Internet Noise and The Delphi Effect

There’s been a lot of discussion in the tech sector recently – most notably depicted on TechMeme – regarding the concept of Internet “noise.”

Robert Scoble is among those who argue the noise is incredibly valuable and should be embraced. His logic is to the effect that mainstream media (MSM) sites – and even aggregated collections of MSM sites, such as those appearing on Google News – focus on conveying polished, easily digested sources of information which are designed for quick consumption, but are not wholly representative of the complexities and realities of user opinion.

New forms of mass communication such as Twitter on the other hand are the exact opposite. When taken piece-meal you gain an interesting sense of insight into the thoughts and opinions of each individual user. However, when aggregated in bulk the threads merge into a cacophony of voices that is truly overwhelming initially.

As overwhelming as this is on the surface, Scoble and others argue that the noise is indicative of trends – whether established or emerging – however you have to know how to listen, filter, and as importantly, interpret.

For a long time I didn’t understand what they were driving at by saying the noise is good, however in my continued reading of Eric Raymond’s “The Cathedral and The Bazaar“, I think I’m starting to understand.

In the section titled “Release Early, Release Often“, Raymond describes the logic behind the Linux philosophy of early and frequent release cycles. Notably this section quips the now famous saying: “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” However it also discusses the concept of the Delphi Effect:

“Sociologists years ago discovered that the averaged opinion of a mass of equally expert (or equally ignorant) observers is quite a bit more reliable a predictor than the opinion of a single randomly-chosen one of the observers. They called this the Delphi effect.”

It would seem therefore that the trends inherent in the noise, which Scoble et al are listening to, are in fact a contemporary, publicly visible instantiation of the Delphi Effect – and on a mass scale.

If this is the case it also immediately highlights the value inherent in what Duncan Riley recently anointed the “Blogging 2.0” era. Here conversation and discussion have taken centre stage; and ideas, not content, reign supreme.

The conversations presently occurring on Twitter, FriendFeed, Disqus and the like provide an amazing insight into not just popular culture trends, but the myriad of opinions, and ultimately people that underpin them.

From a sociological standpoint the research potential is truly remarkable – the key question is how to harness this opportunity.

References:

“Delphi effect“, Wikipedia, accessed 20 May 2008
“Blogging 2.0: It’s All About The User“, Duncan Riley, The Inquisitr, 18 May 2008
“The Cathedral and The Bazaar“, Eric Raymond, May 1993

Tags: Delphi effect, FriendFeed, Internet, internet noise, social networks, Twitter, web communication

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 20th, 2008 at 9:22 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

unique_stephen

Thanks, I just got a little smarter

Mike Bogle

I plan on doing more research into what the notion of the Delphi effect actually entails, because truth be told I really don't know anything about it.

From the Wikipedia article:

"The "Delphi Effect" appears to be synonymous with the Delphi method. The Delphi method is based on the assumption that group, as opposed to individual, judgement of trends can improve the validity of forecasts. It was developed at RAND Corporation in the early 1950s in a project funded by the US Air Force. It has been used ever since, together with various modifications and reformulations, such as the Imen-Delphi procedure."

The Wikipedia article on the Delphi method is located here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method

The fact the article indicates the Delphi method is based on an "assumption" is interesting and makes me wonder the extent to which the model and the "effect" Raymond discusses are based in hard research versus relatively softer observation.

Will add to this as I discover more...

Cheers,

Mike

Matthew Smith

But what does it all mean? Who benefits from all this noise and how? Is it just about feeling happy because you are connected? Does it improve your investment choices? Is it about a new social status?

When you talk about open source software, there is an outcome which is tangible like the linux kernel or Wordpress. But there's more than that, it's identity forming as well: something that comes from submitting a patch which is accepted by the community. It's also hierarchical, some programmers for various reasons rise to the top of the pack.

Twitter and blogging has these aspects minus the tangible outcome (perhaps the outcome is just entertainment or knowledge or ideas or inspiration).

ez

Synthesizing disparate information into something coherent is a right brain activity in a culture who has come to primarily value left brain results. Try reading Daniel Pink's A Whole New Mind.

Perhaps the size, the breadth, or how homogeneous the information base are helpful factors. A couple people isn't helpful. A bunch of people who think like you do isn't helpful.

Mike Bogle

Hi Matt,

I'm right there with you on those questions. I've got more questions than theories at this point. So this post is as much about thinking out loud (or on screen) than it is arguing reality. I could quite easily be wrong.

It's also what I meant when I wondered "How do you harness this opportunity?" I think the activity and usage we're seeing is more than just about feeling happy and connected. Certainly the connection is important, but I suspect it's a means to an end.

I wonder to what degree you could say people see potential, but don't realise what their needs are yet?

I'm inclined to think there is opportunity in all this. There's so much information being made available - and by multiple demographics, niches, and communities - and to a fair degree this is unsolicited information, so in a sense you're getting an untainted glimpse into people's lives in a way that was not really possible before.

So in that sense there's opportunity for research - both academic and market - as well as gaining reality checks about satisfaction on services (we're seeing more and more instances in which disgruntled Twitter users get responses from service providers as a result of their Tweets).

I'm also wondering if, in some cases, what we're seeing in the noise is the precursor to the tangible outcomes you mentioned, or even the formulation of off-shoot communities that will ultimately produce these outcomes.

For example are the discussions we're seeing the initial stages of identify forming - or perhaps more accurately an attempt at carving out an identity? Or even brainstorming ideas that haven't fully materialised yet.

For example would this be comparable to lurkers on Linux forums who have a distinct interest in the community but haven't reached the stage where they feel a part of it?

I'll add to this train of thought as ideas and questions come. Thanks for the thoughts - they've been very thought-provoking.

Cheers,

Mike