It was fun seeing the “uncensored you” in that group (which is still going strong, so clearly not everyone left), and here’s to your continued growth to be who you need to be.

There are some things I find worth throwing to the breeze to see what reaction they get. But yes, the more context you build around. What’s cool about that coffee shop you just checked into? Maybe there is a story behind your particular visit. Why do I tell people every time I go to the gym? To inspire others just to do it or to hope from reinforcement? Probably both, even on days I get neither.

I’ll also throw my hat in with other folks re: the “first” private Facebook group, which has matured and settled in since then. The lesson to add? Some things don’t die, they just need to mature a bit. Not that you would like it today- tho you might- but it did not vanish after you left. Patience breeds a better story (which it will with Google + as a platform, but that’s another topic altogether, isn’t it?)

Cheers for more great discussions in 2012, (who the f*** is Ike, anyway?)

I respect you greatly and consider you a friend, which is why I feel comfortable disagreeing with certain parts of this post, e.g. “and not only did I need to quit; everyone else did too,” or “one failed as a community, and one succeeded.”

I believe these statements to be perfect examples of intentional communication that fails to account for an audience that may or may not have had the same experiences. And while I appreciate and continue to appreciate that need that you had to leave the group, the experiences I had in that shared group and continue to have are very distinct from yours’.

Groups, like the individuals who comprise them, evolve and change. Just as communication and audiences do. And what resonates one day may not resonate the next, perhaps because on day one is it shaped by one experience or ideal and on day two, another. Therein lies the beauty of communication. What I read one day and love, I may hate the next; there is so much that enriches and shapes any particular experience.

I am a strong believer in free will. Just because I intentionally curate something doesn’t mean that its target will appreciate it as much as I do. Consequently, if I share one article to one Google Plus circle and it only resonates with one person, does this mean that my intent was misdirected? Or was it timing and only one person saw it?

And hence, I return to your original statements.
Everyone else should have quit when I did (which implies that everyone’s experience is equivalent to yours’) and one community succeeded where the other failed (ditto).

Intent may get you to the table. But your target has to be convinced that its in his or her best interest to partake.

And that, my friend, is an example of intentional ‘rambling’ communication that may very possibly miss its mark.

The way a private group can go from warm community to piping hot gabfest to a boiling cauldron of gossip and insecurity… Ah, good times. Good times.

And the priorities and intentions thing. Because it’s hard to put out a post like this and say “You know why you haven’t heard as much from me this year online? Because I’ve been doing kickass work, being there for my family, and keeping this body that gets my brain from point A to point B fed, watered, exercised and rested. So I dialed back courting the digerati.”

It’s hard because doing so contradicts the Gospel of Always On. It points out the fuzzy math people keep employing to insist that you can do great work at your day job, pontificate eloquently on a daily blog, chat up the Twitterati and Facebook to the tune of hundreds of updates a month, be an amazing spouse and parent, take care of your health and fly across the country attending and presenting at conferences every month or so. And you can’t.

There’s not enough coffee in Kenya to power a person through all that for months at a time. The corresponding equation says that when you reach the mythical A-list, you’ll make good on any IOUs to people you’re short changing by suddenly becoming a homebody who is satisfied with spending more time with “the important things,” which are ironically exactly the things you phoned in or ignored completely to chase microfame.

Without even directly addressing it, a post like this calls that bluff. It admits the damn emperor is nekkid. So bravo, Ike. Even if I’ve completely misinterpreted your post, it gave me just enough oomph to finally post this rant. So, Happy Almost New Year. May 2012 be filled with more honest reality, and less digital fairy glamour.

I don’t think there is a viable business model in being the Nielsen of the Web… too many people used to free services, and no good means of micropayments to make it happen from the ground up.

Now, if Klout migrated to a model where companies paid to find the topical influencers, maybe. But you’re right that Klout being in the middle of the Perk mechanism tends to give it incentives to behave in a manner that doesn’t befit the research/aggregation function.

(I have long said that the value in Twitter and Foursquare and other networks is buried deep in the data, studying trends and discovering new correlations that give a real predictive quality. See this post for an example.)