# data[].attributes.body
===

Hi, Antares! There are a couple of problems I see with this network. First, each communicator should have their own node. "Managers" should be broken down into one node for each manager, since each manager communicates separately (a node for Chuck Davis the manager, and a node for Alicia Forrester the manager, and another node for Felicity Kriez, the senior manager). Second, in any one social network it is best to specify ONE variety of relation that leads to ONE kind of tie. Otherwise, you can't tell which kind of tie is occurring in each instance. So stick to speaking OR supplying OR receiving orders. Thanks for this effort -- keep going, you'll get it!

-- Best, Prof. Cook

# data[].attributes.body
This is a 1.5 Ego Network with me as the Ego. My friends are the nodes and the friendships that we share are the ties. If I had also included my work friends in this Sociogram, am I right to assume that those relationships would be considered Multiplex? In this example, I also believe that my relationships with Tammy and Darcy are multiplex because they are not only my friends, but my sisters as well.

====

Almost! It's actually a 2.0 level ego network, not 1.5, because Darren and Ted are not tied to Vega at all. Otherwise, great! Yes, if you had included work friends, it would have been right to assume that you'd have multiplexity.

-- Best, Prof. Cook

# data[].attributes.body
This is a picture of the relationship in the apartment building. It is a 1.5 Ego Network and Apartment A is Ego. The nodes are the apartment heads (I was trying to stick with the anonymity that you currently have us using) and Apt children within the building. The relationships represented within the ties are daily verbal communication.

# data[].attributes.body
This network is based on my question 1 explanation. However, I may have changed a few things. Seeing it in writing made it a bit more clear to me. I question whether I am correct about it being a multiplexity. Though, it certainly seems complex enough to require a title like that. Essentially, most of the nodes must interact in a back and forth manner. I like that we normally name the nodes "egos" as it seems especially appropriate in the hotel business.
===

Hi, Libra! "Multiplexity" is not the same as "complexity." Multiplexity means something very particular -- whether more than one kind of tie is presented in the network.

-- Best, Prof. Cook

# data[].attributes.body
I have completed an drawing of a network for my photography business, that I do along with my full time insurance job. I see this an Ego network and the clients, my vendors , social media , and clubs are the alters.

# data[].attributes.body
The drawing of my network goes along with Exercise #1. The network is a level 1.5 ego network. The relationship that is represented with the ties is a little difficult for me to actually "name" but each node is working to get specific need services to the consumer (ex. a personal support specialist to help with daily tasks, making a home more accessible--ramps, special showers, etc).

====

I think need provision is a great relation! Super work here.

-- Best, Prof. Cook

# data[].attributes.body
I decided to do mine of a famous TV family (Full House). This would be a 1.5 level ego network. Danny is the ego because he is the center of everyone; they all live in his house. Technically I could say that they are connected to him by being housemates, but they all have some sort of relationship together, whether it be friend or relative. The reason I have DJ, Stephanie, and Michele tied together is because they have the network of sisterhood.

# data[].attributes.body
After trying for an hour of uploading a doc from Word and having it end up all wonky I took a picture. The picture is a little better I think...

1.5 level network; The nodes with the arrow next to them would be the Alters. I am referencing the other staff like admins and such under the "Medical Office Staff".

# data[].attributes.body
This is the second time i tried to adjust, but the ties's labels are misplaced any time. So L and I are friends and a couple. I hope it will make sense after this tentative upload.

# data[].attributes.body
This got a bit distorted when I uploaded it. The center should have LHS, Oregon. Then at the opposite end of Rachel should be Jolene, which is above Hammond. I'm sorry this uploaded funky.

# data[].attributes.body
This is my network comparing the relations of people within a school.

-Kitalpha

# data[].attributes.body
I am not sure if this is done correctly

===

Good work! You've got the gist of network drawing. -- Prof Cook.

# data[].attributes.body
I was unable to upload the WORD document with the original Network Graph. Unfortunately it did not translate well and it appeared very "hinky" ...I hope this is readable.

If I am reading and understanding things so far (as I work through the lectures and chapters) this social network would be a 1.5 Ego Network. The EGO being IB and the perceived “family” relationship being the ties. This network shows IB as the ego in the center and his “family ties” to each alter, as well as their "family" ties to each other. I am not positive on this since it DOES go out beyond just one tie/alter but does NOT include any alters that are NOT tied to the EGO. Hmmmmm a question to ponder I guess...and possibly pose to Professor Cook and my fellow students.

-Auriga

===

Auriga, hi. This network graph looks great! I can see it fine, and the neat thing about Padlet is that I can also download the original document so that even if it looks "hinky" (love that word) I can always look at the original.

Yep, you've got a 1.5 level ego network right there! Good work!

- Prof. Cook

# data[].attributes.body
===

Nice network graph, Scorpius! So we would say that people with the Zodiac sign of Capricorn and Sagittarius are compatible for some kind of friendship, but that Capricorns and Libras aren't? Interesting! (How do we know -- is there a zodiac relationship guide somewhere?)

- Best, Prof. Cook