 as a resource for parents in urban areas. Since its launch by the husband and wife team Susan and John Maloney, the site was taken over by CNET Networks in 2006. UrbanBaby has three main areas: [2]

• Talk: the message boards are a key component of the site. Threads cover all aspects of parenting.
• Buzz: ‘Parenting and product news & tips.’ [ibid.]
• Local: In depth and local information for parents in New York and San Francisco.

This thesis study focuses on the Talk section. The most interesting difference between this site and every single one of the others studied is that postings here are completely anonymous. Registration is required to reply to threads, however sign up is extremely basic (email and password), and the main reason for such a sign up looks to be to get users signed up for UrbanBaby newsletters.

3.1.2 Gossip Rocks

Gossip Rocks is a huge archive of celebrity profiles, as of April 18, 2010, the archive size [3] was:

• Celebrities: 2,283
• Pictures: 111, 099
• Ringtones: 4,509
• Wallpapers: 4,311

The site on the face of the above description would appear to be a kind of one-stop-shop for information on celebrities, however on looking at the archives many seem out of date. The site’s main draw looks to be the enormous forum section. The Gossip Rocks forum community is vibrant and lively, they discuss and dissect every piece of news and trivia around celebrity news. In addition, there are also forums on non-celebrity issues such as:

• Plastic surgery
• World news and issues
• Daily life, for example: food and cuisine, health and fitness

By far, the biggest section of the section of the discussion in the forum section is the ‘Latest Gossip’ section. Anyone can browse discussion threads without registering. In order to post, a user must register, user names will suffice. Profile creation is encouraged. Interestingly, once registered, but before being authorized to make a first post, the new user must say ‘hello’ in the New Members forum. In doing so, the new user’s account is authorized and they can then post on other boards. This ‘initiation’ is friendly but persistent. Upon registering, the new user is sent 2 emails: one confirming their registration details and the other reminding them to introduce themselves in the new members forum. An additional pop-up reminder appears on first login. This is all an attempt at acclimatising the newbies and in community building. The site has a strong hierarchical system with respect to status of members, for example ‘Elite Member,’ ‘Friend of Gossip Rocks,’ ‘Bronze Member,’ ‘Gold Member.’ The number of posts looks to correlate to level of status. There is also the ability to list other members to your ‘friend list.’

3.1.3 The Coffee Party USA

Completely fed up with the large amounts of press the Tea Party were getting, Annabel Park created a Facebook page at 1.30 am on January 26 2010. More than 155,000 people joined in less than six weeks. Park noted, ‘the Facebook page had become a townsquare, where people could talk, learn, engage, share, serve and be part of the community.’ [4] The explicit aims of Coffee Party USA are to ‘reinvigorate the public sphere drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America’s political arena … We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members.’ [5]

This site is particularly interesting as a forum for conversation, given the whole aim is diverse discussion, one would expect the level of Noisy Idiot behavior to be lower. However, the discussions are likely to be about politics, which traditionally is a topic of conversation that draws those with strongly held issues and often loud people.

3.1.4 Topix Pasadena-Star Forum

The Pasadena Star-News Forum is a forum for people to comment on stories featured by the Pasadena Star-News. The newspaper serves the San Gabriel Valley community in California, and is one of the three daily newspapers in the area. The paper claims to have over daily 289,000 readers and over 318,000 Sunday readers, 4.8 million monthly page views and 917,000 online monthly visitors. [6] The forum is hosted by the Topix: ‘the leading news community on the Web … the site links news from 50,000 sources to 360,000 lively user-generated forums. Topix also works with the nation’s major media companies to grow and engage their online audiences through forums, classifieds, publishing platforms and RSS feeds.’ [7]

This forum is interesting to study as there is likely to be a geographical link between participants in the forum. The extent to which this affects the level of Noisy Idiot behavior within the forum will be considered. Many sites studied link participants by shared interests or experiences – for example UrbanBaby, but the linking of members by geography is expected to be the strongest shared tie between the members of this forum.

3.1.5 The Student Room

The Student Room is the UK’s largest online forum for young people. The site has over 250,000 members and more than 16,000,000 posts on it’s forum: its big. In addition to the forums, the site has a wiki containing study notes, sample college admission statements and articles of interest to young people. Any age students are welcome, but registration is required to post in the forums. The moderation system is run by a hierarchical system of unpaid volunteers. [8]

3.1.6 The Wall Street Journal Community

The Wall Street Journal Community is part of the WSJ’s online presence described as ‘a marketplace of ideas for Wall Street Journal readers. Exchange opinions, ideas and tips on subjects ranging from the economy to the business of life.‘ [9] First impressions on looking at this community is that interaction and networking between members is strongly encouraged. The site lists the benefits of creating a profile as helping people to find you, and to give context around your posts. [10] The sense of a forum to encourage networking amongst members is strongest here than any of the other forums studied. Discussion often revolves around a daily question for example, a current affairs issue of the day. [11]

Footnotes:

[1] Modifying an existing online group: European Union – Debate Europe or What to do about Noisy Idiots, White, C., March 2009

[2] Urban Baby about page, http://www.urbanbaby.com/pages/about, accessed April 23, 2010

[3] Gossip Rocks, http://www.gossiprocks.com/, accessed April 18, 2010

[4] Why I started Coffee Party USA, CNN Opinion, Annabel Park, March 18, 2010, www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/18/park.coffee.party/index.html, accessed April 18, 2010

[5] The Coffee Party USA, http://coffeepartyusa.com/content/about-us, accessed April 18, 2010

[6] 2009 Scarborough Report, Rel. 1: ABC Audit; 2009 Omniture, quoted in Pasadena Star-News Contact webpage, www.pasadenastarnews.com/contactus, accessed April 18,2010

[7] About Topix, www.topix.com/about, accessed April 18, 2010

[8] The Student Room, FAQ: About The Student Room, www.thestudentroom.co.uk/faq.php?faq=tsr_cat, accessed April 18, 2010

[9] The Wall Street Journal Community FAQs: http://online.wsj.com/community/faq, accessed July 9, 2010

[10] The Wall Street Journal Community FAQs Profiles: http://online.wsj.com/community/faq#Profiles, accessed July 9, 2010

[11] The Wall Street Journal Community, Question of the Day, http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/, accessed July 9, 2010

When I lived in Bloomsbury, I had a favorite Sunday morning ritual which I’d perform every couple of months.  It worked best when the weather was dank and gray – when you didn’t miss being outside.  I’d walk over to the British Museum, go look at the Egyptian Mummies and the Rosetta Stone, getting lost in the age of it all.  When you move cities, you make new rituals.  Today I headed to the UES for my New York City gray day favorite.

Picking up the Sunday Times and taking the 5 train from Wall Street to 86th Street, I walked over towards the Park.  On the corner of 5th Avenue and 86th is the Neue Galerie.  Inside the Neue Galerie is the bustling yet incredibly calm wood-paneled Cafe Sabarksky.  Along with the Week in Review, Main, and Books sections of the Times, a huge piece of Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (chocolate cherry cake) was demolished with a Milchkaffee too.  Actually, I also ate two Bratwurst Mit Sauerkraut and Röstkartoffeln and an Austrian lager in addition to my Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte and Milchkaffee. If you’ve been on a diet for six days of the week, it’s a smart idea to give it a rest on the seventh…

Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte and Sunday Times

The Neue Galerie is a favorite as it has something in there I love just as much as the Egyptian Mummies in the British Museum.  Her name is Adele Bloch-Bauer and she was painted by Gustav Klimt in 1907.  Her face is so delicate, and the whole painting radiates a soft golden light.  It’s one of my favorite pieces of art in New York City.

The Galerie had a special exhibition of Otto Dix’s work.  Beginning with his unsettling and brutal depictions of the First World War, and then moving on to his colorful, sometimes comedic and sometimes unnerving portraits.  Amazing use of color, I very much recommend.

The sausages, potatoes, beer, and huge slab of cake required a walk.  A long walk.  I went to the Park, south of the Reservoir.  It’s beginning to feel slightly autumnal despite the residual mugginess.

Central Park Reservoir

Looking towards the UWS

The final part of the ritual is a walk to Zabars to pick up coffee.  The UWS on a Sunday is full of strollers and brunching.

85th Street and Central Park West

Zabars smells great.  Looks great.  Feels great.  Appealing in every way.  I want to dive into the barrels of coffee beans every time I visit and it’s a real feat of control not to leave with enough food for a month.  A favorite Manhattan place.  There is only one other store I found to rival their coffee, and that was Darwins in Cambridge.  Which became one of my favorite Sunday morning rituals when I lived up there for the summer too.

Zabars

Coffee barrels to dive into

I have done this exact same route: lunch at Sabarskys with the paper, walk through the Galerie, across the Park and over to Zabars, many times now.  It’s seriously relaxing.  Perfect for a gray Sunday at the end of the summer.

Last week I was interviewed about the Noisy Idiot Dilemma by Jerry Brito of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center for his podcast Surprisingly Free.  Listen here… Thank you @jerrybrito and @tatemwatkins!

From the Surprisingly Free website:

“Catherine White, graduate student at New York University’s Interactive Telecommunications Program, where she is researching productive participatory discussion, talks about her thesis on the Noisy Idiot Dilemma.  White explains the dilemma — how to foster productive online conversation when certain speakers exhibit noisy, unproductive, or unhelpful behavior — and discusses her research on various online forums, weblog comments, effects of humor, anonymity, and empathy online, and characteristics of elastic, oily conversation.”

I spoke on the Noisy Idiot Dilemma at Ignite NYC recently during Internet Week.  It was huge fun, slightly daunting: my not-very-eloquent first words as you’ll hear are “my god, there’s a lot of you…’  Thanks to all the Ignite NYC crew – I had a great time.

I’ve been redrafting and tweaking my thesis after handing in the initial draft for grading in May at ITP.  Here are the first two chapters – more to come soon. Below are the background and introduction.  Methodology, results and conclusions will be up here over the next few weeks.  I’d be really interested to hear your comments and feedback.  Thanks, Catherine.

The Noisy Idiot Dilemma:

How To Make Participatory Online Conversation Easier

Catherine White

Interactive Telecommunications Program

Tisch School of the Arts

New York University

catherine.white[at]nyu.edu

May 3, 2010

Abstract

How do we improve participatory online group collaboration? More specifically, how do we work together online in groups when there are noisy, dominant and often unhelpful people in the group? Especially when these people are not necessarily breaking forum rules, instead they often just make group collaboration and decision making difficult, if not impossible. This paper provides a high level overview of this disruptive behavior through the study of various online forums and proposes optimization methods for online group collaboration.

Keywords

online collaboration, decision making, participation, groups

1. Background

In March 2009, I wrote a mid-term paper [1] on this topic for the ITP Social Facts class. The paper was centered around the Debate Europe Forum. [2] The European Commission set up a forum in the attempt to engage European citizens in debate over several issues including climate change and energy, women and politics and the future of Europe. The main driver for setting up the site was a lack of interest in the EU elections in 2009. It turned out more British people voted in the UK reality TV show Big Brother than in the 1999 European elections. [3] As of February 28, 2010 the site has closed. [4] I spent time looking at a specific conversation within the Debate Europe forum, where people with loud voices on single issues had filtered into the discussion, the result being that the group was often sidetracked by this noisy behavior. A member of the forum attempted to engage the group in finding a solution to this issue, such as ignoring these people. However, this person was accused of stifling debate, and issues of free speech were called into play. In the end, the person who raised the concerns about this single issue, dominant, Noisy Idiot behavior left the group as a result.

The conclusion of the study into the attempts by the group as a whole to deal with Noisy Idiot behavior by members of the forum lead to a dissatisfactory conclusion: that democracy sucks. Why have open conversation and debate if this is the result? On further reflection, I realized that ‘Noisy Idiots’ and their impact on democratic decision-making is a huge dilemma. And yet so very important. [1] The idea that a group as a whole can find it hard, if not impossible to deal with this kind of behavior and for their discussion be completely derailed as a result is truly concerning. Especially given that online forums are the method my generation are increasingly turning to as a conversational arena.

In June 2009 I lead a seminar on the topic of the initial paper on Debate Europe at the NYC Participation Camp and received some great feedback, it sparked a interesting and enthusiastic debate, which continued online after the conference. In July 2009 Craig Newmark used the term ‘Noisy Idiots’ at the Personal Democracy Forum 2009 conference, this again sparked more debate and confirmed this was an issue that really bothered people. That’s fun. During the summer of 2009 I worked for a short while on the concept of creating online conversations and community as part of the team on the HerdictWeb project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. [5] We wanted to investigate if the level of participation in an online group was affected by remuneration of the participants in the group. This confirmed my interest in this type of subject matter and that I wanted to expand my study of conversation within online groups further.

Dealing with difficult people, yet not shutting them out is a really juicy issue: hard and tough, with concepts of the right to free speech and not silencing minority viewpoints coming to the front of the discussion. This project looks at existing theories in the field and analyzes current online conversation. It should be noted that this issue will never be completely fixed; there is no solution to a ‘problem’ here.  We can merely try to optimize.  This fact adds to the challenge to find ways to really help people to work together given that this dilemma will always be present due to the very nature of group conversation online.  One final note, this thesis analyzes the concept of ‘Noisy Idiot behavior’ – not ‘Noisy Idiots.’  There is a difference.  The term is meant to be provocative and memorable but in no way labels people, rather – behavioral traits.

2. Introduction

Online conversation is increasing. Fast. The rise in group discussion and collaborative decision making is evident in most online environments. These include attempts by corporations to build community around their brand or a product, [6] by nonprofits to raise awareness of causes, and in classrooms through the use of class wikis. The list is long and varied. However, compared to how long we’ve been conversing offline, quite simply – we haven’t been talking in groups online for very long. Our Roberts Rules of Order for the management of these online conversations is in its elementary stage compared to the hundreds if not thousands of years of experience of governing real-world conversations. And the ‘discussion around the dining table’ is different online, the parameters are different, and hence a different approach is needed.

2.1 Order Order, And Please Pass Me The Salt

The dynamics of conversation are fascinating: the ebb and flow of a discussion or debate, volume rising to reach a crescendo, peaking and then falling back as members reach a conclusion, the personalities in a conversation: the steerers, the silent listeners, the rowdy ones, the peacemakers, the controversy courters. The variety of conversational forums is breathtaking. Before even venturing into the online world, it is worth looking at this variety and diversity in the sort of places conversation and debate occurs in the physical world, in order to frame the further discussion in this paper:

i) Geography

The uninitiated Brit would likely keel over at the exuberance of some of the social interactions found in various Manhattan restaurants. At the dining table in London, politics, religion and money are strictly off limits for some, but go to dinner in any New York restaurant and you’ll hear the Mayor, Albany, Seder dinner and the tax season debated and dissected. However, there is an order to these discussions: people take social cues from others, and while the volume and temperature of the debate may rise; lively conversation and debate usually occur in a good natured and constructive manner.

ii) Age

The F bomb. If you’re under 30, chances are you’ll drop it in your social group without the need to peel someone’s eyebrows off the ceiling. Start using it in grandma’s knitting circle and chances are you’ll be told in no uncertain terms this is not an acceptable expression of feelings in that particular forum. Different age groups have different acceptable social practices.

iii) Voting Mechanisms

The corporate shareholder meeting is a classic example of decision making following informed discussion within large groups of people. All sorts of techniques have been honed for this over years of corporate jostling. Complex approaches to classes of shares, proxy systems, methods of dealing with vexatious shareholders have lead to a sophisticated decision making system dealing often with many different interests and agendas.

iv) Government

One of the best known forums for hearty, loud, challenging debate is the UK House of Commons. Prime Minister’s Question Time is noted throughout the world, not only as a place where the people (via their elected representatives) speak directly to power, but also – a place where often loud, noisy jeers are somehow parsed into constructive debate.

v) The Town Hall

Another example of people speaking directly to power is in the traditional town hall meeting, seen most recently during the 2008-2009 election campaign in the US.

vi) The Board Meeting

Hand in hand with the shareholder’s meeting, this is a type of group conversation that results in decision making, with a variety of rules and traditions governing how the meeting is structured.

vii) The Grad School Seminar

Through the management of a professor, lively classroom debate is kept on topic and time managed with the aim of letting everyone be heard – not just the noisy few.

Common to the above conversational forums are various techniques for effective group discussion to ensure orderly debate occurs, and without the discussion being derailed, for example by being overwhelmed by a noisy majority or minority; these must haves include -

i) An effective moderator;

ii) the ‘Collective Eye Roll;’

iii) an established and known format; and

iv) personal accountability.

2.2 The Variety Of Conversation Online

As seen in the above examples, our methods of keeping order and ensuring fair debate in real-world conversational sphere are pretty established. In addition to actual strategies for keeping order in group conversations, there are a variety of behavioral factors influencing the motivations of members in groups. For example, we are drawn to that which is similar: ‘birds of a feather flock together.’ In looking to join groups with those of similar sociodemographic, behavioral and intrapersonal characteristics, we seed groups in this manner. [7] The more you have these kinds of similarities in a group, the more likely it is the conversation will be less confrontational.

Another important concept to consider when looking at how we interact in groups is that of Axelrod’s Shadow of the Future. [8] According to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, if we interact just once, parties get the most reward by defection. However, if interacting more than once, there is a memory of past behaviors and it is of more benefit to the parties to behave in a cooperative manner. In groups, individuals gain most by playing fairly, it pays to care about your future interactions. [ibid.] The above concepts are factors to consider in online as well as offline group interactions, with specific issues in the application of these theories to online groups.

In beginning to look at the online conversational sphere, a veritable Pandora’s Box of separate issues is opened. Specifically, there is a disconnect, or a lagging behind between the development of techniques used to moderate discussion in the real world vs. conversations taking place online. This disconnect, can in some cases render participatory, collaborative group discussion (and in some cases, collaborative decision making) arduous, unproductive and inevitably, not fun. There is a need though to deal with this disconnect – because, as shown in the section below, we are increasingly collaborating online.

2.3 Why Is Online Conversation So Very Important?

With the rise in usage of social media tools by pretty much every type of organization: academia, corporations, nonprofits – to name a few, people expect to have a voice in a variety of arenas. This section outlines some success stories.

Corporations are tweeting [9] as a method of conversing with their customers and trouble shooting problems quickly. Blogging has become a natural partner to an corporate website; a place where news can be disseminated quickly, in perhaps a more informal and conversational manner. [10]

Facebook pages are appearing in the most unexpected places as a tool for engagement with an organization and the public. The US Department of State has been a real pioneer of this approach. Speaking in March 2010 at the Policy Making in the the Digital Age conference at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs school (SIPA), [11] Kimberly Harrington of the State Department’s Office of Innovative Engagement spoke of the State Department’s successful use of Facebook in engaging with communities in other countries. As of March 2010, the State Department had over 180 Facebook pages for various embassies and consulates, 50 twitter accounts, 20 Flickr sites, 15 blogs and 45 YouTube sites. One specific example of conversation between an embassy and people using a Facebook site was by the US Embassy in Cairo. They started a Facebook group to engage with Egyptian students wanting to study in the US, specifically post 9/11. They set up a group called Study USA Egypt. It was deemed a good medium to reach people as Facebook usage is popular in Egypt (2 million Egyptians use it). Every day the embassy posts information and has committed to responding to queries within 24 hours of receiving them. Also posts are public so reach a wide audience. The page has over 8000 fans and the embassy reports an increase in applications for students to study in the US as a result of this. In addition the quality of applications has also increased due to students being better informed about the process.

These are great examples of organizations opening up a dialog, not just broadcasting to their audience.  These days, there is more of an expectation of this kind of conversation: to be able to engage with a company, government, museum – the list goes on.  Hence the importance of looking into how we can converse together online more effectively.

Footnotes

[1] Modifying an existing online group: European Union – Debate Europe or What to do about Noisy Idiots, White, C., March 2009

[2] Debate Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/archives/debateeurope/index_en.html, accessed April 18, 2010

[3] BBC Online, The EU’s Democratic Challenge, November 21, 2003, http://bbc.news.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3224666.stm, accessed April 18, 2010

[4] Debate Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/archives/debateeurope/index_en.htm, accessed April 18, 2010

[5] HerdictWeb, http://herdictweb.org, accessed June 6, 2010

[6] The Barbarian Group were hired by Kellogg to build an online community around their cereal brand Kashi, http://www.barbariangroup.com/portfolio/kashi_com, accessed April 11, 2010

[7] McPherson, M. et al., Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2001. 27:415-44

[8] Axelrod, Robert; Hamilton, William D. ‘The Evolution of Cooperation‘, Science 211: 1390–96

[9] Jetblue Engages in Real Conversation on Twitter, Socialized Blog, March 18, 2009, http://bit.ly/1k1mVj, accessed April 10, 2010

[10] Edelman and Intelliseek, Talking From The Inside Out – The Rise of Employee Bloggers, Fall 2005, http://bit.ly/dzZvmS, accessed March 20, 2010

[11] The Morningside Post, Blip TV channel (Kimberly Harrington), http://themorningsidepost.blip.tv/, accessed March 20, 2010

The floor is open to all of us in the NYC tech/entrepreneurship/academic community to share and contribute.  Let’s go! (And don’t worry about how old you are…)

Picture: @wesleyross

I am taking a series of classes organized by Tech@NYU this summer.  These awesome guys are a student organization with the aim of bringing the tech and entrepreneurship communities together.  It’s great.  We meet every Wednesday evening at the Courant Institute (you can’t help but feel a little more intelligent in there), and for 2 hours we get a crash course in various programming languages.  Last week it was JavaScript and JQuery, this week it was Ruby.  I love these sessions for 2 primary reasons.  First, they’re perfect for someone like me, who is not an expert coder, but wants to understand enough to be able to traverse from the Geekosphere to TechNotAtAll Land.  Second, it’s run by students.  I’m very used to this kind of approach having just spent 2 years at ITP.  Our Thursday evening student-led DriveBy sessions covered every topic imaginable, from how to be a VJ, to math for artists.  A couple of weeks ago I co-hosted one on the World Cup.  Not only are the DriveBys at ITP incredibly informative, they are a really effective way to build community, and to get to know your peers.

Here’s the thing though.  I heard tonight in the seminar one of the very capable speakers asking if anyone minded that it was students taking the class, and the fact that they possibly younger than some of the attendees – would this be a problem?  The answer from me was a resounding “duh – are you kidding me?!”  I am astounded and continually thankful here in the NYC tech-entrepreneurship-academic community at how open and willing people are to listen to others, if they’ve got smart stuff to share, whether they are bearded and grey, or bearded and spotty.

The floor is yours guys, have confidence, you are doing a great job.

Last week, I met with AF-London’s Jane Ni Dhulchaointigh and James Carrigan over a beer in Shoreditch to discuss transatlantic Awesomeness.

AF-NYC’s Catherine White with AF-London’s Jane Ni Dhulchaointigh and James Carrigan

Tomorrow (Wednesday) AF-London will be awarding their first grant with a party starting at 6.30 pm in The Griffin (93 Leonard Street).  We’re really excited to hear who they pick.  Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pond, Awesome NYC are planning their 4th award party – details soon.

I’ll be speaking on my ITP thesis “The Noisy Idiot Dilemma” at Ignite NYC IX on Wednesday as part of NYC’s Internet Week.  There is such an exciting and vibrant tech community here in NYC at the moment, its great to be part of it.

It is my first speaking gig on my thesis since I presented it at ITP (video here).  I’ll be speaking alongside some people I really admire including the Director of Expert Labs – Anil Dash and Smith Magazine’s Larry Smith.  The magic of Ignite is in its format: 5 minutes per speaker, 20 slides.  That’s one way to really summarize your year-in-the-making-thesis…

I’ll be speaking about how we can make online group discussion easier, specifically how we can deal with noisy, disruptive behavior in the online conversation sphere.  The results surprised me, I’ll be really interested to hear your thoughts.

Details:

Ignite NYC IX – Internet Week

RSVP here

Doors open at 7 pm, talks begin at 8 pm

Internet Week HQ, The Metropolitan Pavilion, 125 W. 18th Street at 6th Avenue.

More on Ignite NYC

More on NYC Internet Week

More on The Noisy Idiot Dilemma

As I check my calendar this evening in London as I prepare to return to New York, I remember that it would have been my father’s 71st birthday tomorrow…

My father was amazing.  He loved technology.  He taught me calculus and how an LED worked.  He also helped me nail the basics of macro and micro economics, and how to write a business email.  He explained Information Theory, showed me radio waves on an oscilloscope that we kept in the kitchen, and told me of the Feynman Lectures.  Because of him, I love Bizet and Bruce Springsteen.

He is my first Geek Hero, having managed the research department at British Telecom and before that he made really fast switches at Bell Labs in New Jersey after completing his PhD in electronic engineering.  He was also awarded an honorary professorship from the University of Wales, granted the Freedom of the City of London and was the Chairman of the BT Technology Journal, as well as being a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical Engineers in London.  I am hugely proud whenever I speak of him.

I find it incredible to think what he’d make of technology in 2010, specifically the advances in telecommunications technology and the Internet since 2004 when he died.  In 2004 there were no iPads or iPhones, and Internet speeds were tortoise-like compared to today.  There was no Broadband Plan in the US and we did not all carry BlackBerries (I wonder if he’d have been glued to his like I am mine).  There was no Twitter or Facebook outside US universities or Foursquare.

His last major article was for the Millennium Edition of the BT Technology Journal.  The edition considered telecommunications in the future, today and in the past.  He wrote of the importance of understanding where we’ve come from technologically to really understand where we’re going in our future developments.  Wise words.  He also spoke of the coming “data wave” and how “voice communications will be relegated to a similarly marginal position that we now give to Morse code telegraphy!”  What a conversation we’d have about this now…

Dads often give really good advice.  Mine not only was good at the regular Dad Stuff (avoid wearing open-toed shoes to the office if you’re a chick, and Worcestershire Sauce makes cheese on toast taste much better), but also he was really an amazingly clever telecommunications expert.  His love of technology had such a huge influence on me.  As I sit here eager to return to NYC for Internet Week beginning on Monday, I know he’d have been Skyping me and emailing me to discuss every new Twitter trending topic next week.

(Text above, quotes and picture: BT Technology Journal, Volume 18, Number 1, January 2000, SpringerLink – http://www.springerlink.com)

We had a party at ITP yesterday afternoon to celebrate graduation.  At the end of the afternoon we were told there was a video waiting for us…

Don’t forget about us, 2nd years! from Sarah Dahnke on Vimeo.

Huge thank you from us 2nd Years to you 1st years, it was a really lovely surprise.