Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Google Research On Social Networks

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the someone-research-the-superpoke dept.

Google 95

mantis2009 writes "Paul Adams, a senior user experience researcher at Google, has posted a slideshow from a recent presentation that shows insightful research into how people use social networking technologies. The presentation describes several shortcomings of existing technology, and it highlights specific modalities that current technology (ahem, Facebook) gets wrong. Adams concludes that social networking applications are a 'crude approximation' of real-life social networks. 'People don't have one group of friends,' Adams research in several different countries shows that in reality, most people have between four to six groups of friends. He argues that social networking applications need to be built with that reality in mind."

cancel ×

95 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First! (0, Offtopic)

djfuq (1151563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875948)

First post!

Re:First! (0, Troll)

djfuq (1151563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875994)

Oh yeah, and facebook sucks!

Re:First! (3, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877668)

The proper way to express your feeling is to say "Dude, fuck Facebook. Seriously."

Re:First! (0, Offtopic)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32879786)

Why is this not modded insightful?

Re:First! (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32879836)

Not enough people watching South Park, I guess.

So what (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876012)

So what, you can group on facebook, even tag different people into different groups and then adjust privacy and broadcast setting accordingly. May be because they are not separated on you provife where it says 358 friends in stead of 358 friends in 12 groups, average members per group 18.....

Just to point out... (5, Informative)

Traegorn (856071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876014)

Facebook DOES support multiple groups of friend -- you can create separate friend lists and subdivide what permissions different sets get.

Re:Just to point out... (2, Funny)

skids (119237) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876098)

If you know this, what are you doing on slashdot? People who have friends don't come here! :-)

Re:Just to point out... (1)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876592)

Internet friends aren't real friends, duh!

Re:Just to point out... (1)

skids (119237) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876812)

Well, OK, he did say "multiple groups of friend" not "multiple groups of friends" and anyone who would put a sole friend in multiple groups surely belongs here.

Re:Just to point out... (4, Informative)

mantis2009 (1557343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876122)

Separating friend lists on Facebook as you describe doesn't support all of the functions mentioned in the slideshow. For example, posting comments on Facebook photos goes out to all people with permission to see your comments on photos. The slideshow suggests allowing different comments to be seen by different groups of friends. In the current Facebook implementation, your friends either have permission to see all your comments on all photos, or none.

Re:Just to point out... (3, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32878252)

I don't want 'lists' of friends. I want an entire sandbox.

Right now I can say if friends can see my profile picture, albums, interests, or not.

I want to be able to set a profile picture, interests, etc for each group.

Right now the closest thing you're going to get is creating a whole new profile. My coworkers don't need to know I'm in an open relationship with my girlfriend or pictures of me on a Rugby tour.

Re:Just to point out... (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32880374)

That lame "interesting" mod should have been "insightful", IMO. Yes, I have circles of freinds. Ever notice that a joke which is hilarious in one circle sounds lame and stupid in another circle? Or, that one bit of data that seems very important to one group is meaningless to all your other freinds? Your wife couldn't care less about some mundane detail of your job, and your girlfriend cares even less. Whoops!!! Wife and girlfreind? You should have put them into two different groups to start with!!

Re:Just to point out... (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32885394)

"Right now the closest thing you're going to get is creating a whole new profile."

Why is this a problem? People have been maintaining separate internet persona's since it started. And modern browser features make it easier: don't feel like filling out the same info for 3 different profiles? Browser auto-fill will handle that, as well as remember your different logins and passwords.

What am I missing here?

Re:Just to point out... (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32881536)

Although Twitter is obviously a communication service rather than a social network, this is elegantly handled by messages/photos/videos only being seen by mutual friends.

No setup, no configuration, no separate accounts, no spammage, no nothing, it just works.

Re:Just to point out... (1)

khchung (462899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32883384)

For example, posting comments on Facebook photos goes out to all people with permission to see your comments on photos.

This is exactly the reason why I very rarely post any comment on Facebook (apart from obvious privacy issues). Any normal person has friends in different circles, what's appropriate for one group may be viewed as inappropriate to another group due to different cultural/group context.

Re:Just to point out... (1)

martyros (588782) | more than 4 years ago | (#32889678)

...what's appropriate for one group may be viewed as inappropriate to another group due to different cultural/group context.

That's why I think most people only make comments that will be inoffensive / appropriate to all of their cultural group contexts.

You must lead a very interesting life if saying, "Wow, beautiful scenery" on one of your friends' photos will offend and alienate another friend. :-)

Re:Just to point out... (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32884434)

I can relate to this, for some reason I allowed my girlfriends parents to be added to my Facebook friends list, the problem is that what's appropriate for my friends isn't appropriate for them.

Similarly things I talk about with colleagues at my old work place (the things we used to get up to) aren't appropriate for my new work colleagues after I start a new job and so forth.

The net effect is that I have to self censor, and not bother posting content to any of these groups.

Re:Just to point out... (1)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876156)

I'm sure they're aware of that, however, it gets tedious when you have hundreds of friends and you're trying to figure out who knows who on your friends list- and even then, I'd be wrong for some cases (many friends happen to know each other, even though I've met them from completely separate channels).

Google is proposing that the social networking software should automatically detect these subgroups.

Re:Just to point out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876332)

Touchgraph - there is a facebook app for that.

Re:Just to point out... (3, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876372)

Google is proposing that the social networking software should automatically detect these subgroups.

No. The presentation is suggesting that social networking applications should be designed around the fact that people tend to have a small number of clearly defined silos of friends, and make different distinctions within those groups. It mentions some of the kinds of distinctions made within groups.

Nothing in the presentation suggests that social networking applications should automatically identify either the basic groups or the distinctions within the groups (although some of the distinctions, particularly the distinctions based on things specifically shared through the social network, are obvious candidates for automated tracking, and some -- e.g., strong/weak ties -- one can imagine might be roughly detectable using heuristics.)

Re:Just to point out... (1)

hey (83763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876462)

I made this to do it automatically
http://apps.facebook.com/mycliques/ [facebook.com]

Well CONGRATS THEN! (2, Funny)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877862)

well congrats then!

Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'FacebookRestClientException' with message 'unable to get preference' in /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/client/facebookapi_php5_restlib.php:420 Stack trace: #0 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/client/facebookapi_php5_restlib.php(365): FacebookRestClient->call_method('facebook.data.g...', Array) #1 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/mycliques/lib.php(121): FacebookRestClient->data_getUserPreference(0) #2 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/mycliques/lib.php(133): getPrefRaw(Object(Facebook), 0) #3 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/mycliques/lib.php(153): getPref(Object(Facebook), 0) #4 /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/mycliques/index.php(36): getPivot(Object(Facebook)) #5 {main} thrown in /home/httpd/htdocs/facebook-platform/client/facebookapi_php5_restlib.php on line 420

Re:Well CONGRATS THEN! (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32879010)

I guess you're not in the 'in' crowd, then.

Re:Just to point out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876940)

While it's true that TouchGraph will let me see who is friended to whom, that's not the same, really.

I will say, though, that my concern isn't who knows who in my different groups of friends. For example, I have two separate groups of friends from College. In my head, I think about them differently and want to look different on Facebook to the two groups.

If one of them knows someone from the other, and they talk about me separately - that's no different than real life, and I could live with that. But I still want to be able to manage my appearance and commentary separately for them.

Re:Just to point out... (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876314)

Facebook DOES support multiple groups of friend -- you can create separate friend lists and subdivide what permissions different sets get.

It supports multiple groups of friends in terms of permission lists (though that's a recent feature, and may well not have been around at the time the research was done supporting this presentation), but it doesn't support them as separable silos. So, even if its somewhat less crude than the state presented in the presentation, it still has the same fundamental problem the presentation points to in terms of groups.

Of course, the presentation talks about more than just groups, it talks about important distinctions people make within groups regarding closeness, trust on/interest in particular issues, etc.

Re:Just to point out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876830)

Yeah, but if it isn't implemented correctly, your worlds will collide [youtube.com]

Re:Just to point out... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877700)

And remember that chick friends are worth almost triple what dude friends are.

Re:Just to point out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32877984)

Except the article seems to be talking about something more like LiveJournal friends groups where not only can you make lists of your friends, you can actually use them for something. Seriously, on Facebook I have one friends group that I use for family / business contacts that has the maximum privacy settings (i.e. I'll friend them, but they basically see a blank profile), and everyone else. There is no option for making a status update only for one group of friends. I think you might be limit to limit by album for photos... but no one uses it because the interface is so well hidden.

On LiveJournal, every single post you make has a clear option [livejournal.com] of public, friends-only, private, or just a specific friends group. The UI for friends groups makes them very easy and quick to create and edit. Around 4-6 years ago, a good number of the people I knew in high school used LiveJournal (with varying levels of how often they posted), and everyone knew about the friends-only features and at least sometimes used them. These were not geeky people or privacy nuts. Real privacy features get used. Facebook just does not have them.

Re:Just to point out... (1)

cybereal (621599) | more than 4 years ago | (#32881456)

Correction, facebook USED to support this. Or rather, a small subset of this. Now what they have is a hollowed out husk of what they offered before with all signs pointing to them further reducing this capability.

What's worse is that their only excuse offered for why they reduced this functionality was empty, vapid nonsense that could only be interpreted as "we think it's too hard so we won't do it anymore."

Re:Just to point out... (1)

MattCC (551250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32885296)

The problem with Facebook's groups of friends is that the UI hides the functionality. I doubt that one in 1,000 users would have stumbled upon the right process for making a photo available to just a subset of their friends. I've suggested [uxmatters.com] that a better approach to this type of control is to assign "privacy tags" to both people and published objects. A "friend" could then see just those objects of mine for which both they and the object share the same privacy tag.

Agree (3, Insightful)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876018)

I completely agree. I have to refuse friend requests from family and co-workers because I don't want them viewing my status/pictures. It would be great if I could post a status update to my "New York Friends Group", or share a picture album with my "Family Group".

Re:Agree (2, Interesting)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876342)

I 100% agree and would love nothing more for my SN account to have 'multiple personalities' and aggregate it into one place instead of having to maintain multiple profiles. I can obviously see issues arising involving posting to an incorrect profile and so forth, but that's unavoidable no matter the multiple SN profile set-up.

Actually, I think these will be important features in a future 'facebook killer', although I suspect that facebook cannot be killed and it will take years for someone to catch up to it - A good analogy would be Hotmail & Gmail. Hotmail was first, was number one for a long time and even if it is #2 behind gmail, it is STILL huge.

Re:Agree (-1, Troll)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32878608)

SN account to have 'multiple personalities'

Basically you want Facebook to cater to the fact that you are two-faced, or n-faced.

Re:Agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32883804)

as well, catching up to it will be extremely hard because of one flaw social networks have that e-mail didn't. With e-mail you had the nusance of re-entering all of your contacts, forwarding over important e-mails etc.... with social networks not only do you have all of those nuisances, but when it's all said and done, once you are there, you still can't talk to anyone who you haven't convinced to switch already. I personally love google buzz. Yeah google made some slip ups but it works far better for me then facebook ever would. While I love the way google buzz works, it is still useless to me because only about 2 people that I know also use it, and the rest of the people I know won't switch, because everyone they know is on facebook also.

Re:Agree (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876356)

Gay? Singularitan?

Re:Agree (3, Insightful)

TheZalm (129363) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877238)

You can do that now. Just create a Family List and and a NY Friends List. That's what I do. Then, when you post an update, you'll see a little icon that lets you pick which lists can see it.

Re:Agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32879056)

Oh, wow. That's new. I just posted in a different thread that it was a huge issue with Facebook that you couldn't do that... does it let the readers know the update has privacy settings applied to it? (Otherwise I have no way of knowing if anyone is actually using it.) A quick test of posting a status update viewing by only myself shows that it has a lock icon that show the privacy level when hover over it. Of course, I can't tell what someone else would see. (I only have one Facebook account.) Hmm... and I was about to complain about the interface for editing friends lists, but the current one seems pretty good. The only real issue is that people have gotten used to everything being public so they post updates to everyone or no one.

Re:Agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32885052)

easily? like classify friend on add

Re:Agree (1)

iconic999 (1295483) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877530)

Just create multiple ACCOUNTS, one for friends and coworkers and another one for friends. Duh.

Re:Agree (1)

purpleheart (1854284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877838)

Interesting. People use social sites to view old friends, current friends and to keep track of others. There are definitely multiple groups of friends that people will have.

Re:Agree (1)

willutah (556976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32878264)

Isn't that what Facebook Groups are for? You can limit who can be in a FB group.

Re:Agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32884018)

i believe you can specify people who can view your wall posts/albums and other. try 'security settings'

Re:Agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32915678)

I completely agree. I have to refuse friend requests from family and co-workers because I don't want them viewing my status/pictures. It would be great if I could post a status update to my "New York Friends Group", or share a picture album with my "Family Group".

You can post a status update to your New York Friends Group:

1. Click padlock under status text field
2. Select "Customize"
3. Select Make this visible to "Specific People"
4. Enter the name of your Friend Group (NYC Friends)
5. Done

So (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876050)

You might say that facebook is killing independent george?

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876358)

George should just have made two accounts, one for each world.

More than one... (4, Informative)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876062)

I use multiple SN's. For professional contacts I use LinkedIn. For personal contacts I use Google Buzz (or at least did until recently). For imaginary contacts I use WoW.

Re:More than one... (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877188)

I use multiple SN's. For professional contacts I use LinkedIn. For personal contacts I use Google Buzz (or at least did until recently). For imaginary contacts I use WoW.

Which is probably part of the reason so many are upset at Activision/Blizzard's intent to interface Battle.net with Facebook.

As George Costanza noted: (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876088)

It's a bad thing when worlds collide!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPG3YMcSvzo [youtube.com]
Hopefully this is the right clip (work pc / no audio)

Agree (2, Interesting)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876148)

Facebook as a tool is very limited to imitate real life social networking. For example I have different categories of friends on facebook and I would like to be able to literally have different profiles for each of them in FB. Yes, FB does support something like that, but it is a pain to set each post or album differently for each individual. I still have not added anyone from my work to my FB account because I am scared what they might end up seeing on my account. Ofcourse, FB also has this ridiculously bad privacy policies in which your tagged pictures get shown to everyone depending on whoever has the least restrictive privacy settings!

Re:Agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876468)

"For example I have different categories of friends on facebook and I would like to be able to literally have different profiles for each of them in FB."

Adult FriendFinder lets you do this

Re:Agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32886018)

And it is because of that issue of the tagged photos and the lack of innovation in the Facebook labs why I closed down my account. Imagine one day where Facebook decides to just remove the use of multiple groups all together or an accidental programming glitch allows your boss who is in your work group to see you passed out drunk at a buddies cottage. I for one am welcoming Google's social networking site because it sounds like they are developing it from the ground up to be functional. Facebook will likely end up being the Windows Vista of the SN's. Poorly coded. Poorly implemented and worst of all poorly managed.

The US military just isn't prepared ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876224)

to deal with gorilla warfare.

Can you say USENET! (1)

clueelf (1854220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876346)

the points this guy makes make sense, but it seems like he is just asking for the re-creation of USENET

Re:Can you say USENET! (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877126)

Usenet doesn't have any concept of friends or social groups, it is all public for everybody.

and the point is? (2, Interesting)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876382)

I really don't get it. why is facebook a big deal? I understand the companies that want facebook-like things to work: they want money. but the rest of the world? how does it make people better persons?

don't tell me it's easier to keep in touch with people you knew in highschool/college whatever. if you're doing it just because it's easy, it doesn't mean you actually need to do it, and it doesn't mean you care about those people more.

Re:and the point is? (3, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876876)

but the rest of the world?

Partially, its a grind game. I recently deleted my account, but one behavior I saw was some of my female acquaintances competing to see whom can collect the highest number of male friends, by any means. I enjoyed some of their pictures at least (hope my wife doesn't read this). The middle school girl game of seeing whom has more friends on the bus, minus (most of) the teasing. A nice looking young woman can easily acquire 4 digits of admirers, if not friends.

Also whenever you hear a trite explanation of why someone is on facebook, always assume the result is the opposite of their goal. Unemployed people claim they are on FB because its a great place to find a job, although they never find one, at least because of FB. I'm at the age where former schoolmates and coworkers are now very lonely stay at home moms, so they claim to be on FB because they're looking for adult interaction, but they post stupid stuff all day, so no one reads them. Single guy friends claim FB is a great way to get some, so they post every freaking benchpress set and every mile on the bicycle, and every time they enter or leave a "trendy bar", yet, they remain single. Everyone in America has heard of "someone" whom got a job or rekindled old friendships or got some because of FB. However, for 99% of the population, FB just simply doesn't work, but as long as there's people who have convinced themselves that it works, its all good, for FB anyway. Its a religion, basically.

And the final reason is simple curiosity. Whatever happened to that stoner dropout dude that I hung out with in 8th grade study hall? Oh, thats interesting. One of my coworkers was going on and on about some girl whom would never date him in high school, turns out she now publicly prefers other women, which explains that, or maybe it's his fault, whatever. Well, that was fun for a little while, goodbye facebook.

Re:and the point is? (2, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877044)

Oh, and collectors. Lest I forget collectors. "Everyone in this department is on FB, so you need to join too". Thankfully not someone in management, so I could simply ignore him. Collectors can get aggressive. Think of how wild otherwise calm cool and collected old women can get when bidding at auctions for antiques. Same deal if you're related to someone or work with them and you've not friended them yet, how dare you.

Collectors are oddly enough closely related to the drama queens or sh!t stirrers or whatever you call them. They at least provide comic relief.

There is also a subset of very passive people on FB whom sign up and then refuse to use it, just accept all incoming friend requests and drive on. Not ready to toss it out, yet no longer willing to participate. The "hoarders" of the social networking scene. Can't use it, but can't throw it away either.

Last but not least I found some folks are on FB simply because they're crusaders in the worst sense, and they want to proselytize either religiously or politically. Doesn't matter if anyone cares or is offended, they're going to go on posting holy book quotes or fox news quotes until they get tired of doing it, which apparently takes years for some of them. Not really my cup of tea, but if it keeps them out of my face in real life, all the better.

With the exception of the folks I actually interact with outside of FB, I think I've now accurately categorized ALL of my ex-FB friends. It was fun, for awhile.

Re:and the point is? (2, Insightful)

spiralx (97066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32878248)

Or for those of us with lots of friends/relatives it's a way to share information/gossip across a wider group of people than your immediate circle of people you see regularly, or people separated by distance, to find out what people have been up to, to see pictures of yours or others events. And then there's the fact that it makes organising social events a breeze, both mine or my friends and those by any of the dozens of club nights I might want to go out - people get an invitation, and only those who accept/say maybe get any of the further information that might be sent out.

Which I would imagine accounts for the vast majority of people using FB.

Re:and the point is? (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877954)

As far as I understand it, people do a lot of networking with facebook, though. They folrm groups to come and BBQ at their place or whatever. Without facebook, when "all" your real life friends are on there, they might forget to invite you to some parties and whatnot. They have my phone number and email. It's not that they don't want me at their parties, right?

Re:and the point is? (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32878100)

Speaking only for myself:

It's a pretty good way to keep in touch with people that you don't see in person very often, probably because they don't currently live very near to you. For example:

- Most of my family still lives in the area where I grew up, which is about a hundred miles from where I live now. Facebook makes it easy to share bits of news with them, pictures of our kids, etc. Obviously there are other ways to do this; I won't tell you that Facebook is the only way to do this or even the best way to do this, just a decent one.

- One of my old roommates now lives ~2000 miles away. However, he's still back in this area a couple times a year and really likes to see his old friends when he's here. It's easy for him to post to Facebook when his visits will be, and friends of his that are free can get in touch with him about getting together in person. Again, there are other ways to accomplish this, but Facebook is a pretty easy/convienient one.

Re:and the point is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32883168)

I really don't get it. why is email a big deal? I understand the companies that want email-like things to work: they want money. but the rest of the world? how does it make people better persons?

don't tell me it's easier to keep in touch with people you knew in highschool/college whatever. if you're doing it just because it's easy, it doesn't mean you actually need to do it, and it doesn't mean you care about those people more.

Re:and the point is? (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32886568)

Here's the reason I found: For most of my relatives who aren't computer savvy, it's the easiest way to see photos of the young people and their babies.

Can't We All Agree to Just Stop Using... (0, Offtopic)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876386)

...that tired, clever-maybe-once-upon-a-time "ahem"/"cough" convention?

Thanks in advance...

Venn Diagram (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876392)

Each person is the 1-person intersection of a lot of circles of different sizes, potentially having a different personality in front of each of them. And some of those circles are totally contained in others (as in class colleages, and small group of closest friends in that class).

Is not just 4-6, are a lot, and is very dynamic too.

They seem to go in the right direction, but falling short on the real problem.

Re:Venn Diagram (1)

blueup (225926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877488)

Airset is a "social" tool that has a model like this; but it never took off like Facebook did.

It has much better find-grained controls for each group of friends, and lots of tools, including one of the best contacts data models I've seen. Unfortunately a good data model doesn't make you popular.

Socal Networks (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876434)

This makes a lot of sense but I don't know how you would implement this into social networking on the web. Have multiple groups of friends setting who could see what that could get to be a lot of work. Unless you had friends that are just Facebook friends then friends that were just Myspace friends. That is dependent on the other person to have a Facebook or Myspace would get kind of confusing keep all that straight. Facebook and Myspace only to name two there are hundreds of social networking sites.

For example ... (5, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876450)

... girlfriends, wives.

Advertisement precursor? (1)

lwriemen (763666) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876452)

For Google Wave?

The construction of persona (4, Insightful)

freejung (624389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876540)

It goes beyond the problem of having different groups of friends. The problem is that in real life most people have many different personae. You would say and do things with your friends from college that you would never say or do in front of your boss, as the most obvious example.

IRL we put a lot of work into constructing and maintaining these different personae, and we do a lot of work to keep them separate.

With social networking as it is, that's all over. Even if you never participate in Facebook, you are probably tagged in dozens or even hundreds of photos, and the odds are pretty good that some of them show you doing things you wouldn't do in front of your boss.

So the question is, will we adapt the technology to allow the creation and maintenance of a variety of different personae, or will we adapt our own behavior so as to present one consistent, universally acceptable persona to the world?

I think many of us, particuarly the younger generation, are already doing the latter. In order to adapt to this, we have to adjust our expectations of people. Maybe as an employer, you just have to get used to being able to see pictures of your employees smoking weed at parties and so forth, and not let it bother you. However, until we adapt, it creates the problem that suddenly everything you say and do is potentially public (whether you participate in social media or not).

Re:The construction of persona (2, Interesting)

CraftyJack (1031736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877936)

I think many of us, particuarly the younger generation, are already doing the latter. In order to adapt to this, we have to adjust our expectations of people.

According to the slides, at least, that's not the case. The presenter claims that younger users are more likely to actively manage their privacy settings. He seems to be implying that people opt for more control over who sees their profile when they understand how to do so, and stop using the service (or have a bad experience) when they don't.

Re:The construction of persona (1)

Americium (1343605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32878762)

Your site has a big rectangle of blank space right in the center

Re:The construction of persona (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32880826)

So the question is, will we adapt the technology to allow the creation and maintenance of a variety of different personae, or will we adapt our own behavior so as to present one consistent, universally acceptable persona to the world?

So, we all have to be honest with each other? The horror!

IRC (1)

Kidbro (80868) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876612)

And again, simple decades old technologies (in this case IRC) solved the problem from the start.

The author's real reason: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876682)

The author is playing the game and is constantly asked by each of the 3 girls he's going out with:

"Why won't you confirm on Facebook that we're going out?"

One thing missing... (2, Interesting)

Heshler (1191623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876734)

I read through the whole slide set, and it was very insightful as to the subdivisions of the network and the influences therein. The conclusions were pretty strong, however there is one issue that could make it difficult to create tools that will be the next Facebook. The problem is that although people in the studies privately categorized their "friends" into different groups and different closeness, I don't think they would be willing to share information on the closeness-level of relationships and the categories in some cases. In fact, I would be hesitant to do that on my own facebook profile if there were options, as people might see my computer. Furthermore, I would also be hesitant to post status updates that were addressed to a specific group of people, for fear of leaving the others out. What if I had to confess to someone I like that I do, in fact, use Facebook a lot, but I simply don't include them in my interactions there? The slides mention that people have workarounds like using entirely different networking services to comunicate with different groups, and I don't see this changing without an innovative implementation of a social network.

Re:One thing missing... (4, Insightful)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877066)

The tool doesn't need to prompt you for "closeness level". It could just track who you post to, and then when you post a message or a photo, give you a list of contacts, and ask which ones you want to send to. It could sort the list based on frequency, and the people you are close to will filter to the top.



Share with (check all that apply):
[ ] Wife, Mary
[ ] Sister, Betty click here to check this one and everyone above [some.javascript]
[ ] Dad, Bob click here to check this one and everyone above [some.javascript]
[ ] Mom. Irma click here to check this one and everyone above [some.javascript]
[ ] Cousin, Fred click here to check this one and everyone above [some.javascript]
[ ] Distant Cousin, Joe click here to check this one and everyone above [some.javascript]

Re:One thing missing... (1)

NeMon'ess (160583) | more than 4 years ago | (#32883406)

How about a pie chart/archery target? Groups of contacts are created through tags or algorithms, then displayed like slices of pie. The farther from the center, the more distant the contact. Users can touch using a finger, or click with a mouse to select what parts of the chart to share content with.

The system could remember common and uncommon chart configurations. So when a user begins selecting distant relatives, the system suggests a previous chart as an overlay.

Re:One thing missing... (1)

Mints (146243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32889312)

On problem with that scheme: I never, ever talk to my closest friend on Facebook. In fact, if we were able to get an objective measure of closeness/intimacy for each of my friends, created and ordered list from that measure, facebook contact frequency would peak well below the top of the list because other communication modes would take over: email, instant messaging, text messaging, phone calls, hard drinking in bars, etc.

For any algorithm to do better than a rough approximation, it would have to be aware of all communication modes to some extent.

(Unless, of course, there are people who only interact on facebook.)

It's the first time when they admit they want more (1)

broknstrngz (1616893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876880)

Apparently they're not happy enough with what they know about you, they won't stop until your Facebook/Buzz/Yahoo/whatever profile is a 1:1 mapping of you. It all sucks badly when you think of how, a few years ago, having such a profile was kind of embarassing in the context of, say, a job interview, while now it's almost mandatory - "What, you're not on Facebook? How do you LIVE?" I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I always laugh at tinfoil hats, but all this looks like soon we won't be able to do anything without registering to a data mining website first. The other day I was reading an article which led me to the European Commission's website, only to find that part of the information that was supposed to be there was actually on Facebook: http://europa.eu/epso/apply/today/tra_en.htm [europa.eu] Yeah, I know, it's just a link, but I think it's really lame that the Comission provides more information about an open position on some employee's Facebook page instead of its own. Hell, let's stop funding their infrastructure, they might as well move everything on Facebook. Or Second Life! Bleh.

Re:It's the first time when they admit they want m (2, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877270)

they won't stop until your Facebook/Buzz/Yahoo/whatever profile is a 1:1 mapping of you .... while now it's almost mandatory

Don't forget the other aspect of 1:1 mapping from a mathematical sense. How hard would it be to have multiple pages, if there's no authentication and "everyone knows its mandatory". It's like requiring all of us to carry ID cards at all times, yet allowing all of us to hand craft anything that we feel like calling an ID card.

Maybe, purchase a carefully crafted page for a job interview (HR repo says: "Look! Mr. Someone is a FB friend of the world famous VLM whom has a /. UID with only 5 digits! We gotta hire this guy!!"). This doesn't work so well for rare names. But a sufficiently expensive FB campaign can make any name common. Which might be a valuable service for people with tarnished FB reputations.

HR will check to verify my PHD. Probably. So I probably should not fake a doctoral degree. However, HR can not verify the PHDs of my artificially created FB friends whom sing my praises. Nor my executive and CEO friends. The key is not to go overboard. In my infinite spare time I have been working on a plan to implement all the characters of a certain book inside FB with myself as the main character. Kind of a performance art display. If you must steal my idea, at least credit my post here. It all boils down to the cost of multiple one year domain registration and email hosting.

I have also in my devilishness been contemplating generating a big connectedness graph of a 5-D hypercube, or perhaps several other shapes, and instead of naming the vertices (1,0,1,1,1) or whatever, I'd pull random names, and register and link them in FB-space. I wonder how far I can take this before getting caught. Someone out there is buying connectedness graphs from FB and is bound to notice.

Re:It's the first time when they admit they want m (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32878284)

I vote that we all start a society on facebook, comprised of only fake accounts. We will exist in the shadows, not interacting with any real people. All accounts can have a common shared password, and the recovery email can be passed around a ring of admins whose job it is to protect against vandalism.

Re:It's the first time when they admit they want m (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32880878)

We will exist in the shadows, not interacting with any real people.

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your journal.

Under an assumed name and post office box number, of course.

Re:It's the first time when they admit they want m (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32879288)

That's a good idea, vlm.

I have had an idea I want to try:

Create an application and use this to represent yourself (give it my name). Essentially you can collect all the data about your friends with less of the risks.

You can use it to message your friends and write on their walls. hopefully your friends are dumb enough to give permission "Your Name wants to write on your wall".

Re:It's the first time when they admit they want m (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32880498)

They exist for a very different purpose, but that reminds me of the QC cast Twitter accounts [twitter.com] . The author of the webcomic Questionable Content maintains Twitter accounts for the characters which are only connected to each other. I suspect there are a good number of other "fake" Twitter accounts. I know I have seen a few Facebook accounts for fictional characters.

Nicknames are not enough. (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877108)

I have some forums friends that know me as Tei, and for some weird reason have figured out that the Tei on that forum is the Tei on /.

Do I have to use different nicknames? seems so. Internet with his worldwide design broadcast my life in a tiny spot of the internet to all spots. Maybe I sould use something less unique, theres something called TEI, so I am somewhat safe, but is not enough.

Everywhere you "deploy" your internet persona, you are reducing your privacy. Even if we use a combination of random characters on every post, I fear It will not be enough.

I am one of these jerks that has managed to google the whole life of a person using just the nickname. A tool for that is "unique expresions". People can change nickname, but not how talk... so if the dude use some colorist word or misspell, you can use that against him.

Ad hoc groups.... (1)

drdrgivemethenews (1525877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32877780)

would be awfully nice. We have these with email, and at parties, the water cooler and so on. I guess the message system can be used to simulate this, but it doesn't feel the same.

use other sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32877988)

Why not just use other sites for different types of friends. Multiply.com and http://vk.com/index.php for instance. Orkut is still around too.

Spread things around and save Facebook for miscellaneous general relationships like people that you haven't seen in years and years. Choose Multiply.com for your intimate friends, get your family to all join VK.com and so on. And for professional friends LinkedIn is the place to be.

The future is diversity. We have tried the one big site model with Facebook, and found it wanting. So we won't do that anymore.

Is it any surprise? (1)

vthome (21702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32879242)

Well, duh [blogspot.com] . That's what you get when you "favor ability over experience".

Define "friends" (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32879268)

Clearly facebook is a book of faces, not a book of friends. Friends just means you are connected to someone really, and that's it. That usually just means you came in contact with them.

Google will obviously have an invested interest in anything online, and the slides are very good. Two thumbs up!

Will it matter though? Seriously, 90% of the reason why facebook and dreaded myspace became so huge are because of referrals and because of their simplicity. Even with facebook a huge part of the user base are clueless about most of the features as demonstrated every time they introduce new ones and it leads to privacy catastrophy.

The moment you start geeking out you are making it harder for people to adopt, and although the author acknowledges this and avoids geeking out on technical details, clearly he has geeked out on the social ones.

Similar to Danah Boyd use of the term "publics" (2, Informative)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32879522)

Danah Boyd had a lot of very similar things to say at www2010, and it is worth mentioning:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/futureweb2010/danah_boyd_www_keynote.xhtml [elon.edu]

And I am sure others have reached similar conclusions also, but Paul Adams is definitely not the first to mention the problems of having one "public". Danah goes further and challenges the common notion of privacy more generically than just focusing on social network systems.

People know you are hiding things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32880432)

When one friend group only sees itself on your site. I do not click on the sites of people I know on FB. I'm checking out the ones I do not know. Thats how you find other people. Which was the selling point of this data identity theft corporation. "Keep in contact with people who chose not to keep in contact with you".

Any single web site with integration (1)

rajji (1854384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32880520)

Is there any web site which provide a single interface and integrated to all the social web site? I'll always prefer a single interface for all these web site instead of going there and remember my ids. Currently, I'm usinga mobile web site http://fonet.mobi/ [fonet.mobi] which provide a single interface for Facebook, twitter, linkedIn, friendfeed, google docs etc. I have to login to this web site only and link my accounts. Once I links my accounts, I don't have to login anywhere and I can see all the friends comments/feeds. It has lots of ohttp://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/07/12/1635200/New-Google-Research-On-Social-Networks#ther features also like centralize address book, grocery card management etc.

Bad facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32891924)

GeeWhizz. A goog UX head telling fb what doesn't work. Are fb being billed for this service?

This Seems Dumb (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895192)

"Adams concludes that social networking applications are a 'crude approximation' of real-life social networks. 'People don't have one group of friends"

There's a hidden assumption here that I don't subscribe to: If real-life networks differ from online networks, then real-life ones are better. I mean, try that hat on with respect to other communications and data-processing systems.

Personally, there's no way in hell I'd want the complexity of managing N different defined social groups and who's in each, who's in multiple, who sees every step or picture or comment I put on a given site. It would be egregiously overwhelming. I'd rather focus on integrating my different contacts together, honestly. There's lots of cases where I might say "A and B would totally have a blast, if it weren't for the fact that A is at work and B is back home". It seems ridiculous to put up a Tower-of-Babel-like amount of effort just to keep friends walled off from each other in a simulation of real-life geography.

Moreover, the Adams presentation has even more, much bigger bad ideas than that -- like salivating all over the idea of unavoidable identity-linkage to every website and interaction on the web (Facebook keyed to every site you visit, etc.)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>