I really enjoyed the section in Made to Stick about the Curse of Knowledge. The idea is that company leaders who construct obscure ideas for business strategies that don't relate to the rest of the staff or the customers can't really be very effective, even if the leader has a clear goal in mind. It's all about how you relay that message in an understandable way that determines your success. Heath and Heath explain that what works instead are stories. People understand your company completely when you give them a story or a concrete vision. They give examples of the FedEx delivery drivers who go the distance on foot if they have to in order to get packages mailed on time, regardless of the obstacles they face. That portrays the FedEx company goals and values much more than any vague business statement could.
I think this really applies to the social media encyclopedia entries the class is working on. Many times we feel the tendency to review the site's "mission statement" or "about us" section to understand what exactly the site's objective or usability is. However, what's usually more effective is when people take you through the site, showing its specific features and telling stories about how the site works or doesn't work. Often, the mission statements for companies are just rhetoric that doesn't really get at the heart of what they do and how well they do it.

The concept that resonated with me the most in Gillin's chapter 10 was that business have to understand their audience in order to be successful. It seems like a pretty basic and obvious idea, but I think it's something that many companies and websites do very well and many companies do very poorly. Gillin discusses how a site could have great content for it's chosen demographic, but if the strategies used to relay that content don't also coincide with the interests of that group of people, the overall message could be ineffective, leaving the site a failure. For example, if you're creating a network community for people who love to play Nintendo, the content on the site will need to be all things Nintendo. This could work great for people to share ideas and experiences about the game system. However, this community could easily fall through the cracks and fail if, let's say, the format of the site is catered more to a business environment. Nintendo gamers aren't going to connect with a site that allows them to send emails or formally discuss the topic; the site would need to reflect the gamers agenda and attitude with a more lighthearted appearance, possibly some games to play on the site, etc. Audience is crucial.

Chapter 7's discussion of significance made some good points about making sites relevant and successful. I really enjoyed thinking about the aspect of exclusivity in online communities. Howard's example of the Obama website provided good evidence for the positive effect from exclusivity, but prior to reading that, I originally had a negative perception of these sites. From my personal experience, sites that debut as "invitation only" or anything like that can either by wildly successful and draw lots of attention, or they basically flop. I think the key to ensuring the former is making sure that the network isn't too exclusive. For example, Pinterest is quasi-invitation only, but just in the sense that you need to provide an email address for them to send you your "invitation". It's not actually that difficult to become a member, but that aspect of exclusivity, along with the generally popular concept of the site, is what contributed to its success, I think. However, I remember when Google+ first appeared it was strictly invitation only where a member would have to personally invite you to join the community. Because the idea of Google+ was so new and unique, not being able to visit the site and immediately explore and understand what it is, the exclusivity turned a lot of people away that I know of, including me.
Of course, Google+ is now very successful and I don't think the exclusivity actually turned away any significant number of people; they had the advantage of the Google name, which almost guaranteed their success alone. However, I do know that that element of exclusivity was an obstacle that may not be the best idea for brand new sites who don't already have users chomping at the bit for an invitation.

Heath and Heath's notion of keeping things simple seems really relevant today because of how dynamic and constantly changing modern technology and trends are. The desire to communicate and relate to people at its very "core" has been around for hundreds of years, but because of technology that idea has been able to manifest in a million different ways via online communities and social networks. You can notice that social networking sites, particularly the most successful ones, all carry with them the basic objective of communication, whether it be staying in touch with old friends, making new ones, discussing mutual topics of interest, etc. And there actually may be a lot of sites who share that core idea, but whose platform or means to facilitate that objective don't fit aesthetically or functionally with the user, and that could be an explanation for a lot of site failures. They have the best intention or goal, but perhaps they didn't fulfill that basic idea in the simplest way or they tried to plan too far ahead and in too complicated a way, to the point that their plan wasn't sustainable in the changing modern settings.
I also enjoyed the chapter, "Unexpected", which talks about the difficulty in getting and maintaining someone's attention. The Apple company comes to mind with the interpretation that sticky ideas are unexpected ideas. One of Apple's design and development objectives is to create a product with features that the consumer didn't even know they wanted, but that make perfect sense once they have them — these features are unexpected. And although Heath and Heath point out that "planned unexpectedness" is an oxymoron, I think this is a perfect example.

I really enjoyed what Howard had to say about symbols and codes in Chapter  6: Belonging. Symbols are one of the main ways in which humans communicate, so it makes perfect sense that a successful social networking community would implement a logo or inventive visuals in strategic ways to maintain users. Howard's example of the Clemson wordmark is a perfect example, because we all know the strength and emotion that image evokes. In an internet context, I immediately think of the two most popular social networking sites today and their logos (Twitter and Facebook). Everyone, whether they are members of those communities or not, instantly recognize the lowercase blue "f" as a representation of Facebook, or the little blue bird as a symbol of Twitter. This recognition is important for the marketing aspect of these sites, but it's also crucial to the sense of belonging that exists on these sites. When members spot these logos, they're both reminded to visit the site and also appreciative of their unique role in the success of the community. I think these images really have the power to make the users recognize that they are apart of this grander thing happening that has real value beyond their participation, but also that their participation contributes to this grander idea.

Design to Thrive's chapter on renumeration laid out a series of steps for an online community to create an experience that will encourage users to keep coming back. I really enjoyed reading about the different ways to accomplish renumeration on a site, because at first introduction to the meaning of the term, it did, as Howard notes, seem a little like common sense. I thought all one had to do was think of  a create way for members to feel included or rewarded in some way for their time spent. However, all of the ways (12) in which Howard suggests that renumeration should be carried out, makes it more clear as to why so few sites succeed with regards to this goal. His "checklist of techniques" is as follows: 

1. make the text editor fun with emoticons

2. use a subscription application form

3. mentors teach

4. seed the discussion

5. use stars to show membership contribution levels

6. rank the value of members' messages

7. remove the fear factor by provided examples of how to participate

8. create a safe environment by sending out "tickle" messages

9. create a regular event

10. don't automatically archive

11. discourage attempts to send conversations to other blogs, websites, or discussion groups

12. ban redistribution servers and cross-postings

Of these, I was most surprised by the suggestion to make the text editor fun. It makes sense along with Howard's example of the BGCA community, but out of context, it was hard for me to imagine that the inclusion of emoticons would make that big of a difference in encouraging member involvement. The technique that seems most obvious to me, on the other hand, was number nine — create a regular event. It makes sense that in order for users to feel the experience on a site is worthwhile, they should have a regulated activity on the site, or consistent reason, or event, for returning there.

Chapter 8 of Howard's Design to Thrive brings up a good point about the inherent nature of technology and social networks as ever-changing and transforming, and what this means for the future. He compares the current inflated focus on social media to the dot com bubble at the start of the millennium and mentions that a similar "social network apocalypse" could be around the corner. This is something I've thought a lot about as a social media user. On the one hand, more and more aspects of daily life are integrating social media tools as a means to make everything "easier", more accessible, more intuitive, etc. I can share Spotify music playlists with friends on Facebook, which they can quickly adopt and take with them on the go in a matter of seconds — the modern day version of recording a song off the radio onto your 8-track tape and handing it to your buddy at school on Monday. In this example, it's hard to see how the popularity or reliance on social networking would waiver anytime soon. However, on this topic, I also think about the overwhelming nature of the industry and how too much integration or too much involvement can actually turn someone off from the technologies altogether. Friends are often complaining about the lack of privacy on today's social networking sites and the internet in general. The fact that you can search someone's name and find out not only where they live, their age, etc., but you can find out who their friends are, what they're eating for dinner, and what stores they shop at. In this sense, it's easy to understand the potential for the whole concept to just implode on itself in a matter of years. Furthermore, the knowledge that these technologies are constantly developing and changing makes it hard to ignore the possibility that social networks could soon be a thing of the past. I can imagine now saying to my kids, "When I was your age, we had to log in with a username and password that we typed into a keyboard...". It seems like the possibilities are endless for future ways that humans will interact with one another, as as Howard notes, while technology changes rapidly, people don't — kind of a scary thought.