I was about to mention Deskbookers.nl, and you beat me to it. Here's the thing: there are several different groups looking for a coworking space. One, and the one that is the easiest to serve from a portal perspective, is the mobile worker who wants a drop in desk or the folks who want a room for a meeting or a workshop. They are the early adopters and they are the ones most likely to use a portal. But unless you are Seats2meet (which incidentally mostly does not use portals) or easyoffice (ditto) they are not the majority of most coworking spaces' business.
I like Frank a lot and I like Desbookers a lot also. But other than as a way to get the name of your space under the eyes of many people, such a portal isn't particularly helpful in terms of long term relationships (which is what the core business is, at least for a lot of us). It encourages the perception of coworking as a place where people drop in for one day, pay as little as possible, and then go away. This in turn encourages a race to the bottom in which everybody is trying to exploit everybody else as much as possible. This would be something closer to De Oude Onzin than it is to Het Nieuwe Werken. Worksnug, on the other hand (the webpage and the app) has scales for number of power outlets, number of dataports, refreshements available, community, noise level, and formal areas, as well as whether membership is required. Now, worksnug is not about booking, it is about locating. But the Coworking Registry is also not about booking but about locating. So I don't think I (myself) would be willing to subsume it all to a question of price per desk, which is what I think the proposed grid does. It's not a booking site. Jeannine On Feb 28, 1:26 pm, Joel Haasnoot <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Make the fields fillinable and you'll find more adapters." > > I'm all with you on that from the perspective of coworking spaces. > However, it's painfully hard software-wise to compare dissimilar > options. > > I'm developer for a booking portal for coworking spaces, and we > decided to standardise on workspace categories (i.e "open > workspace"/desk, "closed workspace"/an office, or "meeting rooms" of > various sizes). This makes price comparisons between different spaces > much much easier, and per category spaces can still specify the > facilities that are available to that category of workspace. If you > allow spaces to provide their own categories it becomes very > complicated very quickly, and it's almost impossible to compare price > because of the dissimilarity of what's offered. > > I'd stick with a couple of standardized options for the > coworkregistry, or risk not having a good comparison tool. > > Joel Haasnoot > Developer > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 02:28, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Our 2cents. One size fits all does not fit coworking. When it comes to > > membership costs there are Different models, different overheads, > > different cultures, different economy, diffferent values, etc. Even when > > it comes to naming levels. Hotdesk vs Flexdex, and so on. Make the > > fields fillinable and you'll find more adapters. > > > Chad > > The Creative Space > > Barrie, Ontario, Canada > > Www.thecreativespace.ca > > > Jonathan, > > >> I caution against any form of standardization. I know it makes it easier > >> for the software, but this is a community of individuals that can't even > >> decide on the definition of coworking. We each know it in our hearts, and > >> that is enough. I'm trying to summarize quickly for the sake of fitting > >> this into an email but that right there is a crucial factor in how this > >> community sticks together. It's a subtle nuance that can be really > >> difficult to wrap your head around but it's critically important. That > >> might sound like something that is difficult to work with but it is also > >> really easy to make solutions with this in mind if you don't try to fight > >> it. Our current tools, the google group and the wiki page, are > >> all-inclusive and neutral and no one has to conform to any standard to > >> participate. I've spent a lot of time studying why these tools work for > >> us, > >> despite all the drawbacks people love to debate. > > >> Again, it's really tricky for me to explain this via email and I look > >> forward to talking about this more over beers in Austin. Am I just being > >> cryptic here or does this make sense to people? Anyone care to paraphrase > >> what I'm trying to get at here? > > >> Jacob > > >> --- > >> Office Nomads - Individuality without Isolation > >>http://www.officenomads.com- (206) 323-6500 > > >> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Yankovich < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Hi All, > > >>> I'm working on adding more metadata to coworkingregistry.org and one of > >>> the things we identified was having rates information for various > >>> membership > >>> levels. Now, I KNOW that each facility has different membership levels > >>> that > >>> offer different levels of service, access, etc, but for the purposes of > >>> standardization and communication, I'd like to identify some common > >>> membership levels. > > >>> Currently, when I look at most spaces' web sites, I see the following > >>> levels: > > >>> 1) Drop-In - A one-day pass to work while the space is open, like a > >>> 9-5 > >>> Hotdesk member but for one day. (No storage.) > > >>> 2) Hotdesk 9-5 - Access to a desk/chair/resources every day that the > >>> space has open hours. No key. Bring your laptop, take it when you > >>> leave. > >>> "Leave no trace" coworking, unless a project locker is provided. > > >>> 3) Hotdesk 24/7 - Access to a desk/chair/resources as well as a > >>> key/card/code so you can access the space whenever you want. > > >>> 4) Permadesk - Your own established desk with whatever storage is > >>> provided. Commonly you might leave a laptop or desktop computer at your > >>> desk. Permadesk generally includes 24/7 access (key/card/code). > > >>> There are generally higher "tenant" or "anchor tenant" types of members, > >>> but these are usually custom/contract relationships and not something > >>> that > >>> needs advertising. It might be valuable to have a "Looking for anchor > >>> tenant" option on coworkingregistry, but saying more than that is > >>> probably > >>> not necessary. > > >>> So what does everyone think of these 4 general levels of membership? > > >>> Are these good names, or are there better names for these things? Do > >>> these > >>> names translate well into other languages? > > >>> Remember that the exact offering will vary from space to space in terms > >>> of > >>> the hours of availability, additional amenities, access to > >>> meetup/conference > >>> room spaces, and so on. I dont propose that we try to agree on those, > >>> or > >>> get spaces to change what they offer. What I'm trying to establish is a > >>> few > >>> general/base levels of membership that we can use to talk about > >>> membership > >>> across spaces in a general way. For example, everyone generally knows > >>> what > >>> a day-pass or drop-in is. Does this make sense? > > >>> See you in Austin, > > >>> -- > >>> -Jonathan Yankovich @tronathan > >>> Community Advocate, Madison Coworking > >>> Preferred contact: > >>> 1. skype: jonathanyankovich > >>> 2. twitter: tronathan > >>> 3. gtalk/email: [email protected] > >>> 4. phone: (608) 513 2012 > >>> more info:http://coworkingregistry.org > >>> more info:http://madisoncoworking.com > >>> please follow @tronathan @coworkregistry @coworkmadison > > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>> Groups > >>> "Coworking" group. > >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> [email protected]. > >>> For more options, visit this group at > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en. > > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> "Coworking" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Coworking" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
