Do Community Models Mirror Search Models?

When I think of "search" I think of two models: general and vertical. General search is Google; vertical search is Kayak.com. Google is good for surveying the universe; Kayak.com is good for targeted, accurate, up-to-date travel deals and information. A research tool for helping you decide to go to Mars instead of Neptune? Google. An application for helping find the best times and fares for hopping a ride on the next intra-solar system probe? Kayak.com. So you get the picture.

Communities, however, raise some deeper issues. Communities are not just about fact-finding and getting something tangible; they address a far greater range of issues. While one might consider Facebook a broad-based community a la Google in search, as it is populated by students, entrepreneurs, professionals, professors and many others types of users, there are countless more narrowly-focused communities based upon specific areas of interest, i.e., pets, technology, bereavement, tattoos, whatever. But my question is: Google is great for general search, and vertical search engines work well for more targeted inquiries. But do we want more from our communities? Do we want communities that are effectively the intersection of broad-based and specialized, where those with whom you interact on a more general basis are also able to connect with you on more specific issues as they arise, be they business-related or personal in nature?

It seems to me that, in the off-line world, communities are great when people need help or are in crisis, but are less effective when things are ok. I've heard from some clergy about this issue, where they feel good about how their communities can rally around a member when they've sustained a loss, but feel less effective and connected to their membership on a day in, day out basis. Something seems inherently lacking in this model. It is great that communities come through when the chips are down, but don't people benefit from community even in the absence of crisis? Or does one need to say either "I'm in crisis" or "I love my pug" in order to the power of community to kick in? On a personal level, I felt tremendously supported by my blog and Facebook communities in the wake of the loss of my friend, about whom I wrote two weeks ago. And I can't tell you how much this meant to me. But after that outpouring of support, then what? Should there be a then what? Or is that simply an unfair and unrealistic expectation to have of the community? I don't know.

People have a need for affiliation, no doubt. And I think this is part of the reason why people join communities in the first place, regardless of whether the motivation is ostensibly personal or business. One of the most amazing things I heard during my friend's funeral is how her different communities came together as one during her crisis, and that she hoped one of her legacies would be the melding of these communities into a whole. And not just because of her illness, as this was simply a catalyst, but because her friends were all good people with lots in common that could help each other get through the pain of her death but to also move forward in life together. A beautiful, simple goal. But is it realistic and is it what members of this newly-formed community really want? I'm not sure.

I find myself unusually inarticulate around this issue. I just feel that something is lacking in the way we are currently defining "community." Is there something more? Or do I just want something more? I've got to figure this out.