Metcalfe’s Law misunderstood
Metcalfe’s Law is often quoted as: %u201Cthe value of a network increases proportionately with the square of the number of its users.%u201D But that was not what Metcalfe said. He talked about the number of devices not users, even Wikipedia is wrong on it. But it’s quite a big difference whether you talk about devices or human beings. There’s so much more at play when considering a human being as the end point of the network, that in fact you might draw a completely different kind of conclusion. Or at least pose the question: does the value of the network to a user indeed increase when it grows?
Strong vs weak links
I’m part of various social networks and my latest report tells me that I’m now connected to 831.800 professionals via my 68 connections on LinkedIn (and that’s not even a lot). But how do I value those connections? Are they more valuable than, let’s say the 5 of my strongest links in that network. I would say exactly the opposite. I value those 5 links much more than the other 58, let alone the potential 831.800 people I could get connected to. None of the laws mentioned above take this subjective valuation of a (social) network into account.
Should we bother?
Why do we even care about this? Well, with a valuation of Facebook of $15Bn a year ago, it does seem to matter. But moreover, we believe we are entering the application-phase, or the phase of deployment as Perez calls this. It is our believe that an emphasis will be put on how a technology is used. What do we do with it, is the most important question to answer. So far, nobody has put a valuation on the answer to that question. Rather, we just talk about the ‘what’. The network itself, the sheer size of it. But what if I’m connected to 831.800 people I never talk to? What’s the value in that?
It was Henry David Thoreau who put it best when he commented more than 150 years ago on the roll-out of the first large telecommunications network in the US: “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic
telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it
may be, have nothing important to communicate.”
Jörgen, isn’t there something of value between your favorite five and the other 830.000 contacts? Your colleagues which are probably not all among those favorite five… Or the people you haven’t met YET or the people with potential value but just don’t cross your path or they do but you don’t see or ‘value’ them… Or, or, or…
There might be some value, but that value is far less then the links with my 5 closest contacts. The thing is, that in all the network models and laws, all the links are valued as equal, as soon as you’re linked. But it doesn’t say anything about how I value those links.
So I’m not saying there’s no value. I’m just pleading to start valuing it differently and focus more on what you do than on how many links you have.
Jörgen, can you explain what ‘value’ in this way means as opposed to other kinds of ‘value’?
And
The thing is, that in all the network models and laws, all the links are valued as equal, as soon as you’re linked. 
, that just isn’t true.
You as an observer/researcher or whatever can give any kind of ‘value’ you like (as long as you can give a good interpretation). Easy examples are trust, social support, decision making, etcetera. And that is what a lot of social network researchers have done the past decades. It still is a systems approach (structural analysis), but in this way social networks are seen as socially very dynamic.
What I am saying is that since relatively long people are ‘measuring human beings’. Let’s take it to another level ;)
What I meant to say was, that all the in current network models (that I’ve cited above) the distinction in value is not present. I agree that you could measure that with trust, social support, etc. I am pleading to create such a model/law that looks at those elements and creates a value based on that. I don’t know of any such model in existence today. But I might be wrong. If you do have something like that up your sleeve, please let me know!
That is the beauty of the social where human beings are involved, it is so relative/subjective, so subtle, that it is, in my opinion, ‘impossible’ to capture it in a law or model. But, with saying that I don’t mean we shouldn’t try ;-)
where did metcalf say that? or is it your interpretation of what he said?
Just follow the link provided. Metcalfe’s original paper talked of devices, not users. That credit should go to George Gilder who wrote about Metcalfe’s Law in 1993 (13 years after the original). However, he talked about users as machines…So it seems nobody has talked about humans in this respect…
now i start to understand what you are getting at
why do you think the value is less because of the misquotation/misinterpretation of metcalf’s insights? i think if you measure devices his law would show much much more value than if you measure human beings.
i think it is of no consequence if you use humans or devices. it is about the order of magnitude of his law and what he considers ‘value to the network’. the order of magnitude is still the same if you use devices for people, and for the foreseeable future human beings will operate these devices (imho.) i think with ‘value to the network’ he means the number of links that can be made in the network. he is not talking about valuable links.
Of course. But what I’m saying is that it is a very ’systems’ approach to networks. As in: the infrastructure, the connection, like we’re all emotionless things that merely have value because they are connected. I think that we should consider a ’social’ approach (in the application phase).
It is exactly like you say: “if you measure devices his law would show much much more value than if you measure human beings”. That’s why I say: let’s measure human beings!
can you try to explain how such a social approach would look like? how would i benefit a social approach? if we have this social approach how is it applicable?
What do you think should be part of the social approach?
Björn, above, is hinting at some elements…do you agree/disagree with him?