My fundamental break with a directory structure is it becomes a distraction for people running and interested in space for what attributes that actually get members past "in the door".
It's the equivalent to Susan's "Stop marketing your Stuff" post, on a broader scale. It's not that marketing stuff doesn't work to get them in the door, its that its a distraction from doing things that are long term valuable and will do things like get members talking about great experiences they've had, and ultimately make them contributing members of your mini-societies. For spaces, it encourages focus on the wrong things: "oh, my desks are nicer than theirs" "oh, my price points are better" etc. All useless tweaks to your business model if you don't have a clear vision communicated for you community and your space. For members and member-potentials, it has them comparing the wrong attributes of a coworking space and puts everyone in the directory in a "lowest common denominator" arrangement, which I refuse to allow our community and workspace to be included in. Lowest Common Denominator is good for nobody. -Alex /ah indyhall.org coworking in philadelphia On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Jonathan Yankovich < [email protected]> wrote: > Here's a conversation Jacob and I had about how to measure coworking, > cross posted for the benefit of others: > > (You can join this conversation by adding [email protected] to > your Gmail contacts list (works with Gmail Chat only, not Google Apps Chat)) > > *[email protected]* Daily Chat Activity > for Tuesday, March 1, 2011 (3/1/11) ([email protected]): > 12:03 jsayles: Jonathan, are you there this AM? 12:03 jonathan: yessah > 12:04 jsayles: Are we annoying you with this thread on the google group? > 12:04 jonathan: No, not at all 12:04 jsayles: does it make sense what I > was getting at? 12:04 jonathan: I havent had time to really dig into > it.. I saw that you said something to the effect of "dont standardize, > you'll kill it" 12:05 jsayles: yeah actually… that is a pretty good > paraphrase 12:05 jsayles: it's all about scope…. anything that is > going to be central to such a wide audience must also be limited in scope > 12:06 jsayles: jeannine said it really well too 12:07 jonathan: Just > read the thread 12:07 jonathan: I agree 12:07 jonathan: Did you see > the screenshot of the "grid display" for a city's coworking spaces? > 12:07 jsayles: not yet… my inbox is rather overflowing since it's monday > 12:08 jsayles: I put my email down on the weekends 12:08 jsayles: took a > special exception to respond to yoru email yesterday 12:12 jonathan: I > think if you see the grid you'll get what i'm getting at… when we start > comparing facilities, what do we compare them on? 12:12 jsayles: Yes, I > see that 12:12 jonathan: Maybe tag lists…? I was hoping to do > membership levels, but if thats not what the communtiy wants, that makes > sense 12:12 jsayles: I think it's just trying to do too much 12:12 > jonathan: > maybe drop-in rate at least? 12:12 jonathan: Check out the fields list > at 12:12 jonathan: sec 12:13 jsayles: I don't think that's necessary > 12:13 jsayles: Especially for this first round where we are trying to get > adoption, the main thing it needs to do is say "Office Nomads exists in > Seattle at this spot on the map" 12:14 jsayles: then let my website talk > about what Office Nomads is all about 12:14 jonathan: I'd like more > detail than that 12:14 jonathan: I'd like to see ways to compare or see > facilities in context 12:14 jsayles: yes, but at the expense of being a > solution many people opt out of? 12:15 jonathan: I dont think that needs > to be the case 12:16 jsayles: I don't know how better to explain myself > via email or chatting 12:16 jonathan: Or, if we're focusing on > personality/culture, then how does that data look? how can that be > 'standardized' 12:16 jonathan: Agree, its a fine line 12:17 jonathan: > but that doesnt mean it should be ignored or disqualified 12:17 jsayles: > In short it can't. The real question is how can software be useful without > standardization 12:17 jonathan: mmmm disagree 12:17 jsayles: oh this > is a much bigger conversation then 12:17 jonathan: I dont think we know > enough, or at least I don't, at this point to say "it cant" 12:17 jonathan: > Check out this list of fields that was passed around the list a few months > ago: > https://spreadsheets4.google.com/ccc?authkey=CPaA9bgH&hl=en&key=thoPmEDgk3GfVSSm9alU2gg&hl=en&authkey=CPaA9bgH#gid=0 > 12:18 jonathan: There are some metrics, like square footage, number of > members which would be verrry interesting to collect 12:18 jsayles: Oh > don't get me wrong, I love numbers 12:19 jsayles: I'd strongly advise > against it 12:19 jsayles: against this whole way of coming at the > problem 12:20 jonathan: Hmm, i guess i'm a little confused then… > 12:20 jsayles: It seems you are getting lost in all the things the > software could do if everyone just conformed…. 12:20 jonathan: One of > the big shortfalls of the wiki is that the data arent structured, so I'm > hoping to provide more structure.. as this field emerges, standardization > will start to happen, no? 12:21 jsayles: yes… in part 12:21 jonathan: > I'm saying that there are certain things that are common, like "Free Parking > Available" - I'd like to define those things 12:21 jsayles: a few points > to consider… are we going to figure out what the standard is going to be > or develop a solution that allows it to emerge organically? 12:22 jsayles: > that reduced spaces down to amenity points…. 12:22 jonathan: If that's > all the data that are provided, then yes, but we have an opportunity to > provide other information 12:22 jsayles: it's really unnecessary…. > 12:22 jonathan: like reviews, testimonials, etc 12:23 jsayles: I can see > that working 12:23 jonathan: i may agree with you there, im not clear on > the necessity of ameneties lists 12:23 jsayles: OK, let's back up > 12:24 jonathan: I think it might be helpful to look at it from use cases > too… Lets say I'm in a given city for a day, I'd like to know where are > the spaces, who accepts drop-ins, who has parking, what are their hours, etc > 12:24 jonathan: Do the focus on writers, developers, etc (culture) 12:24 > jsayles: > I disagree 12:24 jonathan: You dont think using use cases / user stories > is a good way to determine what the site should do? 12:24 jsayles: That > is the way every other listing site comes at the problem and it's a > "problem" that doesn't need to be solved 12:25 jsayles: no, I don't > think that use case is valid 12:25 jonathan: okay 12:25 jsayles: > People want to know where the coworking spaces are 12:25 jsayles: The > fact that Office Nomads associates with "coworking" and that we are at this > given address and have this website is all that is needed for the majority > of real life use cases 12:26 jonathan: hmmmmm 12:26 jsayles: I see a > lot of use cases thrown around for scenarios that just don't happen in real > life 12:26 jsayles: at least not that often 12:26 jonathan: Here's an > example… Sector67, a hackerspace in Madison, is listed as coworking but if > i went there expecting a Class A office, I'd be sorely disappointed > 12:27 jsayles: and you would figure it out on your own really quickly… > 12:27 jsayles: it's not worth adjusting the structure of the system to > "solve" that problem… 12:28 jonathan: In the Sector67 case, its a > single field with two options, "Coworking / Hackerspace" - seems like an > easy solution 12:28 jsayles: The real key isn't what software CAN do… > we could get into those arguments all day long 12:28 jonathan: Agree > 12:28 jonathan: I may be trying to implement more than needed 12:29 jsayles: > It is only that easy if you focus on solving that one guys disappointment > and it comes at a bigger cost 12:29 jonathan: I dont think there's much > cost associated with having spaces self-identify as coworking vs > hackerspace… i think that's an important distinction 12:29 jsayles: > Being in the registry means the space associates themselves with coworking > 12:29 jsayles: if it's a nursing home, they should be allowed to > participate 12:30 jsayles: extreme example, I apologize if I lost you on > that one 12:30 jonathan: No, i get it 12:30 jsayles: and I know you > don't think there is much cost… you've expressed that again and again > 12:30 jonathan: But if we dont qualify the existence of an entry, then the > entry itself should have some qualifying informaiton in it 12:30 jsayles: > and I strongly disagree… I'd love to show you the cost I'm talking about > but seem to be failing 12:30 jonathan: In my example, i dont think there > is much cost, no. I am talking about ticking a box. 12:31 jsayles: it's > not how easy it is to check a box… that has nothing to do with it > 12:31 jonathan: You lost me then… what does it have to do with? 12:31 > jsayles: > it's the whole phylosophy of what the role of a central list should be > 12:32 jonathan: i'm with you... 12:32 jsayles: I believe it should ONLY > be a way to put a stake in the ground and be associated 12:33 jonathan: > Hmmmm 12:33 jsayles: defining strucuture implies conforming to standards > and then it goes too far 12:33 jsayles: yes it makes it "easy" but it > violates the central point of being neutral and all-inclusive 12:33 > jonathan: > Well we ARE conforming to standards 12:33 jonathan: They all have a name > 12:33 jonathan: They all have a location 12:33 jsayles: yes 12:33 > jonathan: > They all have a web site 12:34 jsayles: yup 12:34 jonathan: Most have > an email address 12:34 jsayles: it's a fine line… yup 12:34 jonathan: > Most have a drop-in rate 12:34 jsayles: hmmm... 12:34 jsayles: no > 12:34 jonathan: Yeah, so right now you and i are working on where that > line is 12:34 jsayles: exactly 12:34 jonathan: I agree that it > shouldnt be over-structured, but I think we should provide as much structure > is as comfortable 12:35 jonathan: Currently there's a list of tags for > culture/personality which can be added to 12:35 jonathan: And pictures > 12:35 jsayles: that's cool 12:35 jonathan: And "comments' which are > pretty general 12:35 jonathan: Something like "How i use this space" > would be interesting 12:36 jsayles: down the road there are many things > that would be interesting 12:36 jsayles: but we can't get there if we > can't provide a solution that everyone is comfortable adopting 12:36 > jonathan: > I'm also coming at this from the perspective of collecting metrics that can > be used to advance the state of the art in this emerging field… for > example, to answer questions that can be answered with metrics… "What is > the average size of a space?" "What is the average age?" etc 12:37 jonathan: > people can always leave fields empty 12:37 jsayles: that implies that an > empty field has no cost 12:37 jsayles: that's the kind of engineering > that makes cell phones with extra buttons that no one uses 12:38 jonathan: > I think you're collapsing "some people" with "no one" 12:38 jsayles: (I > like to think of all the bad cell phone designs… there really are some > ridiculous ones" 12:39 jonathan: Its good we're having this > conversation, because it'll save me a lot of work if we choose not to > implement some of this stuff :) 12:39 jsayles: :) 12:39 jonathan: let > me get an example 12:39 jsayles: Just so you know, I am a HUGE metrics > guy and I am eager to get to a point where we can start gathering more data > 12:40 jsayles: but it's a much trickier problem then adding some fields > 12:40 jsayles: would love to get into that but let's finish up this > first… mostly just didn't want you thinking I don't love data 12:42 > jonathan: > This entry was created yesterday: > http://coworkingregistry.org/facility/locus-workspace 12:43 jonathan: > The "Culture" and "Pictures" section support what you're talking about, i > think 12:44 jonathan: My concern about data is that we need to have a > fairly "complete" (whatever that means) schema in place before we invite > people to be stewards of their entries… Jessica H has been helping me > associate entries with email adresses so people can take ownership of their > entries, but we dont want to invite everyone until we have the fields more > or less hashed out, because we dont want to have to re-invite in 6 weeks or > whatever 12:45 jsayles: I understand that 12:46 jsayles: > Name/Location/Contact are the most important… Must have those…. > 12:46 jsayles: Did you get the part in my thread where I talked about > studying why the current wiki is so effective? 12:47 jonathan: Nom, > missed that 12:47 jsayles: People love to talk about how it doesn't do > this, or it can't do that... 12:47 jsayles: but it's still been the most > effective solution anyone can come up with 12:48 jonathan: I might > contend (might!) that the reason that its the best anyone can come up with > is that we haven't taken a hard look at the appropriate constraints > 12:48 jsayles: I think that is over simplifying it 12:49 jsayles: great > discussion by the way…. 12:49 jonathan: Sounds good 12:50 jonathan: > I might crosspost it to the list for the benefit of others if that's ok > 12:53 jsayles: Yeah, I'm very interested in how you would describe this > conversation. :) 12:54 jsayles: That will show me what points I'm making > are getting through and which ones haven't 12:54 jonathan: I think I'm > getting you… i think where we disagree is that you're saying that this > problem is either unsolvable or shouldnt be solved, and i'm saying that we > need to look at it in more detail. 1:01 jsayles: oh interesting… > actually I'd say where we disagree is that where I see a problem that needs > to be looked at in more detail, I see you suggesting it can be solved with > data points 1:04 jonathan: Yeah, I'm suggesting solutions :) 1:04 jsayles: > and by "unsolvable" I really mean "i'ts not that simple" 1:06 jonathan: > One of the things about having an API and doing data exchange is having > structure… I guess thats why i've been listening to this conversation from > a place of structured data, because it seems like your original vision was > to have a highly structured system for exchanging/displaying data about > Coworking in general (Open Coworking Library)… something that the wiki > (unstructured) isn't satisfying 1:07 jonathan: So, I hear ya.. it will > be interesting to flesh this out more in the future 1:07 jsayles: Yeah, > I hear you too. I'm a software guy too and it's been an interesting ride for > me to wrap my head around the politics of such a wide and diverse community > 1:08 jsayles: I'll talk you ear off when we get a few beers in our hands. > :) 1:08 jonathan: Looking forward to it > Is this kind of conversational crosspost useful, or does it come off to the > list like noise? > > You can join the conversation by adding [email protected] to > your Gmail contacts list (works with Gmail Chat only, not Google Apps Chat). > > -- > *Jonathan Yankovich* > Community Advocate / Project Manager, Madison Coworking > [email protected] > 608 513 2012 > > -- > 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.
