Hi, Joel, I don't think you were off, I think you were right: based on the grid as proposed, the site is a way of comparing spaces in a location based on price. That was my objection: I think there are enough of those.
I do take your point; I have a great deal of sympathy for you and for Jonathan, and for anybody who tries to develop an API of this nature. It is indeed like trying to herd cats. Users want to compare things, and spaces want to be compared but the comparison has to be based on what people think is important. That is for the mobile workers mostly the price of a drop in. And possibly we should take this part of the conversation off list, some parts of it may be unique to Holland. If so, somebody send up a flare and I'll quit hijacking. But Holland is in many ways a great place to try all this stuff out, there is a lot of experimentation going on for many reasons not unique to it but more densely experienced because of its nature. At this moment if somebody sees my space on Deskbookers and opens a new tab to find my webpage, contacts me directly and becomes a member for life I have no practical way to pay you for that nor to even find it out. If I ask them they will say they came through my web page. They did, from their perspective. And I want to, I have zero interest in participating in an economy of mutual exploitation. Not even when it works out in my favor. Because the end does not justify the means; in fact, the means chosen changes the result. The population of mobile workers is it seems to me well served; the other populations interested in shared office space solutions are very nearly not served. There's no Funda for that. Jeannine On Feb 28, 10:33 pm, Joel Haasnoot <[email protected]> wrote: > So maybe I was a little off on my first post. It really does matter > what your goal is: whether you primary focus is differentiating based > on price, or those looking for a community. > If you're after people who differentiate based on price, it's a lot > easier to define set plans. It makes the whole interface side simpler > for visitors, but does indeed not reflect the spread of coworking > facilities. Also as Jacob mentions: I too hate software that dictates > workflow versus the other way round. Plans are definitely a more > complicated thing business wise that types of workplaces or meeting > rooms > If you're just offering a table of plans for people to compare, for > people looking for somewhere to work and a community the approach > you're taking should be fine OP, but you might want to add > functionality in the future and create some sort of "search wizard", > a more detailed comparison, similar to for instance telecom plan > comparison sites out there, that compares several plans based on your > wishes (needs for certain facilities, days per month you'll need the > space, etc). One thing I'm always looking at is "will someone new to > the concept understand this table", it's a user experience exercise. > > To give a bit of background to Jeanine's post, I'll just give the > quick spiel: I'm the developer and one of the partners at > Deskbookers.com, a (currently) Dutch portal connecting people looking > for a place to work with providers. We partner with coworking spaces > to rent out their workspaces and meeting rooms as they want, and > provide an easy way for people who are looking for a place to work to > book. The spaces get access to a booking system (for bookings from the > site, or not), can enter all their details, upload pictures, etc, and > handle payments and billing. > > That said, the market for flexible office solutions in it's breadth is > quite large and fragmented: there's pure coworking communities, yet > also more commercial entities, to the large enterprise-focused firms > with large networks of offices. It's definitely a constant balance we > try to keep and look at. We launched in November, and we've got lots > of plans that we're working out. We are looking at ways to incorporate > memberships and make the site more community-oriented: there are > things in the pipeline. > > Joel Haasnoot > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 16:24, Jeannine <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
