Social Networking Analysis

MySpace, YouTube, Bebo, Flickr, Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, Friendster, Facebook, Linkedin –so many social sites, probaly more than I could list.

I’m doing some research for an upcoming panel on Social Media at WebVisions in Portland later this month.
I saw these links from Guy Kawasaki’s post on Social Networking Essays.

He links to three different theories, here’s the highlights:

5. Privacy concerns
(Jeremiah, Agreed, spot on –that’s why folks often create avatars)

4. No real reward or penalty system
(Jeremiah: Disagree, often communities self regulate, bad members are punished, and good ones rewarded, this can be from a formalized point systems, links, or just verbal praise or bashing)

3. Not granular enough
(Jeremiah: this is referring to context of the ‘quality’ of one’s relationship they judge –I think this occurs on a case per case basis of social network –in the blogosphere for example, If I talk about one blogger enough, others will realize I prefer his or her thoughts over others –it’s apparent.)

2. Not integrated with other apps
(Jeremiah: For the most part, agree, I think the future of social apps will be those that share, open up, push and pull RS and make themselves more valuable)

1. Walled Gardens
(Jeremiah: Same response as number 2 –I’d also like to add there are probably a few too many social networks, and more coming –ultimately, this can be a good thing as very niche’ communities will find each other)

Essay Two: 5 reasons why social networks can succeed –Tristan Louis

5. Viral Nature
(Jeremiah, Agreed)

4. Online Identity
(Jeremiah, Agreed)

3. Enhanced Knowledge
(Jeremiah: agreed, the wisdom of crowds)

2. Basic human need to share
(Jeremiah: agreed, but to expand, perhaps the basic need to feel important, to contribute, to be of value to a clan –there is a deep rooted need to do this (and pack animals as well) )

1. Basic human need to connect
(I love Rebecca Blood’s speeches on blogging, she often starts if off with the banging drums and smoke signals of early man. We’re social animals and love to connect)

Essay Three: Situational Relevance in Social Networking WebSites
Also read Fred’s interesting post on Situational Relevance in Social Networking Websites he dives into the different classifications of social networks:

“The answer, it turns out, is actually quite simple, and it deals with the concept of situational relevance. We all have many social networks: our primary social network, which is comprised of our close friends and family, and numerous secondary social networks, which may be comprised of coworkers, classmates, neighbors, fellow church patrons, teammates and so on. As our social networks are webs, the primary and the secondary nets all intertwine; regardless, we maintain separate identities for each.”

This is true, at least for me, the persona you see here on my blog is much different than the ones I may show in other online networks (or even in person). Fred’s intrigued me, I’ve subscribed to his feed. He’s also the co-founder of a company called ClaimID which “lets you track, verify, classify, annotate, prioritize and share the information that is about you online. ” –I wonder if Guy is an investor.

Edit: Jeff Treem has some good thoughts: Moving away from audiences and embracing communities I like the comment he left for his soon to be boss, Mr Edelman

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 4th, 2006 at 8:04 am and is filed under Social Media, Web Theory, Web Usage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.