A community searching for a home

The big news all over the intertubes yesterday was Facebook’s acquisition of FriendFeed, a life-stream aggregator and discussion platform. Reactions were all over the place, from “Congrats! This is a great move for you guys!” to “Whatever, it makes financial sense…” to “Oh NoESssss!!! 1 <3 FF!1!! Fb is the worsts!!1!!!11!eleventy!!1!” The move prompted immediate debate amongst the science community and even spurred one member to quit FF 3 hours later, though all the lamenting might be premature. Paul Buchheit, one of FF’s developers, assured everyone that FF users and community would be treated right.

Still, it’s hard not to let the imagination run rampant with thoughts of a Facebook+FriendFeed frankenstein (FriendBook? FaceFeed? FriendFace?). Sean Percival created a nice mock of what such a mashup might look like (go to his page to see full size):

Jokes aside, there’s a chance that whatever solution is presented for current FF users will not satisfy a large fraction of us. For one thing, Facebook is oriented around fundamentally different goals than FriendFeed. Facebook is about connecting to people you share some some relationship with – you went to school together, work for the same company, are family members, etc – and letting them know what’s going on in your life, no matter how banal. That’s fine, and serves that purpose well. FriendFeed, however, has always been less about who you already know and what you’re doing, and more about what you think and what you find interesting. These connections made through common activities and interests online are real and often help initiate connections in the physical world. Facebook, in the eyes of many hardcore FF users, is that awkward high school reunion while FriendFeed is the stimulating group of people you met as part of the XYZ club in college.

Already, a FF group has spawned to discuss the details behind developing an open source version of FriendFeed. It will be interesting to see what they come up with, but just as interesting will be to observe the real-time development of a dynamic grassroots effort.

Cameron also has a great post outlining the differences between Facebook and FriendFeed, and the major directions the science/research community could take from here.


Taking conference reporting to a new level

ismb2008Who would have thought a year ago that we’d see an article in a major scientific journal about and inspired by microblogging? But indeed, PLoS Computational Biology published yesterday our report on the ISMB 2008 conference:

Saunders N, Beltrão P, Jensen L, Jurczak D, Krause R, et al. (2009) Microblogging the ISMB: A New Approach to Conference Reporting. PLoS Comput Biol 5(1): e1000263. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000263

What is FriendFeed?

FriendFeed is a web service for aggregating feeds from numerous other web services and for posting links and messages. Discussions often start up around these posts as people comment on them, providing a convenient, topic-based and searchable archive of conversations. You can post to specific “rooms”, such as we’ve started doing for meetings and (un)conferences (e.g. BioBarCamp, ScienceOnline ’09, PSB 2009) and for particular topic areas (e.g. The Life Scientists, Python for Bioinformatics). Cameron Neylon has written a longer primer on FriendFeed for scientists and Pawel Szczęsny also reflects on how scientists might interact with this tool.

The effort came out of a group of bloggers and Web 2.0 enthusiasts who contributed to the ISMB 2008 room on FriendFeed – many of whom had never before met in person. ISMB 2008 in Toronto seemed to be the first time scientists used FriendFeed to capture the content and activities associated with a conference. Once it happened, it became glaringly obvious how useful and convenient it was to use FF for this purpose.

The room became a place for people to record notes on the talks, which allowed people to attend sessions without completely missing out on all the others (an annoying problem at these larger conferences with multiple sessions going on simultaneously). People could also augment the talk notes with links to relevant papers or web resources, ask and answer questions, and provide different perspectives when several people were covering the same talk. For those unable to attend the conference, the FF room provided a way to learn about what was happening and interact through online discussion.

As the conference went on, it became clear that this online room represented perhaps the most comprehensive set of conference notes any of us had ever encountered, and would not have been possible without the collaborative effort. When Roland heard that the conference organizers were looking for reporters, he made the obvious connection and galvanized a group of us to gather our collection of notes into a summary document. After an initial brainstorming session at the conference, we went back to our separate corners of the globe and worked on the project virtually through Google Docs. Neil led the effort to see the document through to fruition, communicating with the ISMB organizers and the editors at PLoS Computational Biology.

So what might this mean for the future of conference reporting? We are already behind the times a bit as blogging is already a common component of news reporting in other areas, notably politics and sports. Twitter is becoming a popular outlet for real-time citizen reporting, especially in disaster events such as the Mumbai attacks (though not without some controversy). In our case, FriendFeed seemed to offer a useful compromise between the flexibility and speed of Twitter and the organization and discussion possible on blogs, making it a good way to gather “raw data” for conference reports.

After the successful alpha demonstration of the ISMB 2008 room, I find it likely that any conference with an attendee familiar with these FriendFeed rooms will start their own. But is this always a good idea? Conference organizers might not always view microblogging in a favorable light given the private nature of many conferences in the biomedical sciences – for example, the Cold Spring Harbor meetings have an explicit policy against recording the talks or events. Given how easy (and natural) it is now to share content with others, though, each conference ideally should have an explicit policy regarding social media-based coverage. In reality I’m pretty sure that very few do, so it may be prudent to proceed with caution: check with the organizers, encourage them to set an open policy or at least have a policy, and show them examples. Hopefully, with the help of this article in PLoS, they will be easily convinced that microblogging does indeed take conference reporting to a new – and desirable – level.