I've gained the respect of the sharing of thoughts intended as an exchange of information alone and to observe how often the face of this damage has prompted me to develop a personal strategy to reduce them. The discussion then extends to everything that is the subject of crowding.
Disclaimer: This post makes abundant use of worst case scenarios
When we find something beautiful and exciting, the majority of us are driven to share it, to tell the friends who, to boast, some for a pleasant thing to do, who to pick, I know. It is a natural human instinct, we can contrast it to selfishness, we can say that it is innate spirit of collaboration, you can generalize about what you think.
Fattostà that I paused to think about the results of this behavior e. .. I did not like at all. A quick overview:
- AnimeDB; know it all: it was a godsend for those who got sick of replica DragonBall on Italia 1, and especially for the community of brokers and subtitled that had arisen around. We registered all, we told everyone, the word has spread so much that finally, after having made access almost impossible for occupied bandwidth, has also entered the Guardia di Finanza, and then end the game. Wonderful.
- The canteen "that good" ; the university canteens are all more or less sucks, this is known. There is only one very good canteen - so good as to not sound like a university canteen in fact - but, being a bit 'in the suburbs, this is uncomfortable and push people not to go - in theory . Here, since all those who have tried it have begun to advise around - and the rumor spread like wildfire - the row has increased appallingly uncomfortable with the expected consequences and the risk of not being able to catch the bus before the end of the validity of the ticket (well 75 min). Strike two.
- Facebook, as mentioned in previous posts, start Facebook is interesting that the groups were new, the applications were not bad, there was good content every day, and news that otherwise would have been hard to find. Then they started to register all humanity that nasty smeared Netlog Badoo and understood, and it happened the end of the world: it has become a competition over who creates the most deficient group, which battles thought dominant is the best, but look at me as I laugh, look at how many people do this same thing means that they are normal, this video of two years ago is beautiful, blah blah blah. Can not find a single news which has not been commented on by stoned, and any conspiracy of any kind. Just stuff the following weapons:
" know that beautiful, Italy is detached from the internet and creates velinanet, a network where you can only see services on players and uominieddonne "
value added ZERO. The contents disappear visibly decent and the people you normally try to stay away are getting closer. A nightmare. Strike three.
" Veltroni would be the best president that Italy might have had "(sic)
share information on the existence and quality of a particular service is counter-productive (in other words it is wrong ).And it is for a very simple mechanism, known to all: you tell it to friends and - if the service is actually as good as you support - they say it to their friends, and so on. Early in the dissemination of information, the amount of people who have broadband access grows exponentially [1]: you tell it to 5 people, who say it to 5 people, each of which says to 5 people, and doing so within 8 steps we are already almost 500,000 new users as possible. So, to share information quickly leads to an overload of users on the service in question, because the load is growing exponentially, and no service can cope with such growth without suffering discomfort. Inconvenience are reduced quality, the creation of code, the difficulty of access, and at worst the destruction of the service.
is for this reason that I say to anyone what it's called and where is the wonderful place where I stayed this summer in Berlin, because otherwise in a couple of years I find myself full of the boisterous Italian, with a consequent decrease in quality, availability of rooms and so on; unlivable. For the same reason I do not say no to the new replacement AnimeDB, but known, however, that not all follow the same trick: even now it is almost impossible to navigate due to bandwidth overloads, and lasted much less than AnimeDB. The lesson is not served with a cock.
However, there is an entire category of cases where sharing is a very good strategy: when you refer to a class of services , no one in particular. For example, it began to spread the fact that Japanese food is very good, the increase in demand was followed by an increase in supply: to date there are more Japanese restaurants two years ago, and this is definitely an advantage to both the availability and the quality (because after a while, 'when the offer reaches and exceeds the demand, comes the need for competition). The difference is that the market is able to handle the sovradomanda (and indeed, it is manna from heaven) as no company can own. The general rule is:
Share information only in respect of classes of service, never for a single service, the penalty disappearance of that service.
That's right:
" Mexican cuisine is good and cheap, you should try it "
this is not good:
" That Mexican restaurant is a wonderful and great prices "
Sticazzi.
willing to learn a bit ': as a simple application, this sharing mechanism-based dissemination is deeply destructive of the structure of the graph of friends (the nodes are people, the friendship link.) If the whole is highly disconnected graph with connected components of limited size, there would be problems in sharing information on individual services, because soon saturate the network of friendships and would not continue to grow exponentially. There would be a brake that is natural - even structural - which would prevent the spread overload: to spread to other connected components (groups of friends) the existence of the service should be rediscovered from time to time.
However, we know that it is not: the network of friendships form an almost fully connected graph and a story can reach virtually anyone on word of mouth: there are no structural brakes. In particular then, the presence of hubs (people with many more friends in the media) makes the network of friendships is one of the chats " small world networks "as well as be able to reach anyone, you can get there in a few moves. It is easy to imagine how such a situation allows a more rapid and widespread dissemination of information, causing uneasiness that I mentioned above.
The profound reason for which it is inappropriate to share is in fact inherent in the geometry of friendship: it is intrinsic.
Finally: if you really did not want to do without the ability to share, to limit the damage we autoimporci very severe restriction of sharing the information with at most 1 person (with "as a person 'mean in probability. And with" very severe "I mean that you have to put to shame those who violates the rule). This causes the growth of users in time to be more linear, which would ensure a longer life of service or, even better, would enable him to adapt supply to demand.
Why do I need to be so rigid in applying the rule? we tell everyone that on average at 1.5 persons, that is only part of the people than the rule. After 20 steps will know more than 6,000 people. In general, of course, in any case exceed the average growth will certainly be an exponential, and sooner or later there will be overhead. But if everyone says it to a person, after 20 steps will know 20 people, and the number is under control. Consequently, the limit of 1 person is absolutely essential because the phenomenon in question has an exponential nature, and anywhere you see an exponential something that eventually explodes.
Finally, if you care about something not really spread it: the overcrowding is not good for anybody. And you can not fight an exponential.
[1] Then, as now there are too many people are familiar with the growth flattens out a lot - a trend similar to the logistic curve I think - but the damage is done.
0 comments:
Post a Comment