A Look at the Small

Proving Expertise

Wed, 2 Dec 2009 23:47:26 -0500

As discussed earlier in this blog, it is important to publish thoughts and ideas in order to exist on the social network. However, it is equally as important to know what to communicate and what not to communicate within these channels. If one writes simply to let others know they exist, it will be treated as the noise it is. If one wants to become a nanocelebrity, one needs to prove the areas of their expertise without looking like a complete idiot. The nanocelebrity should be able to get correct information to the subject at hand, be able to prove that information by cite credible source and (the most difficult part) not sound pompous with doing it within the limitations of the channel.

The issue becomes when to chime into the media stream and post information. The best answer that I give is that one should look at the amount of information being produced in a media channel (either Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, whatever) and see if the post is able to create more dialogue relevant to the conversation, quiet all of the information that is useless and/or create a point of agreement within the channel. If you are not able to do one of those three things, then you need to look at what value your comments or posts will have. If the answer is "none," then you really would be better off waiting for a better time to interact or accept the fact that your input will be interpreted as noise and will easily be ignored.

Self Publishing

Sun, 10 May 2009 21:07:30 -0400

The first barrier that any nanocelebrity must cross in order to expose themselves to the larger online community is to self-publish. If we are to believe that academics must “publish or perish,” then a person seeking to be a nanocelebrity must publish or never exist. This may be the most obvious place to start, but it is important to maintain a regular publishing schedule or else you are virtually invisible to the larger community. (Yes, I realize the irony in writing this as I haven’t posted to this blog in almost two months.)

The problem can be where to publish and the answer I always give is that it doesn’t matter when you publish as long as it is expose online. It sort of mattered a decade ago as many of the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were walled communities and limited access to outside resource. Now with search engines, most materials posted anywhere online can be accessed by typing a search term into the Google/Yahoo/Alta Vista/fill-in-the-blank search bar and looking at the results. This is especially true in the realm of the microblogging site as search becomes a key method of find new friends, new people to follow and new memes.

In addition to self-publishing being a point of exposure to the larger community, it should force the writer to express themselves clearly within the confine of the medium. If a person simply write garbage online, they will be more likely than not treated as noise, a nuisance or spam. In order for that person’s material to raise above the rest of the noise, a person must write from an educated point-of-view, it must be easy to understand and must be written with a human voice. The last one is very important as more and more robots are putting materials in the site and spamming the community.

The Interworkings

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:54:55 -0400

Rex Sorgatz wrote last year about the concept of the nanocelebrity when he wrote "[t]he point is that renown is no longer the exclusive province of a select few. Nano-celebrity is there for the taking, if you really want it." I believe that he was talking about celebrity at the micro level and was getting the scope of an individual's fame wrong. He posted the eight steps to microfame; which are self-publish, stylize, overshare, respond, ally, diversify, create controversy & persist. Those steps would work very well to individual who wish to market themselves to a limited general public. The nanocelebrity for the most part is not trying to create fame for fame sake. Rather, a nanocelebrity uses his or her knowledge to attract followers and, in turn, create buzz about themselves. Nanocelebrities are different from the traditional concept of an expert as they still use the channels available to promote themselves and their work. Therefore, it is fair to create a different set of rules in the development of the nanocelebrity.

The next set of posts in this blog will be to develop these rules and create a working definition to help those people who want some amount of fame through the knowledge and their understanding of the world. By understand how the gears and knobs work in this environment, we as online society can build a meritocracy that rewards knowledge and blocks the vapid small talk that tends to weigh down the usefulness of microblogs and other online communities.

The Purpose of Nanocelebrity

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:04:18 -0400

I really wanted to explore a few different avenues when starting this blog. The first one was to briefly verbalize my thoughts on this new channel of communication (microblogging/microcommunication/anything that uses XMPP to transmit information). I hoped this did not become a boring academic exercise only a few people would read. I thank you for reading it up to this point. The second reason was to work out how “opinion leaders” were formed in this channel. It looked like since this channel used as a pseudo-formal “many-to-many” communication platform, it seemed that the strength of speaker comes from the ability of that speaker’s message to be re-transmitted, how “well-known” is the user and the value of the information/knowledge being delivered by the user. It is a through a combination of these factors that a user can attract and maintain a following.

However, the major reason that I’m doing this is to talk to people using these channels to deliver vital information to an audience. I would like to be able to tell the stories of the community outside the confines of the network. I believe there is a very interesting and complex narrative that can be shared by these nanocelebrities to the rest of the outside world. So, if you are interested in being interviewed to discuss Twitter, microblogging, your role in the community and/or your area of expertise, please feel free to email me at nano@fallout.cc.

Connecting with the Audience

Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:38:48 -0500

There have been several articles and academic studies dealing with the ability of people to connect through online communication. We also have heard how people have built their “micro-brand” through connecting with a broad audience. There is discussion about how creating a transparent online profile will help attract new fans and followers. This will help with the “microcelebrity” creating a brand, but how does a nanocelebrity create and maintain a relationship with their audience.

It really is a simple as being an expert in a niche and narrowcasting that information to the stream. The beauty of service like Twitter is that you could be a niche expert in two field and use two different Twitter account to express your expertise. It also help to respond to every question that is posed either to you or your area of expertise. However, it is also important not to be perceived as “spamming” the channel with useless information. Therefore, a sense of balance is needed.

Because there are fewer “barriers of access” in the microblogging channels, people can access one another with virtual ease. The individual could ignore other users. However, ignoring another user should be a last resort. An annoying individual could still have useful information every so often. Also, ignoring an individual could prevent you from dealing with situations that you would have been otherwise aware of. Remember, even the small comment can add something to the conversation and you maybe able to use the information to gain knowledge in your field.