Log in

No account? Create an account

Social Graphs, Portable Neighborhoods

« previous entry | next entry »
May. 9th, 2008 | 08:44 am

Here is the thing.

Not everyone whom I marked as a friend in social graph games version 1, do I still hang out with. Some moved, others I have nothing in common with any longer. Hobbies change, etc.

Just as I consider Linkedin and Facebook to be two wildly different networks, I pretty much find sites in general to be this way. Sure, some friends are portable... but in many ways social sites are sort of an archive for "this is who I was hanging out with then".

Friendster is sort of 1.0 (ok, ISCA would be 0.1, and Livejournal something like a 0.5).
Tribe 2.0
Facebook 3.0 (though Facebook is filled with friends 2.0 (aka high school))

Twitter, well I don't know what Twitter is.

But do I really want these to be portable? Not really.

Do I want to keep up to date with my friend's contact information?

Sure, that sounds excellent.

But the rest?

Not so much.

If Apple did a better job with Addressbook I would keep more information there (and keep it updated via some system (plaxo++)).

So what does all of this mean?

I am really bored with social sites, social graphs, and how many degrees I am away from anyone.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {4}


(no subject)

from: obra
date: May. 9th, 2008 04:50 pm (UTC)

Jesus. I forgot that you were an ISCA person.

Reply | Thread

Brian "Krow" Aker

(no subject)

from: krow
date: May. 9th, 2008 05:56 pm (UTC)

Well, my original number was in the 1K range :)

ISCA was a "long time ago" in my mind. Fun system at the time!

Reply | Parent | Thread


(no subject)

from: awfief
date: May. 9th, 2008 05:23 pm (UTC)

There's a difference between having a social life on a site and having a social network. A network is mostly passive -- just keeping contact information. Having a social life is much more active. The big drawback to the <2.0 sites is that most of them encourage activity of some sort. ie, lj encourages comments and posts and reading.

For me, LinkedIn is used for networking only -- and actually mostly to get information about people. I think Facebook has a real win because you can decide what kinds of activities you want to perform while you're on it. So, you can choose to be passive in your social network or you can be active, having a social life on it. The one-stop shopping concept only works if you provide folks with *everything* they want in that one place, which Facebook has been able to do by providing an API, so Facebook doesn't have to figure out the best applications for their users.

The degrees of separation game is not fun, nor do I think it's really a game. It's something to look at every so often, finding contact details of folks you might want, and the like. Relationships can be forged, but they don't *need* to be.

Reply | Thread


from: tf23
date: May. 13th, 2008 01:18 pm (UTC)

I joined Linkedin, hopeful that it'll help the job front when the time comes that I need/want it.

Facebook? Nah. I've got enough friends, and I don't want my high school, college etc adventures out on the internet for all search engines to cache forever.

Twitter? Blah. If I wanted to know what my friends were doing 24/7, well, I don't. If they wanted to know what I was doing all day, it's none of their business.

And I love OSX's Addressbook. It holds all my contact data in an open format. I can back it up with a click. I can drag/drop to from it easily enough. And I can use things like Mac::Glue with it. And I can access it anytime with .Mac if I'm not around my OSX machines.

Reply | Thread