The paper by Soukup does not include a comparison of any specific online environment and the generic model of a third place. Instead, this paper deals with the broader question of whether or not Oldenburg’s concept is appropriate when trying to understand computer-mediated communication (CMC).

I especially appreciate the section on how CMC contexts are unlike third places. It is argued that as third places emphasize localized community, are easily accessible, and function as social levellers, their virtual counterparts do not – at least not in the same way or to the same extent.

For the most part I find these arguments reasonable and I have since long advocated that online third places differ fundamentally from the ones depicted by Oldenburg. But as I understand the solution presented in this paper, we should still aim towards a perfect match with the characteristics of a physical third place – and I do not buy into that. Since online environments are indeed different than physical settings I don’t fancy the idea of trying to design online spaces using offline experiences as a design ideal. Instead, I want to study how the third place is mediated and experienced online – without assuming that it must be similar to offline experiences. It is not a goal in itself to find generic third places online. If the perfect third place does not exist online we should try to find a more appropriate concept instead of stubbornly holding on to something that only exist offline.

(Parts of this text has been posted earlier in my previous, since long discarded, blog.)

Many scholars have suggested that virtual community spaces could be regarded as being similar to the third places as described by Oldenburg – and one example of such an attempt is a paper from 2006 by Steinkuehler & Williams; Where everybody knows your (screen) name: online games as “Third places”. I recently reread this article and remembered writing about it on my old blog (no longer online), so here comes some new thoughts for my new blog…

The paper by Steinkuehler & Williams is well-written and the authors basically map the characteristics of Oldenburg’s third place on MMOGs (massively multiplayer online games). The arguments are that 1) the MMOG’s under study can be viewed as third places, and 2) the participation in such virtual places generates the formation of bridging social capital rather than bonding capital.

The first argument is perhaps what you would expect from this kind of study. The second one is more novel since it implies that as relationships associated with bridging over time develops into deeper relationships, the function of MMOG‘s as third places fades. The authors write:

“It is worth noting, however, that as gamers become more involved in long-term social networks such as guilds and their activities become more “hardcore” (e.g., marked by participation in large-scale collaborative problem-solving endeavors such as “raids” into difficult territories or castle sieges), the function of MMOs as “third places” begins to wane. Not all MMO players make this transition, but those who do are likely to experience relationships closer to bonding ones than bridging ones. It may be, then, that the structure and function of MMOs as third places is one part of the “life cycle” for some gamers in a given title. As complex, long-term collaborative activities become increasingly prevalent, the game becomes increasingly more entangling, time-consuming, and work-like.”

For me, highlighting this pattern appears to be the main contribution of this paper. I think it is a relevant observation that to some extent also is valid in the context of my own work.

This year I will chair a roundtable on social network sites and online communities together with Lewis Goodings. Other panelists include Nancy Baym, Malene Charlotte Larsen, Amanda Lenhart, Raquel Recuero and Jan Schmidt. I am happy that we have been able to gather these great people and hope for an interesting discussion during the roundtable session.

Here is an extract from the roundtable description:

Life On The Move: Social network sites and online communities

Social network sites (SNSs) like Facebook, Bebo and MySpace are rapidly becoming a popular area of research investigating online ‘communities’. This immediately raises the question of how new SNSs can be understood as a descendent of the ‘virtual community’ that was popularized in the 1980’s (Rheingold, 1993). [...] The purpose of this roundtable is to further discussions on the present shapes of online communities in light of the current trajectory of social network popularity. In particular, to what extent are online communities tied to a particular site? And consequently, how can we rethink notions of community in line with recent trends in SNSs?

[…] The underlying premise is that ‘life on the move’ produces a certain problem for academic researchers as to how we locate the individual (or the community) in such a dispersed social landscape. Therefore, how can we understand community involvement when users are members of a number of different community sites and SNSs and move regularly from one site to another? A further problem here is how we as researchers resist the mundane assumption that inherently complex online communities are only recognisable in terms of the users movement in and out of them, surely there is much more to it than that.

The same scenario has been displayed in many other online communities and social network sites. Every time LunarStorm changes its appearance you will find members reacting with frustration and every time Facebook changes some of its features there will be complaints. Online venues like Bilddagboken must continue to develop to keep up with what’s happening around them and it seems reasonable that they will have to change the design sometimes. But wouldn’t it be nice to involve the members in the design process? After all they invest a lot of their time and energy in the community and they want to feel that they have some kind of influence. When the software environment suddenly changes it is somewhat similar to redecorating their living room without asking them. No wonder they get mad.

If you spend a lot of time in online social spaces you need to remember that these environment are privately owned and that you most often do not know anything about their further development or how the conditions for spending time there might suddenly change. If you are managing such a place, remember that the members want to have some kind of influence. They are not merely “users” but co-producers creating an attractive environment. If you want to have a thriving community you need to let go of some of the power and invite the members to participate in the process of developing the site.

[Also posted in Swedish on my Umeå Live blog]

I’m not sure about the parallel to nightclubs, but I do agree with Mindpark that the size of Facebook has become a major threat for its further existence. When a community grows too big people start longing for something smaller and more exclusive.

Both Mindpark and Bisonblog argue that one strategy that should be adopted by community owners is to allow for sub-communities inside the large community. These sub-communities can be smaller and topic-specific, attracting dedicated members. This is very true and probably one of the key factors to why for instance LunarStorm has been such a lively environment for so long. (However, LunarStorm also seem to be loosing steam nowadays.)

I think that you could put this in another way by saying that if you want members to stay you’ll have to offer them an environment that does not only give entertainment but actually allows for a real community to develop. I get the feeling that many so called “community sites” don’t really have that much “community” going on. No wonder people eventually get bored and move on.

	Sherry Turkle, (1995), Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995.
	Marc Smith and Peter Kollock (editors), (1999), Communities in Cyberspace, London: Routledge, 1999.
	Michael Heim (1993), The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
	Ray Oldenburg (1991), The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community, New York: Paragon House, 1991.
	Christine Hine, (2000), Virtual Ethnography, London: SAGE.

The books above are displayed in the actual order of my readings. When I read the books by Turkle (1995) and Smith & Kollock (1999) I had just finished my undergraduate education and I was not familiar with Internet research at all. These books opened my eyes to the complex social dimensions of Internet and I found it fascinating. I still do btw.

Heim (1993) was also fascinating, but in a different way. I remember sometimes feeling completely dizzy when reading about Heim’s philosophical thoughts on the essence of cyberspace. I didn’t understand all of it – but I still loved it because it kind of made sense, somehow. I haven’t really used Heim that much in my work but when I look back I think the writings by Heim boosted my curiosity about technology and its “true” character.

My interest in online communities gradually evolved in the years that followed and when reading The Great Good Place by Oldenburg (1991) I felt that I was on to something, both professionally and personally. Until this day, the image of a thriving third place has been almost like an inner vision to me and helped me to value the everyday places where I live my life. Life should perhaps not be so much about chasing extreme experiences but about finding the beauty in the mundane and enjoying everyday life. In my studies of online communities, the notion of third places online has also been a great help when trying to understand how people find their stay online meaningful and worthwhile.

Finally, Hine (2000) has been really important for my PhD project and helped me to develop a methodological approach that makes sense to me. For a while I felt kind of lost and didn’t know how to capture the things I wanted to study using conventional qualitative methods. Then I read about virtual ethnography and was presented a methodological approach that I could build my work on.

Of course there are other books that also have been important to my work. But these five are among the most important and they probably still influence me more than I am aware of.

I was asked to say something about success factors in relation to online communities, and although it’s not something that I usually talk or write about it was an appealing challenge to summarize my thoughts on this topic. Below you can find my PowerPoint slides (in Swedish). The message of my last slide is “Think community before technology”. I think that is true if you want to have success building an online community. However, my PhD work actually focuses on the real importance of technology and points out the need for an awareness of the complex relationship between social interactions and technical features in online communities.

Even though Facebook probably has something to do with the “fall” of LunarStorm as the most popular community site in Scandinavia – I can’t help but thinking that the consequences of having founder Rickard Eriksson leaving LunarStorm might have been greater than expected. Rickard left in September 2006 and even though i don’t have the statistics I would say that it has been going downhill since that day. Perhaps Rickard could sense that the era of LunarStorm was about to end. Or perphaps LunarStorm just lost its soul when the originator decided to move on.