Choices when Designing for Social – Renaming allowed?
Posted by CesareThis reflections started when a local group I subscribed on Facebook changed its name. A while ago, the administrator started a group about my region and its residents. When I subscribed I thought: “It is a pretty common practice, somebody feels the need to create a group about a shared interest”. I thought it was a good idea and so did many. I still think it is a good idea but not when the following happens. The administrator of the group is also an organizer of local parties. Recently he changed the name of the group, from the generic name of the region to the name of a party! You might think: “He is dishonest, a profiteer!”. I think so, but my reflections got immediately over, to the platform on the backstage.
Why did Facebook designers allowed the possibility to rename a group? By designers here I mean Interaction Designer, people who thought and reflected on the dynamics implemented in the platform (e.g. you can see the pictures of your friends, friends can post on your wall, etc.) This features, consciously or not, are the reflections of design choices, and any designer who as worked on social products had been in front of junctions like: should we allow this or not? why?
I am wondering, why on earth Facebook designers allowed group renaming? Have you ever been in a real world group? I did. Have you ever participated to a group that changed its name? I did. Before renaming, the new name (and goals of the group) have been discussed by the WHOLE group. Here I am not trying to defend the party organizer, he did his part, but I am ascribing some responsibility to the designers. If a platform enables such a behavior it is not well designed, and in front of such episodes people might loose trust in the platform itself. The possibility of renaming a group enables everybody with some charisma to collect “friends” and cheat on them. My boss is happy because I joined the charity group, and the day after I am fired because the group name changed to “Satan apostles”.
I am not blaming the WHOLE Facebook, for it allowed me to get some job and to get in touch with old friends I’d have never met otherwise, but I am just reflecting on a single (apparently) little feature which enables a sort of anti-social behavior.
Let me close with a thought from a development view point: how many meanings depend on the change of a string? :)
Similar Posts
- Apple vs Adobe: do I need really to choose?
- Unemployed? Get Flex Builder for free
- Posty 1.7 Released
I really think you are over reacting. They probably allowed the renaming of groups because intitially, groups were the best way to create a business presence on facebook. Businesses LEGITIMATELY change names.. think about the millions of requests they might get for name changes because their company changes, merged, etc.
If the group changes it’s name AND it’s focus, its up to the users to simply click a button. You aren’t permanently attached to that group.. they dont get to forcibly keep you there.. yes, it might be shady to build a community on a pretence of one thing and change it involve a completely different area of business, but thats the group owner’s choice.. don’t like it? Make your own group and invite other group members!
People can VERY easily change the focus of a group without changing a name.. there is no reason why this business owner couldn’t have left the groups name and changed the way he displayed content.. wouldn’t that have been equally as frustrating?
Well, in my particular case the group was not focused on business, it was just a leisure group, like “the newyorkers”. I was upset by the change of purpose, not the change of the name.
My concern is more related to the design: can I call “well-designed” a system which allows questionable behavior? My answer is no.
Before the “social wave” we have been using newgroups, which never allowed such a behavior, for – in my opinion -they are well designed.
Leave a Reply