I think that’s basically right, networks that continue to grow links internally will do significantly better than networks that don’t.

However, I would be careful how we use the term “quality.” There are a lot of reasons for information to spread and it often doesn’t have anything to do with what we would ordinarily associate with merit. I’m going to address this issue in an upcoming post about memes.

Thanks for all of your comments. It really helps to have active readers!

- Greg

Emergence and sizes of social networks are not important. The profile and quality of the views of those who interact at these platforms is monitored and evaluated by the advertisers and they automatically start patronizing such networks. However, some platforms do not allow access to advertiers for keeping the privacy of their members intact. I think DigitalTonto is one of such platforms!!!

- Greg

to expand your original analogy – Mayberry can grow as large as Manhattan, but only so long as everyone remains closely bound to their neighbors

the question then for anyone building or managing a large network would be to assess the interconnectivity of their followers to evaluate the risk/reward of aggressive expansion

Thanks. That’s very kind of you.

- Greg

Thanks for the recommendation. The charts were actually taken from Watt’s Small Worlds, which I don’t usually recommend because of it’s difficulty. However, he wrote a popular version called 6 Degrees which is easy to get through and a must read!

- Greg

There’s no “optimal” size for a network. They can function very well even if they are huge, as long as they are clustered enough to allow for intimate interaction.

The operative metric is the “clustering coefficient” which is fairly easy to calculate. It’s just the number of links as a percentage of total links (n(n-1)/2).

To get a sense of it, think about how the Grateful Dead network functioned differently than most rock band networks. Most rock concerts you go to are very unclustered – you go there for one night with a bunch of people you don’t know and won’t see again.

The Dead, however, toured so consistently that people would follow them and formed groups among themselves who knew each other and there were lots of interconnections between those groups. That added a special feel to the dead shows. It was more than just the music, there was a palpable community there.

Even though the network was enormous, if you were a deadhead, you could go to a show almost anywhere and run into people you knew and who knew others. They would introduce you and the high level of clustering would persist.

So it’s not the size of the network, but how it develops. The more internal links you develop, the more random connections you can take on and still preserve the community.

- Greg