April 3, 2009 at 00:15Image Transformation (Morphing Projects)
There are different images and different transformations. Google, for example, at the request "transformation of visual images" issued in the top "the transformation of female images on the pages of Soviet magazines." And I just wanted to find out if there is any special name for this, you know, famous fenka with the transformation of visual images, when, for example, there is someone’s portrait and from it a completely different portrait is quickly obtained. Now I’m about the same thing, but with regard to Internet projects: how to get another from one project by means of minimal transformations. Why is this needed? - let's say you have a project idea and want to see how to change it successfully existing closest analogues to get this project. Understand, whether these changes are in line with the natural evolution of these analogues (including in the context of general trends in the development of the Internet), and if so, how long could such an evolution take. These questions are important for you and your potential investors, because there is a consideration made by Anton Nosik (maybe it’s well known, I just heard it from Anton for the first time): if your project is in line with the activity of any major player, then you need to evaluate to weigh whether it is worth starting your own separate startup or is it better to offer yourself and your ideas to this player.
This was already in my other article , but then it was more about the psychological aspects of this choice. Now I wanted to consider what factors should be taken into account when analyzing project differences. An exhaustive list, however, does not work out; so far there are only a couple of considerations in the treasury of this topic, as well as examples of the transformation of some well-known projects into the project described by me in the previous three articles [1] , [2] , [3] . I also heard one consideration from Nosik in his statements.at a round table in Infocom 2007: to make changes to the program code of mass projects like an operation on a living person, i.e. the matter is extremely complicated. Perhaps this is all the more true for significant functional changes. Frequent and / or lengthy service interruptions, programmer errors cause customer dissatisfaction, and if there are hundreds of thousands and millions of customers, the problem becomes serious. It turns out that the mass services that have gained popularity are thereby quite limited in the possibilities of their transformations.
Another aspect is vividly highlighted by the example of Odnoklassniki - a project that is even inferior to competitors in terms of functionality can “shoot” and go far beyond them only by positioning (and name), which exactly falls into the popular consumer niche. This means that in some cases you can repeat someone else's functionality, and the mentioned minimum change will consist only in a different positioning. On the other hand, it is likely that this also has an ambush for “big” services - they become hostages of their positioning, they get used to them as something specific and cease to perceive otherwise. Although maybe I'm wrong, maybe these are my personal “cockroaches”; for example, I still can’t force myself to see Yandex.ru and Mail.ru, in addition to search and news, also competing with traditional blog platforms. Maybe,
Now examples. For those who have not read and do not want to read my previous articles on the project, I briefly explain that the ultimate goal of test transformations is a service in which users create content objects of different types and connect them with different types of links. Thus, they create structured (due to connections) content. Such a network allows one and the same object to belong to different semantic contexts, which opens up interesting possibilities. For example, combining chaos and order, communication as a spontaneous production of content and building the same content into thematic hierarchies. If users are made available to create complex (compound) objects from simple ones and these complex ones will also belong to a common network, then the prospects will become quite interesting. For example, this way you can simulate society.resources: information - content-objects text, audio-video-photo, etc .; intellectual, creative, professional, i.e. people; communities and organizations (which in the projection onto the Internet space are, of course, composite information objects), well, everything else that you can think of. This network introduces a rating system with context-sensitive weights of users' votes, which, together with other factors contributing to the manifestation of the author’s beginning, should stimulate the production of quality content. I see areas of separation of content by quality and positioning, where the highest level means the best review or systematizing materials on various topics. It seems so far enough. But in general, it seems that the theme of copyright spaces is still little disclosed; I will probably devote a separate article to this.
Perhaps most similar to the described non-network project TheBrain . An application that can be downloaded and installed and which allows you to connect different types of objects with different types of links in order to organize materials in your computer, which is alternative to the traditional system of subfolders. The desired goal would be achieved if this project was implemented in the form of an Internet service, changed the types of objects and connections for tasks of a certain positioning and implemented the wiki principle for creating masses of socially significant content for people (for which a user voting system should be introduced).
Regarding the ideology of wiki, the described project is closest to Wikipedia. If you think of the articles in it as just the tip of the iceberg, the dry residue of various relevant materials, multi-format discussions, personal blogs, etc., and filter the content by quality and relevance using a user voting system, we get roughly what is proposed. It is even easier to do all this with the help of Semantic Wikipedia - it is possible to establish types of connections between objects in it (an unlimited number of types is possible, which, on the one hand, is great, and on the other hand, may not be so good), but there is no way to type objects.
In terms of user participation in filtering materials (voting systems, karma, etc.), the project is closest to social media. If, for example, Habr positioningchange the best IT-related materials to the site, where articles on various topics that have reached the maximum rating will be displayed in the top results for search services within these services, then Habr might resemble a narrow-topic Wikipedia. However, the ultimate goal is to have many different user communities. This can probably be achieved by changing the voting system (making it subject-dependent, as well as “resultant” -dependent, when the authors of the best articles have a greater weight of votes) and refusing a common main page with top materials in it (for example, by giving this is a choice in user settings, i.e. each user would have their own main page).
Prose.ru. Here an example is not so much a transformation as how positioning affects filtering based on quality - there are no user votes in this service, but users usually don’t post any content at all on their author’s pages (as in blogs), but only what they consider to be the best their works. Those. it is material “for history” and for a sense of personal self-realization. The idea of this project is probably to the greatest extent among the listed services the author’s principle is emphasized. Writing an article for Wikipedia is also relatively simple and this material can be considered, if not for history, then for long-term general use (wiki principle). This brings Prose and Wikipedia closer, but the idea of authorship on Wikipedia is almost nullified. Getting the author’s article in the top on Habré is a much more difficult task due to the existence of a voting system, but this hit is short-term and is not positioned either as material for history or as material for long-term use (although in fact it can be both) . The Prose project is also interesting in the presence of a gradation system for the types of text objects - a miniature, a story, a story, journalism, a novel (I forgot something else). If the goal is an orderly social environment, then a developed standardized typification of its objects is necessary. The Prose project is also interesting in the presence of a gradation system for the types of text objects - a miniature, a story, a story, journalism, a novel (I forgot something else). If the goal is an orderly social environment, then a developed standardized typification of its objects is necessary. The Prose project is also interesting in the presence of a gradation system for the types of text objects - a miniature, a story, a story, journalism, a novel (I forgot something else). If the goal is an orderly social environment, then a developed standardized typification of its objects is necessary.
Unfortunately, there is no place and time to consider these transformations also from the point of view of the points mentioned above, i.e. to analyze where each of these services is developing, whether it will eventually come to the described project, and if so, in what sequence of changes and how soon. Perhaps I will return to this.
This was already in my other article , but then it was more about the psychological aspects of this choice. Now I wanted to consider what factors should be taken into account when analyzing project differences. An exhaustive list, however, does not work out; so far there are only a couple of considerations in the treasury of this topic, as well as examples of the transformation of some well-known projects into the project described by me in the previous three articles [1] , [2] , [3] . I also heard one consideration from Nosik in his statements.at a round table in Infocom 2007: to make changes to the program code of mass projects like an operation on a living person, i.e. the matter is extremely complicated. Perhaps this is all the more true for significant functional changes. Frequent and / or lengthy service interruptions, programmer errors cause customer dissatisfaction, and if there are hundreds of thousands and millions of customers, the problem becomes serious. It turns out that the mass services that have gained popularity are thereby quite limited in the possibilities of their transformations.
Another aspect is vividly highlighted by the example of Odnoklassniki - a project that is even inferior to competitors in terms of functionality can “shoot” and go far beyond them only by positioning (and name), which exactly falls into the popular consumer niche. This means that in some cases you can repeat someone else's functionality, and the mentioned minimum change will consist only in a different positioning. On the other hand, it is likely that this also has an ambush for “big” services - they become hostages of their positioning, they get used to them as something specific and cease to perceive otherwise. Although maybe I'm wrong, maybe these are my personal “cockroaches”; for example, I still can’t force myself to see Yandex.ru and Mail.ru, in addition to search and news, also competing with traditional blog platforms. Maybe,
Now examples. For those who have not read and do not want to read my previous articles on the project, I briefly explain that the ultimate goal of test transformations is a service in which users create content objects of different types and connect them with different types of links. Thus, they create structured (due to connections) content. Such a network allows one and the same object to belong to different semantic contexts, which opens up interesting possibilities. For example, combining chaos and order, communication as a spontaneous production of content and building the same content into thematic hierarchies. If users are made available to create complex (compound) objects from simple ones and these complex ones will also belong to a common network, then the prospects will become quite interesting. For example, this way you can simulate society.resources: information - content-objects text, audio-video-photo, etc .; intellectual, creative, professional, i.e. people; communities and organizations (which in the projection onto the Internet space are, of course, composite information objects), well, everything else that you can think of. This network introduces a rating system with context-sensitive weights of users' votes, which, together with other factors contributing to the manifestation of the author’s beginning, should stimulate the production of quality content. I see areas of separation of content by quality and positioning, where the highest level means the best review or systematizing materials on various topics. It seems so far enough. But in general, it seems that the theme of copyright spaces is still little disclosed; I will probably devote a separate article to this.
Perhaps most similar to the described non-network project TheBrain . An application that can be downloaded and installed and which allows you to connect different types of objects with different types of links in order to organize materials in your computer, which is alternative to the traditional system of subfolders. The desired goal would be achieved if this project was implemented in the form of an Internet service, changed the types of objects and connections for tasks of a certain positioning and implemented the wiki principle for creating masses of socially significant content for people (for which a user voting system should be introduced).
Regarding the ideology of wiki, the described project is closest to Wikipedia. If you think of the articles in it as just the tip of the iceberg, the dry residue of various relevant materials, multi-format discussions, personal blogs, etc., and filter the content by quality and relevance using a user voting system, we get roughly what is proposed. It is even easier to do all this with the help of Semantic Wikipedia - it is possible to establish types of connections between objects in it (an unlimited number of types is possible, which, on the one hand, is great, and on the other hand, may not be so good), but there is no way to type objects.
In terms of user participation in filtering materials (voting systems, karma, etc.), the project is closest to social media. If, for example, Habr positioningchange the best IT-related materials to the site, where articles on various topics that have reached the maximum rating will be displayed in the top results for search services within these services, then Habr might resemble a narrow-topic Wikipedia. However, the ultimate goal is to have many different user communities. This can probably be achieved by changing the voting system (making it subject-dependent, as well as “resultant” -dependent, when the authors of the best articles have a greater weight of votes) and refusing a common main page with top materials in it (for example, by giving this is a choice in user settings, i.e. each user would have their own main page).
Prose.ru. Here an example is not so much a transformation as how positioning affects filtering based on quality - there are no user votes in this service, but users usually don’t post any content at all on their author’s pages (as in blogs), but only what they consider to be the best their works. Those. it is material “for history” and for a sense of personal self-realization. The idea of this project is probably to the greatest extent among the listed services the author’s principle is emphasized. Writing an article for Wikipedia is also relatively simple and this material can be considered, if not for history, then for long-term general use (wiki principle). This brings Prose and Wikipedia closer, but the idea of authorship on Wikipedia is almost nullified. Getting the author’s article in the top on Habré is a much more difficult task due to the existence of a voting system, but this hit is short-term and is not positioned either as material for history or as material for long-term use (although in fact it can be both) . The Prose project is also interesting in the presence of a gradation system for the types of text objects - a miniature, a story, a story, journalism, a novel (I forgot something else). If the goal is an orderly social environment, then a developed standardized typification of its objects is necessary. The Prose project is also interesting in the presence of a gradation system for the types of text objects - a miniature, a story, a story, journalism, a novel (I forgot something else). If the goal is an orderly social environment, then a developed standardized typification of its objects is necessary. The Prose project is also interesting in the presence of a gradation system for the types of text objects - a miniature, a story, a story, journalism, a novel (I forgot something else). If the goal is an orderly social environment, then a developed standardized typification of its objects is necessary.
Unfortunately, there is no place and time to consider these transformations also from the point of view of the points mentioned above, i.e. to analyze where each of these services is developing, whether it will eventually come to the described project, and if so, in what sequence of changes and how soon. Perhaps I will return to this.