Oldenberg presents the “third place” as the gathering place for society to unwind and just be themselves. The author states that this third place is often underappreciated or ignored beyond being anything more than “escape and relief.” Such a limited view only takes into perspective the influences of the rest of daily activity instead of seeing it for itself-- for instance, that the third place only exists because of or in the shadow of our stressful work and daily lives. In reality, this is not the case.

The third place exists because individuals and communities need neutral ground. They use the third place to break down barriers that exist in everyday life and bring a more intimate connection to people whom we may otherwise prefer to ignore or avoid.

Individuals and communities need levelers. Third places provide this by bringing everyone in equal ground and widening their social network, while group activities tend to narrow. It also enables people to learn about each other in ways they would not experience in other daily activities such as work.

“Worldly status claims must be checked at the door in order that all within may be equals.” – this quote struck a chord with me, in thinking about ecommunities. One reason I embraced the online community world at a younger age was precisely the ability to check my real self behind and have whatever kind of persona I wanted online. In an online encounter, everyone merely appears as text-- the only inequality that may exist is in typing ability and vocabulary, but even this exists in the third place that Oldenberg presents. It just simply does not matter as much. Surely, a popular reason why online communities are so popular is because of this ability to encounter a neutral ground, a level playing field.

There are other ways in which the author’s presentation of third places parallels the online community world. Both are places in which you can go by yourself and find someone you know and whose company you enjoy, at any time of day. People come and go throughout their daily routines, and people act on impulse rather than congregating with a specific purpose or goal to fill. The third place and online community exist to be conveniently located to our daily lives and to fit into the physical world. They are accessible and fluid.

Both consist of regulars and newcomers. The regulars are the ones who set the tone of the place, and the newcomers eventually become regulars through trust-building over an extended period of time. At first, a third place may seem to be a private, secluded social group to the newcomer but in actuality it is very open and inviting. The only problem is that some potential newcomers may never make it inside due to fear of unbelongingness.

Third places are meant to be unpretentious in décor and ambiance. They are inviting, playful, and homey. This can be difficult for online communities, with the presence of overdone graphics, color, poor usability and layout, and the worst offense—advertisements. Especially given Kim’s instruction on creating brand identity for online communities, I have to wonder just how many online communities can manage to be inviting and unpretentious.

Critique
The author argues that Americans are not well versed in the art of conversation and that our cities lack places for people to congregate and chat. Third places are built to sustain rules of good conversation, such as listening attentively, talking in a low voice, and avoiding controversial topics. These rules also help to level everyone involved by focusing on “style over vocabulary.” I'm a bit concerned about this claim, given that if we are poor conversationalists then it doesn't bode well for online community as third place. Are we loud and obnoxious online as well as in bars? I certainly hope not.

Connection
The strongest and most unexpected connection I found was with Preece and her mention that online communities have policies and purposes that drive behavior. Clearly, third places have these as well—don’t speak too loudly, don’t say offensive things, take turns with speaking and listening. In the online world, similar rules apply and the breaking of these rules brings about what we know as trolls, flamers, and leeches. Given my interest in social deviance in online communities, I would like to study this idea a bit more and understand how it is handled in the online world as compared to the physical world.

We have been misspelling Oldenburg's last name (check out the title page at the end of the PDF)!

Lev's right: this chapter presents a very narrow -- albeit deep -- construction of third places. One of the general characteristics of the coffee houses etc. Oldenburg discusses is food and drink. But since 'Something nice to drink' is not one of the defining characteristics revealed by the headings, it may not be as directly important -- or it may contribute, in some important yet undiscussed way, to those defining characteristics.

In other words: in a physical place, people like having something nice to eat or drink. What things serve a similar function in an online place? Here are some candidates, none of them really satisfactory:

• interesting links
• consistent visual identity
• engaging type or text formatting
• possibility/excuse of getting useful information
• other ideas?

I found Oldenburg's idea of Third Places as levelers to be surprisingly true, althought slightly incomplete. By levelers, Oldenburg asserts that third places remove (or at least lax) the social stratification that may be evident outside of the third place. This allows for a greater diversity of friendships that in possible in other situations. I notice this in both the virtual and real-world communities I take part in. In my undergraduate fraternity, new members were always accepted with a similar bond regardless of what activities they did or friends they had outside of the chapter room. Similarly, upon posting to Slashdot, one immediately becomes identified to the community as part of the technorati, be he government security expert or teenage hacker.

What Oldenburg misses, however, is that these Third Places do not remove the human tendancy to stratify society. Instead, they develop their own criteria for internal reputations and hierarchy. it isn't that everyone is on the same playing field within a third place—one is simply on a different playing field. In the fraternity, this reputation had more to do with seniority within the group, amount of participation and eloquence. Slashdot has similar criteria, with reputations gained with low user ID numbers, subect matter knowledge and high karma scores.

Oldenberg's first chapter is a charming take on public spaces, such as coffeeshops and corner pubs. These 'third spaces' provide a neutral ground for human contact, where people can enjoy spirited conversation as equals.

Third spaces may be plain from the outside, but this is only to disguise themselves from faster-paced, more commercially minded people and attract people who will appreciate the atmosphere a third space creates. A little 'seediness' is a good thing. If an third space is lucky, it will attract a group of regulars, who will set a playful tone and act as a crucial welcoming committee for newcomers. If the place is unlucky, however, it will have to deal with more than its fair share of 'bores.'  

Critique

This was a joy to read, and if Oldenberg is a bit old-fashioned at times (his swipe at video game culture, etc.) it's a small price to pay for the rest of the chapter. Like Powazek's algebra-class story, it's more related to online communities than it may at first appear. Vigorous online forums also have their regulars. (Oldenberg's  privileging of their role in welcoming or rejecting newcomers above that of the host is very insightful.)

He also makes a contribution to Preece's attempt to define online communities by his comment that a club nurtures a feeling of 'being apart together.' Granted, this has a certain 'I know it when I see it' quality, but it still offers a way of trying to grasp that intangible "It" which third spaces have.

Oldenberg is especially helpful, however, for setting a high bar for what counts as genuine social interaction and a sense of community. The richness of third spaces may disqualify some online 'communities' that may not deserve the term. 

I have to start out by saying that this is only article this week that really spoke to me in anyway. I was a bit cofused at first, feeling like I jumped in mid-conversation, but I caught up pretty quickly.

Mid article Oldenburg really had me jonesing for a third place of my own; I probalby spend too much time on my own (fucking classes and work getting in the way of my lazy european lifestyle) and I started thinking about all the possible places that could act as third places in Ann Arbor, and I realized... there aren't any (or at least for the populace in general).

There are some locations that might act as third places for some people (Leopold Bros. or Arbor Brewing Compnay), but I feel like that they aren't true third places because so many other people go there for the purpose of just drinking. Sadly, I don't like hanging around drunk people, so those are out.

There are a few "dive bars" in Ann Arbor (8 Ball or Circus) who definitely have a regular crowd, but not really people I am interested in hanging out with especially.

Basically, I want a place where all the people I like hang out on a daily basis and I can go see them whenever.

Lev and I were talking in the real world about the student lounge acting as a third place. People definitely come here to hang out and get away from the stresses of life, but after 5 o'clock or so it's just you and the mice.

Anyone know of good places to go?

Examines third places. Oldenberg is clearly in favor of the concept, and writes lovingly of these convivial meeting grounds.

Third places are neutral spaces, separate from home or work, that level the social playing field. Defined by a playful warmth, these spaces are fertile ground for the art of conversation. Oldenberg actually references various "rules of conversation" on page 28. Regular users or visitors are integral to such locales, and various processes by which newcomers become accepted regulars are necessary for a third space. "Accessibility and accomodation" are both listed as key factors of a third place, factors which are directly portable to eCommunities. Oldenberg spends some time at the end of the article comparing third places to well-functioning home spaces.

Critique
Oldenberg seems to be in love with third places (not such a strange emotion), but I would have liked to see a greater depth with respect to racial and cultural difference. While he mentions some African American establishments (I assume "ghetto" was code for predominantly Black neighborhoods, although I suppose he might be referring to European ghettos), he seems to romanticize and focus on working class, European third places. (To be fair, he also references the "Arabian coffeehouse.") Music, rules of conversation and other activities within an establishment all seem to be affected by culture. What counts as violent shouting in one watering hole may just be "loud talking" in another. I would have liked to see a little more depth here. In a similar vein, his characterization of "a room full of individuals intent upon video games" was refreshingly antiquated. I agree that we get caught up in staring at screens, but even in 1989 one could have made an argument for the conviviality of a good video arcade. Might the LAN party and the MMORPG constitute today's third places?

Connections
Powazek addresses features like asynchronicity, which allow online third places to always "stand ready to serve people's needs for sociability and relaxation in the intervals before, between, and after their mandatory appearances elsewhere" (Oldenberg p. 32). This seems like one example of how online communities can support the pre-existing requirements of a third place. 

Oldenberg bestows new light on the third places, the characters and the benefits of which has gotten little attention. The third places are the people’s remedy for stress, loneliness, and alienation, and a refuge from life’s duties and drudges; they are essential to the sanity of the public life that are comprised of individuals, neighborhoods, cities, and societies. The third places provide neutral ground on which people gather and part freely whenever they want.  The third places are also where people have cathartic and democratic experiences as engaging in pure sociabiltiy. People meet in the third place only to enjoy one another without aiming any useful something. Oldenberg also points out that the conversation is the main activity of the third places; the sociability and the popularity of conversation in a society are positively correlated, and conversation complements the leveling process. Beyond this, Oldenberg mentions “easily accessible” and “ready to accommodate” as the characteristics of the third places. New comers can become the regulars by following the styles of conversation in the third places and attending the places regularly and thus building up trust of other members.  The distinctive mark of acceptance into the inner circle of the third place is that of being included in the play of forms of their association. The third places often keep a low profile to protect from high volume of strangers or transient customers. At last, the third places are homelike in that they provide congenial environments to their members.

The most of descriptions of the third places can be applied to describe the functions of many online communities in the society. Online communities provide the neutral ground in that people can gather and part anytime, people engage in conversation for pure sociability and joy beyond exchanging information, they are easily accessible, and ready to accommodate. Online communities in nature are leveling places where people do not know each other’s social status and backgrounds. They also have certain styles of conversation, which it takes time for new comers to learn. Many users of online communities find comfort and acceptance from other users of those communities.  

Given the similarity of the third places with the online communities and the positive functions of the third places, I am wondering it is truly beneficial to the public life of the society if people find the homelike comfort from online communities. I like to know how the ongoing positive experiences from the online communities affect the person’s offline social activities. The gap between the experiences from online communities and those from the real world seems to be an important factor.

Third places are

• more than escape and stress relief
• different from other settings of daily life
• neutral ground
• conversation is the main activity
• are not intentionally constructed as such 

While Oldenburg's description of the characteristics (and benefits) of third places could also be applicable to online communities, given his loving depiction of physical places such as pubs and taverns it is not clear if he would agree that an online community is a third place. The lack of intentionality stands in contrast with Kim and Powazek's how-to manuals on designing online communities.

At first glance participants in a third place have no shared purpose. But Oldenburg points out the importance of games in a third place; these games can be considered to provide the shared purpose for many of the participants. He also notes that acceptance of newcomers is essential to the vitality of the third place - this points out that it is not solely the composition of the current participants that is responsible for the construction of a third place. Other aspects, such as policies or norms, must be in place so that the "culture" that drew in the participants is retained even as older members leave.

Third places can be seen as enabling the formation of what Granovetter calls weak ties. By allowing people who would not meet otherwise to mingle, weak ties are formed which provide richer opportunities and information than that afforded solely by strong ties. 

Oldenburg provides the concept of third places that provides a shelter of escape from one’s everyday life. He also emphasizes that the third place has more value than as a refuge in that it invites comparison from the other settings of daily life.

The importance of the third place comes from the need for neutral ground. The community must have places in which everybody has some protection from each other and is not required to play a specific role. The public and neutral places, where individuals may come and go whenever they want, often forms more informal relationships between people.

Third places are levelers where no formal criteria of membership and exclusion exist, and they serve to expand associations between people regardless of social levels. They also allow people to know others from a different angle. In a place that is a leveler, people get together for no objective purpose and worldly status must be set aside.

The characteristic of the third places – neutral ground and leveler – brought me an insight of the possibility of online communities as the third places, as many people have already mentioned. Online communities satisfy the requirements of the third places in that they supply neutral ground and levelers. Online communities offer even better service than physical third places in terms of their unlimited accessibility and accommodation capability.

I found that we may want to consider the notion of ‘regulars’ important if we think online communities as the third places. To sustain online communities viable, regulars in online communities must exist and contribute to the community. The acceptance of newcomers is also essential as Oldenburg noted. However, there are some challenges when thinking of online communities. In online communities, the ratio of newcomers who convert into regulars is relatively small. One possible reason is that online communities provide multiple third places to an individual and compete with each other. Subsequently, getting loyalty from members in online communities is harder than in real physical third places. I think that how to get newcomers and how to transform the newcomers to regulars are key issues in designing and developing online communities.

[Description]
Third place: "people's own remedy for stress, loneliness, and alienation" (Oldenberg, 20). Oldenberg enhances (generalizes?) his definition of the third place as one marked by the quality of escape -- a place that invites comparison to other places, that is marked by "its differences from the other settings of daily life" (Oldenberg, 22).

Third places are characterized by:
- Neutral ground: "where individuals come and go as they please" (22)
- Leveling: "an inclusive place... accessible to the general public and does not set formal criteria of entrance and exclusion" (24)
- Conversation: "they proceed and are maintained in pleasurable and entertaining conversation" (26)
- Accessibility and accommodation: "one may go alone at almost any time of the day or evening with assurance that acquiantances will be there" (32)
- Regulars: "the right people are there to make it come alive" (33). "...[T]he acceptance of newcomers is essential to the sustained vitality of the third place" (34).
- Low profile: "establishments built for other purposes are commandeered by those seeking a place where they can linger in good company" (36)
- Playful mood: "every topic and speaker is a potential trapeze" (37)
- Home away from home: "often more homelike than home" (39). Homes root us, give us a sense of possession or control, regenerate/restore us, put us at ease, and give us warmth (39-41).

[Critique]
I'm intruiged by Oldenberg's assertion that American conversation is "witless, trite, self-centered, and unreflective." He claims that we don't value conversation and we aren't good at it (27-28). What are the criteria? I think Americans tend to value economical, efficient conversations, but does this necessarily mean that we aren't "good at" conversation? I would really like to explore this in class, especially with regard to the ramifications it might have for online communities.

I'm not certain I agree that regulars are a necessary component of third places. I think Oldenberg assumes that one's willingness to talk to strangers is necessarily lessened by the presence of regulars. I'm not sure I follow that logic. In my experience, regulars are extremely important to sustaining online communities. Less so in physical third places that I frequent, especially bars.

[Connections]
Preece's policies requirements for an online community immediately came to mind during Oldenberg's discussion of conversation in third places. "The bore" can be ignored fairly easily in most online communities but is difficult to avoid in physical third places like a pub or coffeehouse. To reference a comment I made in my Preece post, this is one instance in which the technology goes beyond being there; it facilitates interactions that would be difficult or impossible in a face-to-face interaction.

I have to admit, when I first started reading this article, I thought to myself: “oh man…another LS&A article filled with poetic antics and little substance.” I was pleasantly surprised by the usefulness of the content.

Oldenburg in this article talks about why people love going to “3^rd places” or social places like bars, book stores, restaurants. He gave a couple of reasons centered around the idea of escape and equality.

I really liked the arguments he put forth because while reading this, I thought of many real life examples of 3^rd places that is basically his principles in practice. For example, 3^rd places are very common in Japan where the pace of life is insane. A couple of my Japanese friends have told me that its common practice for people to go to work til 9pm then hit the bars til midnight, and then going home to sleep. The amazing thing is that they do this EVERYDAY.

Some of the principles applied to this are great to use in designing an online community. More principles apply to more social online communities like IRC networks. The principle of “Accessibility and Accommodations” and “A Home Away from Home” can be applied to Preece’s article”

In practice, the “Regulars” should be viewed as influential nodes of a network (mavens in the tipping point) that could drive the dynamics of an online community. “A Low Profile” can be used to help with privacy and anonymity issues of an online community.