Comments on: What’s the deal with “Crowdsourcing”?

By: Sean Simone

Sean Simone — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:47:24 +0000

I find this overall concept of Crowdsourcing intriguing: when does sourcing from the crowd become contracting out to the crowd? Do individuals who’s contributions are voted on and selected for implementation, into very commercial strategies, have any control over accreditation of effort or remuneration? Do ‘they’ even care? The July 09 UK edition of Wired features an article ‘The New Socialism’ written by Kevin Kelly (Wired’s founding executive editor) within it he outlines the productive power harnessed by those willing to work for free and how the collective opinion of the (online) masses is beginning to have ‘real’ influence over political processes – my.barackobama.com recently won a Grand Prix at Cannes. How a (successful) social online movement was awarded by the jury of a traditional commercial advertising festival is not the question. The question is: What qualified it for submission in the first place? Have votes become ‘products’ and could it be that the meeting point of digital communication with economic necessity will result in the doom of the commercial media production industry? Why pay when you can source!

By: Sire

Sire — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:25:26 +0000

I suppose if they feel it works for them then the system is cool but it also seems that they take from it whatever they think will enforce whatever idea they had in mind in the first place. Sire’s last blog post..What Search Terms Are People Using To Find You

By: Andrea Hill

Andrea Hill — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:49:11 +0000

well, the starbucks idea is open to anyone who wishes to contribute, it could be people who’ve never actually visited a starbucks in their life.

While the crowd is used to generate ideas, in the end starbucks has the decision of which ideas to implement; they aren’t giving up complete control.

By: Sire

Sire — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:33:41 +0000

I suppose it also has to do with where the crowd comes from as their social background may influence the overall decision. Do they source them from a particular area or from a group of people, as in the Starbucks group, that like a particular food or beverage. Even then their social background will influence the outcome of any study and will have to be taken into account when analyzing the results. Sire’s last blog post..An Aspect Of Affiliate Marketing That May Lead To Higher Conversions

By: Andrea Hill

Andrea Hill — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 04:10:38 +0000

To some extent, you have a point. If we consider the Pareto Principle (aka the 80-20 rule) while prioritizing our efforts, we are definitely making the choice to exclude certain minority groups or opinions.

But I’m not convinced that crowdsourcing is inherently a negative thing. If I hire one person to design a logo, they may not “get it”. If I can throw the same task to one hundred people, I have a better chance of getting something acceptable. Yes, there are exceptions, and that initial person may have nailed it, but why take that risk if we have the option to get a second opinion?

By: Ian Gilyeat

Ian Gilyeat — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:50:13 +0000

Crowdsourcing is great if you’re trying to please the masses, normalize your thinking or find a common point that appeals to many. Unfortunately it also diminishes the “outliers” and has the ability to ignore the brilliant or the different. I have to wonder if Gallileo, Edison, Einstein or Hawking would have had their day in the sun if their brilliance or thinking would first been vetted through the crowd? I’m sure the concept is to draw on the brilliance of everyone in the crowd but suspect that it will be used to squash outliers and build consensus instead.