six degrees
About a year and a half ago I participated in a "six degrees" experiment that relied on email connections, and I asked to be notified when they had results. They just published those results (alternate link).
(Edit: Um, the email I received said they just published them, but I've just now noticed a rather older date on the linked article. I'm confused.)
They postulate that, unlike in some other social networks, "hubs" (people who know lots of people) are not a significant factor. While they talk a lot about drop-off from people lacking incentive to continue messaage chains, they don't seem to talk much the decision to use a hub (or not). In retrospect, I don't remember providing any data about negative decisions I made. They collected information about the people I did choose ("how do you know this person and how well?"), but they didn't ask "who did you decide against sending this to?".
I know a few people who I consider to be social hubs. I deliberately did not send all my message chains through them, because I figured that if they wanted to participate in such a study, they'd sign up for the study and start their own chains. So for any given hub-like person (who I thought inclined to participate in the first place), I sent one or two messages and then stopped. I had a total of eleven targets to reach, so I did not rely on those hubs. Mind, I also did not succeed in reaching a single target.
In other words, I was influenced by the meta-data, that this was an experiment and that I was trying to reach a bunch of different people. Also, that I wasn't personally invested in reaching these people; it was a fun game, not a matter of personal need. If there were a pressing need I would have tried the most expedient paths (using those hubs), but for a just-for-fun exercise I didn't want to bother people overly much.
(Edit: Um, the email I received said they just published them, but I've just now noticed a rather older date on the linked article. I'm confused.)
They postulate that, unlike in some other social networks, "hubs" (people who know lots of people) are not a significant factor. While they talk a lot about drop-off from people lacking incentive to continue messaage chains, they don't seem to talk much the decision to use a hub (or not). In retrospect, I don't remember providing any data about negative decisions I made. They collected information about the people I did choose ("how do you know this person and how well?"), but they didn't ask "who did you decide against sending this to?".
I know a few people who I consider to be social hubs. I deliberately did not send all my message chains through them, because I figured that if they wanted to participate in such a study, they'd sign up for the study and start their own chains. So for any given hub-like person (who I thought inclined to participate in the first place), I sent one or two messages and then stopped. I had a total of eleven targets to reach, so I did not rely on those hubs. Mind, I also did not succeed in reaching a single target.
In other words, I was influenced by the meta-data, that this was an experiment and that I was trying to reach a bunch of different people. Also, that I wasn't personally invested in reaching these people; it was a fun game, not a matter of personal need. If there were a pressing need I would have tried the most expedient paths (using those hubs), but for a just-for-fun exercise I didn't want to bother people overly much.