While reading an NY Times article about CouchSurfing (thanks Mary) I was reminded of the magic that Casey created in the CouchSurfing project. I’ve definitely lost track of the magic over the last few months since becoming involved in the inner workings of the CouchSurfing organisation.
There’s a great sense of community, a great PR image, a wonderful “feeling” when reading about CouchSurfing. It’s a feeling that Hospitality Club and BeWelcome definitely don’t have. It’s more bohemian, more offbeat and quirky, yet somehow more mainstream.
Casey struck a great balance between the hitch hiking “true” traveller and the mainstream. CouchSurfing appeals to people from all walks of life, and that’s undoubtedly because of Casey’s ability to pitch it well.
In many ways, this makes it even more tragic that Casey chooses to run the organisation in the way he does. There’s such a huge opportunity to do something really, trully exceptional here. Unfortunately, it’s being stifled by the closed door, backroom politics style of leadership.
So here’s my question. Can we create the same magic in another network? Can we recreate that wonderful bohemian feeling in BeWelcome? Or CrashAtMine? Or a whole new network? Or is it something uniquely Casey that can’t easily be copied? Is it a quality that can’t be replicated?
I would not REcreate anything anywhere – each organization has its own community, it’s own unique approach. And to tell the truth, I have never liked this “more bohemian, more offbeat and quirky, yet somehow more mainstream” feeling in CS (and therefore never used it being a member of HC (quite active) and CS simultaneously) – the ‘never liked’ is a mild description. I know quite a few people active in HOSPEX who share my dislikes – and personally I would be very sorry to see any attempts to recreate the ‘same magic’ in BW, for example.
Tastes differ a lot, and if there are several orgs, there is a way to choose the feeling and the magic that are closer to you – so it makes no sense to copy anything. Creation and development is the way, not making clones.
This reminds me of amylin telling me that she was driving with Casey in California, when they saw hitchhikers. And amylin had to really urge Casey to stop for hitchhikers.
And then there’s Senator Knowles’ observation: “Casey is a genius, he’s like a fly fisherman. You study the structure and become part of the environment, rather than taking a big net and scooping. You have to think like a fish, become a part of the scene.”
Besides that, I think diversity is the way to go.
Interesting write up, Callum. I agree that CS has a more mainstream vibe to it which adds to it’s success and explains why most members seem uninterested in how it is run (mainstreamers tend to be apathetic).
However I disagree that it’s due to Casey’s social genius. He does not participate in CS groups and very few members have even met the guy. Rather I think CS’s success is due to marketing and site-functionality. (1) The term “Couchsurfing” is a fantastic buzzword that was quickly adopted into urban lingo.(2) The CS website has a nice UI. Compare that to HC which is “efficient” but ugly. Also CS profiles allow people to express themselves through words and pictures.
Now, I’ve heard various complaints that CS is becoming too mainstream. The good PR which CS gets may actually be attracting the human equivalent of spam: people who want to save money rather than participate in a cultural exchange.
Anyway, about BW. First thing to tackle is the UI. BW is a late entrant and thus the “new underdog”. BW needs a killer app in order to be a serious contender. At the moment, BW is trying present itself as “open, transparent, accountable”. That’s awesome, but it’s just not a killer app. And it isn’t sexy. BW needs to be sexy
Basically BW needs to have a MUCH better UI than CS. eg. cutesy web 2.0 tech, maps/blogs like on travbuddy.com, newsfeeds, unlimited photos/videos like you have on facebook. Community websites needs to have a hook to make people want to come back and “hang out”. (If you build it, they will come) And if BW can successfully transition to open source, it has the potential to attract developers who can help them achieve this.
And perhaps here is where BeWelcome can thrive: a niche site for people passionate about hospitality and travel – who want to build a global counter-culture community, share knowledge, challenge norms, fight injustices, actively seek diversity, partner with other NGOs, tackle world issues and play an active part in making the world a better place for everyone. Sort of Couchsurfing.com meets Change.org.
In short, BW could become more than a traveler social network. It could become an activist social network.
Callum wrote “Casey chooses to run the organization in the way he does.”
)
Casey is the master of deception(“You study the structure and become part of the environment”) . Remember you getting fired !And no one in their wildest dreams would have thought a volunteer could get fired. Well the reason he is running it this way is for you to find out and for him and his LT guys to keep silent or spread disinformation to throw everyone off track.Thats how it works.It is better to figure that out sooner than later (later when casey sells
like Roy says it has a many factors .A Good UI. The ability of the forums to allow users to make their own groups made the local communities strong . This feature was never there on HC and neither on BW. Incorporation of the vBulletin software(cs should have implemented it after the crash but never did ) would give BW and edge over CS in the moderation ,thread management features.Roy knows his stuff as he is on every network out there on the net.
@azarethroy
“And perhaps here is where BeWelcome can thrive: a niche site for people passionate about hospitality and travel – who want to build a global counter-culture community, share knowledge, challenge norms, fight injustices, actively seek diversity, partner with other NGOs, tackle world issues and play an active part in making the world a better place for everyone. Sort of Couchsurfing.com meets Change.org.
In short, BW could become more than a traveler social network. It could become an activist social network.”
I love to see words like this. This was my dream for CS, and was why I started off there creating the polling system. It was to be the first stage in something I proposed as CS-COS (CouchSurfing Community Operating System – http://wiki.couchsurfing.com/en/Community_Operating_System), a tool to enable real community activity/activism. But it never got past the first stage (the poll system) because of the NDA. Once I saw what was really going on in CS, there was no way I was going to let CS (= Casey Fenton) get ownership of my ideas. Not that I have any desire for monetary gain from it, but once CS got control of it, the benefit of it would be denied other groups such as BW.
But even with the polls, there was a paranoia on the part of some of the Admins about the possibility that they might be used for “political purposes”. I didn’t get at the time that the Admins were about preventing anything resembling democracy (or a true community, as I see it).
In the end, I was relegated to the category of a developer with “a personal ideology” and it was made clear that this was not welcome in CS. Only the “consensus ideology” of the LT was permitted anymore. (Consensus being achievable because only those in agreement with Casey’s personal ideology are allowed to be “leaders”).
What do you think of another branch of BeVolunteer, in addition to the hospitality branch BeWelcome, called BeActive?
John
P.S. I too, question how vital “Casey’s Magic” was in the success of CS. Undeniably, he does have talent, but I would say his talent is more like the talent of Bill Gates than Steve Jobs.
I agree. CouchSurfing is a great term, and the CS web site has a UI that definitely appeals. In my view, Casey created these.
Perhaps my post was misleading. I am *deeply* opposed to the way that CouchSurfing is run and I believe that Casey is at least 90% responsible for this. However, I think Casey has other great qualities from which other networks (BW for example) can learn from.
I think appealing to “the masses” is always a good thing, I don’t believe in “cliques” or “exclusive” groups of any sort. Whether we call it “an activist network” or an “anit-culture” I think if you set out to keep your group small you set out to exclude people.
I’m not joining the Casey fanclub, but I do hope we can learn from his undeniable genius. 300’000 members prove that.
“CouchSurfing is a great term, and the CS web site has a UI that definitely appeals. In my view, Casey created these.” — Callum.
I’m quite sure I heard the term “couchsurfing” as far back as my college days (1970′s).
I’ve sometimes wondered what original contribution Casey made.
He did not invent the hospitality concept, nor even the concept of an on-line hospitality website.
In the technical area he did not invent the internet, nor all the freely available development tools he used (PHP, MySQL, Apache, etc.) nor all the many snippets of code he found on the web and used. Having seen most of the code myself, I can say that there’s little or nothing innovative in it. In fact, it looks like code written by someone who learned what he needed to as he went along, from the internet, like hundreds of thousands of other web programmers/designers.
The UI is appealing, but I know that many contributed to it. There were endless discussions about which icons to create for vouching, verification, etc.
I think a comparison with Bill Gates is apt. Even the original product of Microsoft, MS-DOS, was written by some programmer and bought by Bill for very little. He turned around and made a very lucrative deal with IBM. Over and over again, he showed genius in opportunistically translating the work of others (including Apple Corp.) into his own personal profit and power. This took great savvy in dealing with people and organizations, in using corporate law to his advantage as much as allowed, and beyond at times.
One of the most brilliant things Casey did was to not allow anyone with comparable or greater technical skill than himself into the inner circle. His consolidation of power rested largely on the circle around him believing him to be an indispensable technical wizard. I suspect that he pushed himself to work so much so that he could produce enough results to offset the complaints about the “Casey Fenton bottleneck”. But this caught up with him in Montreal, when demands were made to open things up. Somehow, Casey went along with this but still managed to retain nearly all his power. This skill probably deserves to be called genius.
But in my mind, the success of CS is due mostly to the many, many generous people who opened their doors to strangers, who selflessly, with no thought of personal reward (other than having an enriching experience), enthusiastically volunteered for what they believed to be a noble cause that could change the world for the better, who contributed money to pay for necessary expenses in an (almost) all-volunteer organization.
The mission statement “Creating a better world, one couch at a time,” did not originate with Casey. The idea of a mission statement was mine, and I helped choose the words. The spirit behind that statement is no longer centered in CS, and definitely not in the “visionary leader” of CS, in my opinion.
We really don’t need another CS as it exists now, anymore than we need another Microsoft. Let’s rather create what we, all together, have the vision, enthusiasm and skill to create. Numbers are not so important. It’s quality that counts.
John
@matrixpoint: I agree with the comparison to Bill Gates and the re-use of other people’s work. I agree CouchSurfing is successful due to the members, but the members are there because of the original idea, the project, the whatever that made it happen.
Ultimately, I think that’s what Casey did. He made it happen. Whether we agree with his methods or not (I don’t), we can’t argue with the basic fact that he got off his ass and made it happen.
I hold a strongly differing view. To say that “quality” is important is to assume that one can define quality. It’s a nice idea to say that we don’t need thousands of members we only need a few hundred “good” members. However, I find that approach quite troublesome.
I believe we can only be truly open, truly accepting and truly cross-cultural if we attract as wide and diverse and audience as possible. I believe that by focusing on quantity and not quality we will create the strongest possible network.
Remember, if CouchSurfing had attracted only Casey-clones there would be no openCS and no disagreement!
@Callum: agreed, defining quality is troublesome [1] – yet I’d hold off a view that quantity needs to preceed quality on BeWelcome or other upcoming projects, at least if it’s seen as the only measure and method for success. If you read beyond the tech stuff on BeWelcome /BeVolunteer, it’s quite clear the aim is not to be the biggest network at all costs, but creating something that neither Hospitality Club nor CouchSurfing is able to do: facilitate the creation of a better world (I know it might sound a but too out there, a bit too idealistic, but nevertheless this view, goal, desire seems to be what combines people attracted to the organization from different backgrounds). My personal view is that aiming for quantity above all other goals will endanger BeWelcome from accomplishing this mission, and thus I can’t personally support attempts for “mass conversion” at this time – one couch at a time…
Also, for personal reasons I’d much rather take part in a much smaller quality network of hosts where intelligent conversation would be somewhat of a given, rather than hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of couches with nothing more to offer than a free place to crash and shallow interactions. Not to say that quantity prevents the former, but if something is mass-marketed by default by all possible means, you’ll probably miss out on those holding niche views and participating into counter-cultural activities who are likely to turn away from anything too mainstream, who I’d personally much rather see around while exploring the world.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance
“I hold a strongly differing view. To say that “quality” is important is to assume that one can define quality. It’s a nice idea to say that we don’t need thousands of members we only need a few hundred “good” members. However, I find that approach quite troublesome.” — Callum
I’m a fan of Pirsig, myself. His book was like a bible for me for a long time. He presents one of the best definitions of quality I’ve seen before or since. (Thanks for the reference, Anu).
I’m not against large numbers, per se, but rather against them as an end in themselves. Ideally, I’d like to see the whole world shift to a hospitality paradigm, but its the purity of the paradigm that could make that happen, not a great marketing scheme (in my opinion). “Build the field and they will come.” That’s my motto.
I think we want the same result, but have somewhat different strategies. Maybe I’m too idealistic and the world still responds best to sparkle, glitter and bandwagons to jump on. Maybe luring people in to the paradigm with free membership and various social, technical and economic perqs, hoping that the bigger picture will grab them later, will achieve the desired result more quickly. Either way, I hope we can make it happen.
John
@Anu & matrixpoint: I agree. I think we’re all talking about the same thing (or at least pretty close). I think we’re probably even talking about similar methods of getting there.
I was probably a bit misleading in my last post. I’m not suggesting the focus should be on volume, volume, volume, more, more, more. I think the message should be clear, specific, and targeted. So long as our “communal values” are clear and precise, then people will include or exclude themselves based on their own decisions.
I have a personal value around being inclusive, so I may have over-responded to the term “quality”!
(I am slow with my response, some more comments have been added in the meantime, but here are my 2cents anyway.)
I agree with not just copying CS to somewhere else, but nevertheless it is a good idea to look why CS is attractive for a lot of people (including us) and what is making it so. One simple reason is: it works. And as mentioned here before, it’s also the spirit of “making things happen”. Maybe it’s introduced by Casey, but at least still alive through his ability to keep this spirit from the early days of CS (btw also not his original ideas). Talking to new or less experienced couchsurfer I always get answers like “wow, just log in and you can get started!”. It’s not always hosting/surfing, it’s also connecting by mail, chat or groups. New couchsurfers feel easily as members of a big familiy with more open, serious and trustworthy values than other networks like myspace. (Of course: A marketing bloat, looking behind the facade changes the picture at CS, but a lot of people never take this step.)
Qualitity vs. Quantity is a difficult discussion, but it’s not about numbers and it’s not about simple exclosure (i. e. “no whites, no cats, no cyclists”):
* The number issue is easy: The “Schwanzvergleich” (excuse my words, it’s german for “comparision of dicks”, an expression usually used for comparing useless numbers) between HC and CS, who’s the biggest network by simply counting profiles is just ridiculous. What’s the use of dead, empty or unused profiles? It just costs space, performance and time. Let’s get rid of it, a confirmation mail after inactivity of XY months doesn’t hurt. But nevertheless growth isn’t bad in general, creating a better world can’t stop at the fence of our backyard or with reaching 10957 members in total.
* Callum is right when he says a definition of quality difficult (if not impossible), but to get started Matrixpoint’s call for quality could be useful. Even Callum wouldn’t accept “everything” otherwise he could go back to CS as well. So developing values, rules, strategies, technics or whatever for creating a better world _IS_ somehow defining quality. Hopefully a quality attracting a lot of people to join and participate. For all I care I could be “sexy” as well.
* We have to face the masses of “just don’t care”-people. My interest in creating another fancy webservice for them that doesn’t change anything at all is limited. This is also a matter of quality. I don’t pretend to know the real thing, but free like freedom isn’t necessarily free like freebeer. Not a matter of finances, but at least some individual thoughts are needed (and tons of voluntary work).
Getting in touch with people with a similar interest, keeping eyes, ears and mind open for new things to come may create the critical mass of humans to swing the edge between structure and chaos (special hug to Anu).
hmmm.. interesting discussion! and great points made.. i agree with Anu completely, and while everyone else is making good points, i have a different view on why the network is so successful: it was anchored with the right vibe, in the beginning, by a few hundred and then a few thousand people. And not so much Casey, though clearly he had a role in that, but also through people like Leo and Seb who represent a more global attitude and friendliness.
In the beginning you couldn’t just sign up, someone had to refer you or somehow bring you in, so there was a high bar that kept out (for the most part) freeloaders and other non-giving types. these first 3000 or so people (many of whom were derived from Burning Man, which even a few years ago was quite different and hugely more countercultural, nonconformist, and far less ‘trendy’) are the ones that i consider did the real work of activating a large enough network of people that had the same vibe. This created the base for when i joined, which was about 40,000 people. Now, at 300000 … i am actually NOT getting the same vibe.. and i’ve heard from many ambassadors and others that the broad press they are getting is not getting the same ‘quality’ of people as before. I find this to be of major concern, but if ‘numbers’ are what they want, numbers are what they’ll get.
Personally i doubt very much that mass media targeting is the way to go. The ‘innovation curve’ where the innovators activate the early adopters and it gradually escalates to the ‘general public’ is, IMO, the correct approach. This allows small numbers of people to truly convey what is unique about the network, and sets the tone.. this gets far FAR more difficult when you have thousands joining a week, and i’m not convinced they have the ‘vibe base’ to do that, although they might have, since it can be done. what the media targeting should do, i believe, is select for certain types of people – the types that could appreciate hospitality around the world without hidden agendas (which do exist and are, IMO, the biggest threat to all of these).
SO.. while i believe in an inclusive *society*… there are things that can and should exclude some people from BW or any other hospitality network. I had the same attitude as you do, Callum, some time ago, but now have had too many experiences with destructive group dynamics and hidden agendas, to believe that it is literally ‘safe’ to have everyone in the network.
i think BW should handmake something very much in alignment with what it wants to create in the world (which i am not yet clear on LOL).. then, as John says, you build it and they will come
.
Valerie
I think that variation is the key. Let there be 100s of networks, all about exchange, but for different types of people. Just make sure that it’s extremely easy to keep a profile on all these networks (through OpenID and some form of profile data exchange protocol).
Some networks could be invite-only, forever, or for a short period. Networks for bikers, Christians, college kids, Africans. Some people are only ready to share with people with a similar mindset. I think that is fine. BW could be a coupling network, where many active hospitality exchange people are involved who care about transparency and democracy, and Morgan wants to start with a network mainly for geeks (so that you can be assured of a good internet connection when you stay with them).
Let’s create an eco-system, several environments where people can freely exchange and implement ideas and code, to really create a better world.
P.S. You might have received mysterious emails recently, and no, I don’t think that hostmedudes is going to be part of this eco-system.
@Kasper Souren: I agree. I think the ideal situation is many networks with cross site searching, friending, references, and so on. That will be a step towards nirvana!
@Valeri: I agree, the vibe, the energy, the focus, is dissipated as the network grows. I think that’s true of any organisation. I’m sure even Burning Man has changed significantly since it started. The rules, the formality, the politics. They’re the downside of large organisations.
Some people were lucky to be in at the start, when it still felt special. Now it’s bigger it’s getting more mainstream and less special. I think that’s unavoidable.
Hopefully with the range of open source networks opening it’ll be technically easy to set up a new site, connected to the others, and we’ll be able to join different networks with that special new feeling all over again!
@Irinka: I think I understand your view, as there’s one comparison I’ve heard that might explain some of the difference: HC is more like a nice quiet dinner party, more serious and all, and CS is the rowdy loud extravagant fiesta.
I guess I’m more of a dinner partier myself, but there’s something more I appreciate which I think is more of a CS feature – the vibe captured in Kerouac’s On the Road & Dharma Bums (and other beatnik-y contemporaries). Although the recent events have shown the CS branding on this is a bit missed at least on me (a bit too American (for my taste, Kerouac of course IS spawn on US soil), a bit lacking in substance to qualify as true Kerouac, although there’s no lack of the required side-activies or hoboism
I’d be sad if BeWelcome didn’t allow the bohemian attitudes to exist at all. As said by others, diversity is the key, and if there’s a way for bohemians and less-so to co-exist that should be encouraged rather than suppressed.
I think there are plenty of other areas of life where you for practical reasons DO need to conform to expected norms of the society, so why should the norms be enforced in something you engage in & help creating voluntarily? No I’m not an anarchist, others here can vouch for that
but the balance between order and chaos is a fine line and it’s not easy to exist on the edge… but let’s try?
I’ll just say… I myself can certainly be labeled ‘bohemian’ among other terms. There should be, IMO, real room for that at BW because the tolerance needed to both be and accept a ‘quirky, bohemian’ attitude is the same kind of tolerance necessary to truly interact with other peoples and cultures. I think.. labeling is a problem. i find, personally, that people with too rigid standards about dress or appearance or even politics, religion, and nationality can be kind and even good hosts, but they are not necessarily open to a deeper interaction of connection, trust, and learning from each other that is what i look for in my hosts.
There’s something deeper here about .. receptivity being a key value. Whether true bohemianism or not (and bohemian to me means full and free expression of self, regardless of cultural norms), simply the projection of the bohemian vibe has allowed a lot of people to trust that they, too will be accepted even if not ‘representative’ of their culture, or fully fitting the ‘norms’ that are projected by a culture. That’s something i’ve really liked about CS, and why i have been so honest on my profile, to call out to people who not only could be tolerant of those attributes, but appreciate them!
However that projection of a more individualistic and tolerant approach, while true for many many individuals, is not really embodied in how the organization is run any longer. I believe the disjunction between what members were expecting and wanting after the crash, and how the system is operating now, is a major point of contention… but you all know this
. Yet I think all this could have been dealt with if there were real mediation and conflict resolution protocols in place.. at the least some means to get actual declarative statements and clear indications of directions and intentions from the Leaders.
back to.. communications… receptivity…and a non-AMerican-centric point of view!
JMHO…
Valeri
I am sorry, not technical enough to make a reference, so @Anu – I am really unsure about ‘quiet dinner party’ in HC – as when I first started traveling with HC it was definitely not quiet
I was talking mostly about the perception of the sites – CS was too ‘cool’ and too american to me to use it, I always felt strange and unwelcome there (even having received greetings for a newbie). That’s my personal experience, I know ppl who share it, and also those who love CS more than HC (due to the feelings and yes, they do like their ‘coolness’, also there many ppl who use both and more and find something nice in every org.
I am not against “wonderful bohemian feeling” – I am against its “recreation” – let’s not make clones, but create different atmospheres (bohemian, quiet, party, dharma bums’ – whatever) – I am for diversity, and I will be happy if we manage to create a place where people of different tastes can feel at home.
@Irina:
I think we (all!) understand each other better now (excellent conversation here these past 2 days I think, so THANK YOU!). As you, I’d rather not recreate too much of the American “coolness” anywhere else – to me, America spells commercial, shallow, and let’s not get started about the status quo of politics
exceptions of course do exist, but I found it less allowing for different life-choices and diversity than Europe for instance.
So yes, if “please no CS vibes recreation” means staying well away from “American coolness” that’s perfect
On the other hand, for me the attraction of CS was (or still is!) its somewhat addictive ability to engage you into hours of rather meaningless activities on many of the site’s many groups for example. Groups sometimes began to feel like subcommunities themselves, and I ended up meeting some truly exceptional people on my travels based on initial encounters in the groups.
I would like to see a site that’s technically on solid ground, has plenty of features to sustain forming of community spirit (or “heart & soul” on the site), is easy to use, allowing for diversity to thrive and people to stumble across each other and these encounters evolving into fantastic cross-cultural friendships over time.
it’s good to know that I’m not the only one who does not like the “cool vibe” of the site. It’s so much US. So much MTV.
Oh and btw I hate the name as well..Maybe it’s just that I come from a small town on the mediterranean
sea, where the only people who knew anything about surfing were
rich posh kids who could afford travelling more (we don’t really have waves here..).
I’m not cool at all. I’m a total dork. Ok I keep using the term “cool” in references etc, but I think I mean something different.
As for activism vs. just couchsurfing, it’s true that the average CS is above the average political consciousness (?!?), but I would not put that as a requirement..it would make it a sect. In fact another think I DON’T like of CS.com is this whole “change the world” hype.
So my idea of [put a new less cool name for a hospitality site here].org would be: keep it simple. Keep it just about hospitality.
If more goes on, if real friendships are started, that’s even better. If it does not happen, that’s OK. If people use the network to create sub-networks of activists, or stamps collectors, or whatever, be it (that’s what groups are for). But the only common idea to share should just be about hospitality.
one last rant: I think growth in numbers should not be a major concern for something like CS, or any other hospitality network. I think there’s only that many people that can make hosting or being hosted a pleasant experience. If you want to grow more than that you have to go mainstream, and that would spoil the whole thing.
anyway thanks for setting up this blog!
@ermonezZa
Well, in their upcoming mission CS is going to ditch the make the world a better place hype, as you call it. They just haven’t bothered to launch it officially just yet. So probably this will help you a bit when thinking CS.
I guess my personal distaste with CS in its current form comes largely from me believing this was the mission and intention the past year, and when it became apparent it was not, well, I wasn’t too thrilled.
So for ME, it’s important not to be “just about couches” – if there are people out there who can and want to do more, and a method to meet them, why NOT give the extra bits a go? Of course it should be accepted not everyone thinks the same way, yet I think it was wrong of CS to ever begin with the CS2.0 with a mission they clearly were not going to be supportive of in the future.
Some others writing here might have different deal-breakers some of which I share as well – open source, NDA, transparency, member rights… but to each their own I guess, as long as there’s a way to not feel so alone when you have concerns over some of the disturbing issues on CS, where they are harder to shut down by those in power.
PS. Speaking of which, did anyone notice, Open Organization group on CS was moved under Organizations category from Couchsurfing Organization where it’s harder to find for those browsing the categories, and as if it had nothing to do with the CS organization – “there’s no such thing as censorship on CS” ? (thanks for someone pointing this out to me
I just love this conversation! If only i could be literate enough in English to write an essay about it and publish it at a sociology conferance!
Personnal statement/ What i loved about cs:
)
- Simple and easy to use, even for someone who’s not at all pc literate like me. FIND EASILY YOUR WAY THROUGH THE SITE!
- Opportunities to meet in person and interact with the users of this site. Beginning of new relationships. Feeling that you belong/ are part of a small community of people who (more or less) share things in common -or can tolerate with their differences- interacting upon the same common ground of mutual understanding and good intentions. CS MEETINGS AND GATHERINGS!
- A whole new approach to travelling. Now you can learn more and in deapth. SURFING AND HOSTING: CULTURAL EXCHANGE!
- A chance to express myself and my vanity through my profile and my postings and communicate openly with people i don’t know in person.
WIDE RANGE OF TOOLS TO EXPRESS/ COMMUNICATE ONE’S PERSONALITY! SUTISFACTION OF ONE’S PERSONAL NEED FOR RECOGNITION/AKNOWLEDGEMENT!
- A variety of all shorts and kind of human spieces, available to explore and to be explored! A chalenge to pick up the ones that suit your personality best to be your friends. A SOCIAL-PLAYGROUND AVAILABLE FOR EXPERIMENT!
- A chance to create and be creative through participating at several groups and activities. CERTAIN FREEDOM TO CREATE YOUR OWN GROUPS! GROUPS, GROUPS, GROUPS! PEOPLE- HUMAN INTERACTION- COMMUNITY (AT LEAST THE ESSENCE/ILUSSION OF IT
- A delussion that i could have a “say” and affect somehow the evolution of this site. This one is prooven to be a delussion, so…
PARTICIPATION/EQUAL OPPURTUNITIES/ EQUAL ACCESS TO IMPORTANT INFORMATION/ BEING INVOLVED/ BEING HEARD AND RESPECTED/ TRANSPARENCY- MERITOCRACY- DEMOCRACY!
This last one was not given by cs. Hope it can be given freely by other hospitality exchange networks…
p.s. I’m not familiar with other internet sites. I don’t use internet regularly -beside cs, and now BeWelcome- so maybe i don’t represent the vast majority of cs-users.
Haven’t read all the replies, so I hope I’m not repeating someone else’s response here:
@Callum: “Can we create the same magic in another network?”
Of course we can. In my skeptic opinion, Casey may have been responsible for some ‘magic’ in the beginning, but what’s currently most attractive about CS is its sheer size in conjunction with the percentage of highly active members. Members on BW are probably more active, but the community is much smaller; the HC community is still bigger than CS, but its members are less active.
So, what new networks, in particular BW, need, is a way to gain some critical mass. Personally, I can think of no better way to reach that than by just continuing this vigorous OCS campaign; the people that care about CS problems are also the ones most likely to switch networks, and the ones most valuable to have in a hospitality community.
A second problem to my mind is unsolvable; it seems that US-based initiatives on the web still are much more sexy than those coming from Europe. This is a little scientific claim to make, but I do think that that’s what keeps many aspiring members from choosing CS over BW (apart from some superficial problems within BW, of course, which is intuitively much less clear and attractive for new users). But Casey’s purported ‘magic’ has very little to do with it.
“the HC community is still bigger than CS, but its members are less active.”
(here comes, yet another useless comment by yours truly
Ahh, this is definitely context-dependent! Back in Finland, about the time I joined CS HC was MUCH more active locally due to mostly larger number of members. Also since the HC site is much less attractive than CS and its features not really at all much past web 1.0, it’s very hard to judge these things based solely upon online activity. (and sometimes online activity is actually negatively correlated with real-life activity, please take this into account as well when assessing the networks! The crappier the site the less reason there’s to “hang out” on it so you do what the networks are for – surf, host, meet, make the world a better place in real life)
I think the “sex appeal” comes with the American touch we’ve seen so prevailing on CS. The US is far ahead of Europe in selling you shiny new stuff (hey nevermind it was made in a sweat shop!), and due to American cultural imperialism over the past decades, sadly us Europeans are beginning to buy more and more into this as well
I think, once the initial glitches of BeWelcome have been resolved and the organizational side of things gets more solid, the site will look&feel far more like the sexy web 2.0 apps than CS ever could, with its current codebase and task force. (trust me, even getting a new layout sans any upgrade on the existing user interface is not done by snap of a finger, as you’d expect…)
Right, I got real-life things to do now, and a shiny clean flat to get back to. Please send me hate-mail or facebook insults
if you see me posting ANYTHING CS-related next week anywhere – CS groups, this blog, the new hyperboards – I need to recuperate a bit 
Heya boys and girls..
About “Casey’s Magic”.
I would say it can be nailed down to a very simple equation.
The big trick of web 2.0 social network is user contributions. I give you tools, freedom, and an environment to encourage creativity. And you (the member) give me content: stories, pictures, all kinds of entertainment. Running a social network means to sell content that is not yours.
Casey has gone one level further, by joining in volunteers – so he does not only get free content from his members, but also free work from the volunteers. What the volunteers get back is the idea to work for something great, some higher value.. which is in some way true – at least I have no doubt that the result of this work makes many people happy and more alive. You can never be sure of really creating a “better world” – not even having a definition for that. But if you measure the benefits for single people in terms of feeling more alive, your work on couchsurfing is not wasted (saying ‘your’ work, because i personally have never volunteered for cs).
—
Ok, but let’s get back to the “simple equation”. Does “selling what is not yours” mean that social networks are unethical / immoral?
The trick itself is not new: a most prominent and old example is religion. A religious movement / a church / whatever can encourage its followers to do amazing things (well, not always good, but sometimes) – and then use the work of these people to promote the belief and tradition, and the power structure behind.
I don’t even say this is bad in general – maybe the people would not have had the energy and motivation to do these things themselves. But is this the kind of deal that we want to work with?
I think it will always be some kind of deal – members give their content, and the company/org behind the social network get the cash, the success, whatever. To make it a “fair” deal, one needs to make sure that all participants know their own and each other’s roles in the system, and what it can be in the future. If everyone knows these balances, and still everyone is happy with it and continues to contribute, then it seems to be a fair model to work with.
“Participants” in our case means members, volunteers, eventually paid people, and the org/owners/directors behind. In an extended context, it would include as well former volunteers who have contributed a lot of work, and people who are in some way affected by the system (such as flatmates, the house owner, parents.. dunno who else at the moment)
BeWelcome attempts to achieve this “fair deal” through its democratic structure and some other concepts. For hc we could say “Veit is the one who can get sued for xyz – so Veit has the power”. Don’t want to say at this moment if that’s a fair deal or not, just make an observation. Apparently it was not fair enough to keep all participants active.
Theoretically, even a commercial company can have this “fair deal” of customers, staff, shareholders, management, business partners, environment of the production site. And even a full non-profit can fail in this aspect.
—
Apart from this moral question: What can we learn from couchsurfing?
argh, let’s start a new post for this.. this one is far too long already.
So the trick was: The main value and advantage a social network can offer is the content provided by its members, (and the members themselves).
Couchsurfing is very successful in inviting active member participation. It has profiles and groups full of creative member contributions, and this content makes the site attractive to use and to join.
CS is successful because it provides tools and freedoms that are necessary to encourage creative participation. HC and BW are imo not really successful, because of poor tools and artificial restrictions. “Poor” tools means not working (bw) or boring (hc).
—
More about this “member contributions” stuff on
http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
(especially section number 3 – but actually, all of the article is valuable input)
edut to myself:
> CS is successful because it provides tools and freedoms that are necessary to encourage creative participation. HC and BW are imo not really successful*, because of poor tools and artificial restrictions. “Poor” tools means not working (bw) or boring (hc).
* not successful in this aspect, of using member content to make the site attractive. The entire system can still be attractive, because a huge part of the content happens offline..
@Valeri
> Personally i doubt very much that mass media targeting is the way to go. The ‘innovation curve’ where the innovators activate the early adopters and it gradually escalates to the ‘general public’ is, IMO, the correct approach.
I generally agree with that.
I really think a sufficient number of members is necessary to make a network as bewelcome successful.
But I also think that the hospex idea does not fit for everybody. I hope we can step by step understand what makes our “target audience”, or better, we can shape it – not through rules and artificial constraints, rather playing the various “soft” methods that are available to attract the people we want.
@Irinka
> I am really unsure about ‘quiet dinner party’ in HC – as when I first started traveling with HC it was definitely not quiet I was talking mostly about the perception of the sites – CS was too ‘cool’ and too american to me to use it, I always felt strange and unwelcome there (even having received greetings for a newbie). That’s my personal experience, I know ppl who share it, and also those who love CS more than HC (due to the feelings and yes, they do like their ‘coolness’, also there many ppl who use both and more and find something nice in every org.
I agree some people tend to do strange things, trying to appear as more cool than each other, while actually suffering from “realness”/identity problems. This is the kind of coolness that makes kids start smoking cigarettes, and refuse wearing bycicle helmets.
“Cool” language: When I first heard it, I thought the name “CouchSurfing” is too much wannabe-rocknroll. I thought the same about “crash at your place”, until people told me it’s quite common expression. And of course people going to the f** beach and having a motherf** tequila and what else. But again I was told it’s just common language. (I’m not a native english speaker).
Or when I first talked with surfers and snowboarders, I thought they want to talk like in the movies.. but no, that’s just the language they use!
Of course there are some “posers” around.. but a lot of what might appear as fake and show-off can as well be seen as “aesthetics of life”.
So, nothing wrong with a ‘cool’ image
I just found discovered this post, I really like it. Thanks for putting this so nicely into the round, Callum.
Scanning over the replies, I could not spot any good ideas and suggestions about how it is possible to ‘mainstream’ the idea of hospitality exchange once more like that. Many people seemed to have understood the point differently and explained how to make things big, but does big also mean mainstream? I do not think so. Some explained why they do not like mainstream, but this was also not really the point. How/With what can one attract many diverse people?
Any more ideas/suggestions?
Have you heard of big is beautiful?
Also the bigger the site get it “should” get more diverse.But diverse is two headed snake. Do you want the diverse party culture (this mono cultures is now the global culture) .The places where there is not global exchange is the few places where you will find unique cultures.