Friday, January 17, 2020

A new alternative for "follower"s world

A feature suggestion for Instagram — A game changer.
https://medium.com/@joforest/a-feature-suggestion-for-instagram-a-game-changer-94f4f251692f
an alternative for “follower”s world
An alternative for “follower”s world
After its first decade user interactions going down dramatically namely people are tend to be a spectator instead of sharing. The “i” stands for influence but of course a fresh and more ethical type of influence: 2020 style.
In order to find the most organic thingies on Instagram probably one of our common instincts (or any kind of social medium even porn sites and look for the global popularity of the “amateur” category). Social media gives us the urge that we are looking for the raw material or in common terms: be yourself honey.
formula of the i factor
Firstly, we have to accept that the monetization processes of any kind of medium naturally degrade the quality or organic-ness of the content. Probably because of that the DIY culture or any kind of amateur movements easily find attention, sponsor, fund etc. most of the time these days. You know, especially during these times marketing addicted to organic.
The “i” factor trying to measure the organic coefficient on Instagram users. It’s a very basic and intuitive formula and by the way math -and English as you see- is not my strong side but the results which you’ll see encourages me to go for it(or in my case jo for it). Although it can be a general measure for profiles in any social media too.
a demo for formula
if you can’t obtain the RSS, easily calculated through 1,5 x ALPP
Naturally the higher number of followers cause less “i” scores but this is already the case. Formula assumes that more followers endangers your uniqueness on your online existence. The score itself encourages the users toward more niche profiles, restraining the mainstream tendencies. In other words, changing the online celebrity perception. Upholds the daily, the mundane.
But, how do we measure the organic-ness or spontaneity, genuineness beyond our personal measures? Of course, the “i” won’t guarantee the original/organic user but a candidate for your exploration process. Basically it aims to change the common attitude toward follower/credit/value correlation. And encourage the user for more interaction, another tool for social exploration.
As you see in the results, any kind of brands or celebrities gain much lesser scores than average, common individual(if you try with your numbers you’ll see). Besides the scoreboard itself I think gives us funny and plausible results I hope it will inspire further studies about it.
Beyond the cruel and vulgar systems of quantification of human interaction like numbers of likes, shares, comments are so non-contemporary that the “organic” interaction started to be less performed on any kind of social media. I think, it is stemming from the over-gamification of the application but this is an another topic for discuss. Sturdy features overrides the main function.
The “i” factor actually a new feature suggestion for Instagram, it can be easily a substitute for followers/following numbers. I think they should be classified at least optional to hide them or not.
The most exciting thing about the i factor is that it can be re-define our assumptions about being a celebrity. Indeed, our times already prefer the local one for their online feeds and also the “other”s local too… In sum, any kind of authenticity even the outsider. “i” coefficient tries to operationalize the organic user.
Footnotes for formula
*RSS(Recent story seen) numbers cannot be obtained from third parties but you can easily estimate the number and check its reliability through your numbers. One and half times average like per post (ALPP) give you a acceptable RSS. ( 1.5 x ALPP = RSS ) Please try it with your account.
*Again I’m not a mathematician, statistician, but looking for help for further studies.

No comments:

Post a Comment