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!

Social Network Fatigue Coming?

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the typing-it-all-over-again dept.

The Internet 196

mrspin offers the opinion of ZDNet blogger Steve O'Hear that users may soon tire of social networks — if they don't open up and embrace standards allowing greater interoperability among the different networks. O'Hear writes: "Unless the time required to sign-in, post to, and maintain profiles across each network is reduced, it will be impossible for most users to participate in multiple sites for very long." In an earlier post he went into more detail on the same subject, with extensive opinions from four creators of social networks. A contrary data point comes from the Apophenia blog, in a post noting the tendency among young users to create ephemeral profiles, and not to mind at all if they have to re-enter data. "Teens are not looking for universal anything; that's far too much of a burden if losing track of things is the norm." What does Slashdot think — is data portability among social networking sites a big deal or not?

cancel ×


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

Use a common portal then... (4, Funny)

vistic (556838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439018)

There are efforts [] being made to consolidate all these social network sites into one, common portal like Optrata (one page to rule them all).

That may be the key for now, because I doubt any "standard" will develop among different social network sites. (I sure can't imagine how myspace, youtube, facebook, livejournal, orkut, etc. would agree on a standard: they all have their own approaches and problems. Myspace would demand every 1/3 request goes to a "under maintenance" page, still filled with a hundred ads and flash videos and other flash apps to crash your browser... and Orkut would demand every 2/3 requests is a server hiccup.)

Re:Use a common portal then... (4, Informative)

potat0man (724766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439432)

I doubt any "standard" will develop among different social network sites.

It may not have to. Imagine some software that would come pre-installed with most web hosting accounts or easily installed via c-panel a la wordpress or movabletype and people will no longer need a centralized site in order to connect in the way they seem to want to. Friends lists, message boards, picture commenting and bulletins could all easily be done with a free host and the right software [] . No need to rely on a central server/company that buries you in ads or censors you [] . And your less geeky friends could use it from a multitude of free or cheap hosts as their entire page and I could install it in a directory of my site to stay connected in a neat way to my online friends.

Sure, today the software's too difficult to install and lacks some features. But if that ever changes it could mean a big change in how social networking pages interact with each other: No more middle-man.

IT'S ALL TRUE! (2, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439440)

I'm even sick of posting journal entries!

Re:IT'S ALL TRUE! (3, Funny)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439530)

I'm even sick of posting journal entries!
Your entries have been popping up in the Firehose, and I'm sick of them too.

Re:Use a common portal then... (3, Informative)

dominion (3153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440044)

Friends lists, message boards, picture commenting and bulletins could all easily be done with a free host and the right software [].

Hey, I'm the main appleseed developer. If you have had any problems installing, I'd be interested to hear them. Anything I can do to make it easier to install, the better. I know there's a lot I can do since I haven't focused much on ease of installation, but if you have any ideas, let me know!

It's all about sex (2, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439624)

Social Networking is all about sex and status. As long as it can achieve more of those for the user or at least the user can be persuaded of that then the burden is not too much until an easier route appears. If the chicks leave the guys will leave too. If they stay, then the guys will stay too. It's that simple.

The burnout is just another way of saying it's not worth the effort for the return on the sex.

Re:Use a common portal then... (3, Interesting)

bwerdmuller (668895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439722)

A common portal isn't an answer; it's a fudge that dodges the meat of the issue. However, maybe a bridging API service might be interesting? Something that can talk to the myriad APIs offered by Flickr, Facebook et al, all the while providing a consistent set of calls to application developers.

The key isn't being able to access data from a consistent visual interface - it's being able to choose where your data is stored, and change both your mind and the nature of the data itself. If you've got a file, you should be able to choose which application it's opened with and where you save it; if you've got a profile or web data, you should be able to do the same.

Re:Use a common portal then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17440318)

Optrata (one page to rule them all)

your acronym is broken.

passaporto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439030)

too bad it was microsoft that released passport.

I don't think it'll be an issue. (1)

SocialEngineer (673690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439038)

I use social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, and more, to promote my artwork/design services and music. Most of my fans all have profiles on the same sites, and don't seem to have any problems managing their glitter-animated-gif-laiden profiles. Most of those people are also technologically incompetent. I've never heard any complaints (other than the "Why won't my profile load as fast as yours" crap)

Re:I don't think it'll be an issue. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17440308)

Nice take on your fans. FAG!!!

- Wolf Bearclaw

Old News (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439042)

Facebook and other sites already support importing, exporting, and synching data through RSS feeds and SOAP/XML APIs. They also support importing contacts from other accounts.

Facebook and data exportation (4, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439664)

Does Facebook have contact-list export capabilities back yet?

Back a few years ago, there was a brief time when Facebook let you export your friends contact information as a VCard file. It was awesome -- you could download all of your friends' info to one file, and from there import it into Address Book, or the PIM of your choice. From there, if you had an intelligent enough system, you could have all their birthdays added to your calendar, phone numbers downloaded to your mobile, etc.

They eliminated the feature pretty quickly after they implemented it -- I only got one data download out of it -- due to spam concerns, but I always thought that there had to be a way to balance spam resistance against the obvious benefits of such a system. (Of course, the obvious solution is to only 'friend' people you actually know and trust, and not just anybody who sends you a request...but any security method based on user intelligence is probably doomed to failure.)

If they've re-enabled anything like that, I'd be very impressed. Facebook is by far my favorite 'social networking' site (which isn't saying much, really it's akin to saying 'Facebook doesn't make me want to gouge out my own eyes'), but it could certainly be more useful if the data, both simple contact information and more complex relationship-derived metadata, was exportable for external use and analysis.

Relevancy (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439044)

Other than the 20 crowd on MySpace, what's the relevancy of these sites?, where you can find the email address of the douche who sat behind you in History class? Yahoo groups, where you can look at a lot of bad, amateur porn?
Is there fatigue over these sites, or just ennui, due to their fundamental lack of any content, other than being circle-jerks?

Re:Relevancy (4, Interesting)

cloricus (691063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439302)

Due to the choice of words of the parent post to this it will get modded troll though I think it is an important question. What is the point of these pits of content? I play my favorite mmo (eve online) and I chat with the guys on that often, I idle on irc and chat with people I know there, and I've got the odd forum around the place. Though at the end of the day though I leave the house and socialise with my friends at our local net cafe or hang out at different places. These social networking sites seem to grab the non geeks around and draw them onto the net even though they already have the real life social aspect. And I'm the geek! It basically leaves me thinking it is a fad or nothing at all.

Seriously am I the only one that just doesn't get social networking sites?

Re:Relevancy (1)

potat0man (724766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439498)

It's an online college dorm room door. There's a board for leaving a funny message or drawing stupid pictures. There might be a couple photos of the student and their friends from the last weekend trip. And, depending on the personality, there's a varying degree of bumper stickers, band names, logos, celebrity photos, pinups and god knows what turning it into a feast for the eyes/gargantuan eye-sore that gets the RA yelling at them to take it down.

Only online, there's no RA.

Re:Relevancy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439562)

Theres really not much to get... it depends on who's site it is.

The so-called babes - popularity contest or trying to get famous to introduce a video on MTV.
Pathetic depressed female teen - They really are just part of the 'i hate myself so im not doing it for the popularity contest' kind of crap but they really wish they were popular enough to be a 'babe' without resorting to blurry webcam shots & cleavage shots that hide their fat.
Pathetic depressed male teens - want to become popular enough to cyber a pathetically depressed female teen.
Experts (in any field) - Either not talented enough, too worn out or unwilling to ben over enough for mainstream media.
The rest - dont know, dont care. Its probably popularity, money or to write annoying comments on other people's blogs.

I wonder who will be the first social network serial killer. Picking targets by google. Google maps will even get you stalk them virtually

Silly people on silly networking sites giving up all their privacy. I wonder how many have divulged their address, mother's maiden name to someone they know through a myspace friend who knows a girl who knows the guy who has the avatar you like with the sad eyes.

ps.. any similarities between ideas mentioned in this post and the book i'm writing are purely the result of a small mind.

Re:Relevancy (1)

Slashdot Junky (265039) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439764)

You're not the only one, because there is at least me. I totally missed the whole MySpace craze and just don't get it. Granted, there's a lot of recent Internet-related sites/services/concepts/tech that I haven't bought into. This mainly is because I wasn't and still am not looking for something to replace the old way to do X. I've spent way more hours than I wish to admit at my PC since BBS's came about and of course on the net. The social networks crowd seem to be unable to disconnect. With each day that passes, I'm more and more interested in the face to face contact.

-Slashdot Junky

Re:Relevancy (1)

Genocaust (1031046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439860)

Seriously, are you my twin? Stalking me? Something else strange going on? I operate the same as you. Sit and play my favorite MMO (WoW, for me though) and talk to people there, idle on IRC and chat with a few more people, and one or two forums here and there. And yes, I too do leave the house and go socialize with real people once in awhile, too. I've never signed up for any social networking site -- I don't see the point. Really, why do I need to let the whole world know my life story in a piss-poorly designed page plastered with 10 flash videos and 500 blinking-glitter-gif-images-that-need-to-fucking-d ie? I've got to agree with a previous poster; social networking sites seem to attract the non-geek crowd who ALREADY have a social life and bring them online. Just another piece of advertising revenue by drawing in all the people more likely to buy some $80 pair of "designer" jeans they see in an ad when reading a friend's profile.

Re:Relevancy (2, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439954)

I can't speak for other social sites besides Facebook, because I can't stand them (too much dark-blue-on-black, and who thought embedding sounds in HTML was a feature?) but I think it's major function is just to act as distributed, collaborative address book. The demand for this sort of thing is pretty obvious and has been for some time -- the traditional finger command did some of it, including listing people's addresses (or office location), email, and other contact info. Unlike a static address book stored locally on your computer, the obvious advantage of a distributed system is that it doesn't require any effort to stay up-to-date.

Frankly, as Facebook has gotten further and further away from its core focus of just providing a quick and easy way to find people's contact info that I haven't seen in a while, it's become less interesting to me. The expansion of social websites, to the point where they try to do everything (how long until they fulfill some sort of website corollary to Zawinski's Law and begin offering email?) may in fact be their downfall. But I suppose it's hard to monetize a big distributed address book, or so they think.

Re:Relevancy (4, Insightful)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440206)

Because you need to have a life to get social networking sites.

I don't mean to be harsh, and I'm not looking to get modded a troll, but most people who enjoy using social sites over the long-term (in my opinion) have a lot of friends they actually care to keep in contact with. I'm a big Facebook user. It helps me keep up with my two sisters away at college as well as a lot of old friends of mine from high school and from college that I actually care to keep up with.

This is very different from internet-based relationships. (And that's where "have a life" may be harsh.) If you're into EVE Online or whatever, that's great. But your relationship with those people is, fundamentally, based in a digital medium. Sometimes MMO players get together in real life, sometimes really tight messageboard communities do the same thing. But that's the exception rather than the norm. The norm is for users brought together by a common interest to have little interest in maintaining relationships with those people in the absence of the common interest.

I played Planetside for a while. Not really an MMORPG, but certainly an MMO back in its day. I had an outfit (Guild, if you will) and several people that I considered friends in my Planetside world. Not only were they in my outfit, but we worked well together, laughed at each others jokes, and generally enjoyed playing together. That was the extent of it, however. I'm not saying I would not have cared to know how their day was outside of Planetside, or how their relationship was going. I may have cared, but that would have been a different kind of relationship. It would have been, for lack of a less-harsh term, caring about their real life and not just the game life.

American culture is more mobile than ever. It's normal go to high school in one city, go to college in another city, and get a job in a third city. And even if you don't move around that much, some of your friends certainly will. It's precisely these 18 - 25 year olds who use these sites. They are trying to find a kind of stability in their ever-changing world. If your entire circle of friends is cycled at least every 4 years, you may want to find a way to combat that social churn and get a more stable set of friends. A sense of permenance and community.

As far as the original question about portability goes, I don't think it's that much of an issue. I chose Facebook precisely because it's not MySpace. I have no desire to be a part of the MySpace community, or any other community. If I do want to join another community, then I think re-entering my data would be a minimal issue. Some data portability would be nice, but hardly required. And in any case, functional data portability (e.g. not just my personal stats, but my friends) is really difficult without creating semi-official digital selves or using a lot of personally-identifiable data. Either of these options result in serious privacy concerns, so I'll trade a little re-keying for a new social cite to keep my data relatively anonymous.


Re:Relevancy (2, Insightful)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439472)

Is there fatigue over these sites, or just ennui, due to their fundamental lack of any content

It's the fundamental lack of ~intelligent~ content that makes me not care about any of it. Any intelligent comment on Digg or Youtube is like a tree falling in a forest somewhere. The Usenet was exclusive at one time and still has interesting specialty discussions. The WWW has proven that millions of people who can afford Internet access have nothing to say and has become worse than Tee-Vee. The latter is an amoral corporate economic force exploiting willing sponges, but at least the writing is sometimes good.

Re:Relevancy (3, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439640)

Well, some years ago I used Classmates to find a girl I used to know back in high school (it was three decades ago but what the hell.) Turns out she's still hot and actually available after all these years. Unfortunately I wasn't (hot or available) so I don't know why I bothered in the first place.

So, yeah, okay. Ten points to Gothmolly.

No, it's not (4, Interesting)

hahafaha (844574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439046)

Social network fatigue is not coming.

Why, you ask? The reason is that as the number of things that people do increases, so does the number of things that social networking sites offer. A great example is Yahoo! which I would argue is a social networking site. It offers email, games, news, music, you name it. I am convinced beyond a doubt that they will start offering blogging in the near future, particularly, as competition to Google's Blogger.

Yahoo! is a great example of an all-in-one philosophy. Google is doing similar things. Pretty soon, however, people are just going to have one account on one giant social networking site. There will be competition, of course, and some will have accounts on one but not the other, but pretty soon, very few people are going to actually have many different accounts.

Re:No, it's not (3, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439270)

Google is doing similar things. Pretty soon, however, people are just going to have one account on one giant social networking site.

Yup, Dodgeball [] (owned by Google) uses your Google Account login to authenticate you. Blogger uses the same authentication whether you are doing a comment or hosting your own blog.

Personally, I would rather see separate accounts for everything but it's not like they can't track just about everything we do already.

Re:No, it's not (2, Interesting)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439282)

"very few people are going to actually have many different accounts."
I disagree with this "mondo site" philosophy. Young people drive a lot of what's hip and not hip. Yes, technology can build and gain momentum but social aspects are popularity driven, not technology driven. The tech is not always obvious. MySpace arguably has some of the worse tech and a hideous interface yet it's popular. I believe there will be more fragmentation and popularity will shift from site to site as it always has.

Re:No, it's not (2, Insightful)

hahafaha (844574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439356)

MySpace arguably has some of the worse tech and a hideous interface


But seriously, people will keep switching, no doubt about it. What will change is what they switch. Instead of changing small, dedicated services, they will switch larger ones.

Re:No, it's not (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440406)

I believe there will be more fragmentation and popularity will shift from site to site as it always has.

what about some kind of meta site that allows you to login once to check gmail, myspace, facebook, whatever else comes along? then you could have an account on each of those, without having to log in to every one everytime. one login, and it concantates your friends, messages, whatever else is offered.

Re:No, it's not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439466)

Yahoo! is not a social networking site, but it does provide an example of what social networking sites can offer in terms of services. I'd like to see Facebook sell itself not as a "social networking site" but as a "social networking layer" as part of a larger site or as a service to sites which make use of social networking. (For instance, arranges loans between individuals. Rather than running their own social network, why not just focus on the loan aspect and leave the social networking to the social networking service?

Re:No, it's not (1)

hahafaha (844574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439516)

Rather than running their own social network, why not just focus on the loan aspect and leave the social networking to the social networking service?

The answer to your question: The computer does not care what you are talking about.

From a technological viewpoint, all that is relevant is that you have a way to communicate. Sure, you may have 1 or two additional features, like embedded credit card transfers or something similar, but it won't be anything nearly complicated to warrant creating a whole service for it.

It is in the best interest of the companies which provide these services to create everything themselves, because it does not help their competitors any, that way. It is not that difficult to create the basic aspects of social networking, and so, creating it themselves boosts business.

Willie Nelson:On the road again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439098)

"What does Slashdot think -- is data portability among social networking sites a big deal or not?"

Why? Are you moving around that much were it would be an issue? How about slashdot? Are we upset that we can't move from one "social geek site" to another?

weird coincidence (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439108)

Coincidentally I deleted my myspace account today. I found myself spending too much time stalking people. Kinda creepy really.

complete insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439120)

data portability among social networking sites... ARE YOU INSANE? please file this under the 'google should make my pagerank whatever i'd like' category.

philosophically interesting (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439124)

plasticity of identity, the throw away indentity. it makes sense for teenagers and their psychological development as they grapple with exactly who they are: try on one identity, throw it away, start over. it also means that the generation that grows up with the web from birth will be very used to the idea of identities being disposable, for themselves, and in how others act towards them as well

this opens up new weaknesses in social interaction, and new strengths. in a world where identity theft is a growing menace, why would that matter when your identity is made of mercury anyways? at the same time, how can anyone be trusted in a world where the idea of a solid identity is built on a foundation of sand?

i see weird confluences of unseen consequences coming out of the new plasticity of identity due to how the web works in the generation currently in their teens, making its way into their very psychology. in ways us ancient fossils in our 20s and 30s won't even understand

"bah, kids these days"

Re:philosophically interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439272)

So kinda like army brats that move every year?

Re:philosophically interesting (2, Interesting)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439358)

yes, except everyone is an army brat now.

Re:philosophically interesting (2, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439902)

i see weird confluences of unseen consequences coming out of the new plasticity of identity due to how the web works in the generation currently in their teens, making its way into their very psychology. in ways us ancient fossils in our 20s and 30s won't even understand

I dunno. "Plasticity of identity" is all well and good until you go try and apply for a mortgage, or manage a career. Plastic people tend to get their attitudes readjusted real fast, when society eventually expects them to go through their stock of alternate personas and pick one.

Besides, young people have always put on different faces, different attitudes, experimenting to see what kind of reaction they provoke. This social-networking fad is nothing more than an extension of the normal social exploration that we all go through. Yes, it may have unexpected effects but there's a reason why you mostly see young people playing with their profiles like this. It's because we eventually figure out that, underneath it all, we're just who we started out to be anyway. At that point most of us drop the pretense. It takes too much effort to maintain.

How Profitable are these Sites Anyway? (0, Offtopic)

MrNash (907751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439140)

For all of the popularity these social networking sites have right now, are they all that profitable yet, or are they still largely dependent on venture capital? I've yet to figure out how these sites can demand any meaningful amount of money from advertisers. The subject matter is extremely broad, is often times used as a promotional tool for other sites or businesses, and it seems that the demographic who most enjoys these sites is in an age group that doesn't / can't buy things online. If someone can explain how and if these sites are running under their own steam (and doing well), as opposed to being propped up by investors, that would be fabulous.

About time! (2, Interesting)

sacbhale (216624) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439144)

Social networks should soon start seeing interoperability like email. Because like TFA says people are not interested to go join every new site that pops up but would love to be in touch with the people who are on that site and not the one they am on. Just like we are begining to see the consolidation of IM networks (Yahoo talking to MSN, Jabber servers talkin to each other etc) there'd better start a move to interconnect the social networks soon. They dont all have to have the exact same features but agree to interoperate on a minimum set of them should not be a big problem.

Re:About time! (1)

dominion (3153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440060)

Social networks should soon start seeing interoperability like email.

I've been working on an open source software that uses a distributed protocol. It's called Appleseed []

Re:About time! (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440446)

Sounds like you're talking about essentially a "social phonebook" where users would be listed by name and/or handle(s), and under each person's entry, a list of sites they use. This could be used in a variety of ways; frex, friends could agree on a "common meeting place" online, or get back in touch with someone after a site vanishes. It would no doubt also be much beloved of marketers, especially if the root entry included the user's profile.

To The Contrary (2, Funny)

FreeRadicalX (899322) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439148)

To quite the contrary, in an era of online big-brother government snooping, I'd actually prefer that my social networking data be as un-portable as possible, thankyouverymuch. *breaks out roll of tinfoil, begins folding*

Data portability? (1)

nodnarb1978 (725530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439158)

The bigger problem with most "social networks" is mental instability!

A couple thoughts... (1)

PurifyYourMind (776223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439172)

1. Maybe you don't *want* data to be portable. It'd make it that much easier for spammers, hiring managers, etc. to scrape the web for your info. 2. I imagine MySpace et al will end up like the instant messengers, either with networks merging/interoperating or a universal client that will be able to interface with all the networks.

Re:A couple thoughts... (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439334)

> 1. Maybe you don't *want* data to be portable.

And if that's the case, you might want to look at indi [] . You can send pictures/movies/documents/whatever over channels, but it's all encrypted and only you and the people in your group can descrypt it. Kind of like email without the spam and attachment size limits. But secure.

Don't make more work for all of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439178)

Data portability will make it harder for me to maintain my multiple personality disorder.

It's not a disorder, it's good for us to have all of these different perspectives.

You're such a freak.

Will you guys stop yelling?! I'm trying to catch a rerun of the Fiesta Bowl.

Single service (2, Interesting)

vga_init (589198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439196)

I was under the impression that most people stuck to a single service anyway. Maybe they have multiple accounts across the board, but they probably devote most of their time to just one.

Which one they choose depends on their "network." Just like instant messaging, some people will use aim, some will use yahoo, some will use msn. Some will try to keep up with all of them, and some will occasionally convert for someone special. The headline makes it sound like people will tire of social networking in general, but typically people will always be social, so that won't hurt the business.

Re:Single service (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440136)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Most people I know don't use multiple services. They might maintain accounts on multiple services (say, Facebook and MySpace, probably the most common pairing I've seen) but usually devote most of their time to one profile or the other. Generally in time, the disused profile becomes basically a pointer to the more-used one.

Sometimes people might go back and forth, spending some time working on their Facebook profile and then a few months concentrating on their Myspace page, but I'd say this is more atypical. People generally migrate from one to the other depending on what service most of their friends at the time are using.

I think this closely mirrors the IM networks, because again there you have people usually using one, but occasionally migrating from one to the other depending on who they want to communicate with. People who have a need to talk across system boundaries end up using specialized software and maintain multiple accounts. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how you can create the "Gaim" of social networking sites; it's not quite as clear how you would translate a Myspace page into a Facebook profile (although you could probably go the other way; it's the unstructured-to-structured data conversion that'd be hard, I'd imagine). It's a much more complicated problem than IM, even if the psychology is the same.

I don't see any of this changing anytime soon. There's not going to be "one social network to rule them all" anytime soon. You're going to get different service preferences within different groups of people. All it takes is a 'critical mass' of people to start using a service in a particular (physical-world) community, and suddenly everyone has a reason to use it. What would be good is if there were easier ways to migrate data from one to the other, in the event that people do want to move, but as other people have pointed out, the service providers have an interest in making migrations as difficult as possible.


Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17440642)


Putting it all together (1)

Spacejock (727523) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439214)

I joined LibraryThing [] recently, and it was interesting to see that they've included the option to link to your profile on many other social network sites - Myspace, LJ, Blogger ... and Slashdot. I set up a squidoo [] as well, and they pull out the RSS for my blog and display summaries.

I guess all this has a logical conclusion, where someone sets up a meta-site that pulls together all your online profiles into one 'ME' page. When they do that, it'll be quite something. Imagine all your Myspace friends without the Myspace baggage ...

Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439218)

If you dont have enough TIME to log in and check all your social networking sites, it may be time for you to take the TIME to log off your computer and have a good look at your life, its probably quite sad.

Retards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439226)

The problem I see with social network sites, is that retards flock there.
So much dyslectic morons "i c u lol how r u ? zomg!! dats so kool, o rly??", etc. I cant stand it.

Much of those sites are cluttered with ads, flash content, etc.

I like sites that have XHTML+CSS and use XML. Have stuff like RSS feeds.

Maybe they can make a SOAP-backend.

errrr, not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439230)

What does Slashdot think is data portability among social networking sites a big deal or not?

not it's not a big deal.

who cares? (1)

derreque (677703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439232)

social networking sites? Who cares? Go to your community centre, bar/pub, start or join a club that interests you, participate in life. Get off your couch, reach out and touch real people in real ways. Get a real life.

Re:who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439354)

Interesting... but have you actually LOOKED at who people are friends with on MySpace? Typically their friends in real life. It's just another avenue to communicate, much like IM, email, the phone, etc.

Just because YOU Don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't viable.

Re:who cares? (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439588)

Get a real life.
You must be new here.

I wrote my own (1)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439242)

I have my own site, I wrote my own blogging engine and I have total control over it. I am sure most slashdotters can program and code their own site like me, even though we might be the only user on our sites, it wouldn't matter because it's not like we have a life outside of our mother's basement.

I think fatigue as in boredom is coming (2, Interesting)

pestilence669 (823950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439252)

Reading profiles and looking at friend lists will get old eventually. If Napster were still around, I doubt kids would even waste their time.

Re:I think fatigue as in boredom is coming (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440402)

It's not a waste of time as long as there are essays to write, homework to practice, and exams to study for.

Re:I think fatigue as in boredom is coming (1)

conigs (866121) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440558)

Reading profiles and looking at friend lists will get old for any given user in the demographic social networking sites cater to. However, the users in that demographic keep cycling. One person gets bored and phases out, at least one new user discovers this wonderous new (to them) site and phases in.
Take sex or rebellion. Every generation thinks they've invented both. By the time they realize they haven't, an entire new generations begins the process again.
So while the individual users may get bored or move on, the demographic as a whole is always in the same state of interest.

fatigue? (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439264)

I don't really see the fatigue thing happening. I know a couple of people who have myspace accounts, and the amount of time they devote to their pages is insane. Well, hey, the amount of time I spend on Slashdot is insane, too :-) Coincidentally, I just set up a myspace account, thinking it would be a nice way to keep in touch with these two people. I was amazed by how user-hostile it was. By the time I was done messing around for an hour, I had a page that was 75% ads, plus some content about myself that I couldn't figure out how to customize or get rid of (e.g., myspace wants the world to know I'm a Capricorn -- never mind that I think astrology is idiotic). Apparently teenagers spend a lot of time swapping snippets of CSS to cover up the ads, and do all kinds of other cutesy stuff. It just seems like too much work to me, but obviously they're intensely interested in it, because it taps into the teenage psyche.

Profile data isn't the key (2, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439288)

Re-keying profile data is nothing -- how often do you change your birthplace or last name?

The guts of every social networking website is the friends systems, messaging/IM, photos, blogging (of one form or another), commenting, etc. Why would SocialNetworkA want to share that with SocialNetworkB? That assumes they are alike, and for social networking websites to all survive, they will need to differentiate and stay that way. In face, they already have -- Facebook, for instance, is geared more toward the college student/post-college professional. MySpace was started for bands/music. Etc.

When you're posting about your class schedule, do you really care if your friends back home on MySpace see it? Doubtful.

Besides, if all the social networking websites were the same, how could teens carry on their multiple mood swings throughout a day?

Mood: happy :-)
Mood: angry >:\
Mood: horny :-o
Mood: suicidal X-|

anti-social network coming (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439296)

The title should have been. Check out my profile, just search for anonymous coward.

Nobody cares (2, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439328)

We'll see a decline in social networking sites, but not due to lack of standards. It will be due to lack of use. Growth will slow to zero, since anyone who wants to do that shit already does. In the meantime, they'lllose users like mad as people realize that

1)There's no damn difference between a myspace account and a personal webpage people have had since the 90s
2)Nobody really reads the damn things anyway- people love writing due to the sheer egotism of it, but nobody really reads the damn things except the small circle of friends they'd talk to anyway.

They don't care about signing in (come on, 90% of people just use the remember me or browser password storage anyway). They don't need a standard way to enter text, its a giant textbox everywhere. They don't care about profile sharing, chances are far and away they use a single main site and only update that one anyway. There's no real benefit to a standard for any of these things.

Re:Nobody cares (1)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440432)

"1)There's no damn difference between a myspace account and a personal webpage people have had since the 90s

  2)Nobody really reads the damn things anyway- people love writing due to the sheer egotism of it, but nobody really reads the damn things except the
  small circle of friends they'd talk to anyway."

I agree, to a large extent. For anybody that is looking for a simple profile, Myspace is NOT the answer. For one, the pages are very slow (I dread when my girlfriend "asks" (more like forces) me to add a comment to her myspace page because the pages load so slowly. Plus there's a limit to how many images you can have, and your page is covered in ads.

What Myspace IS good for, at least for people in their teens and twenties, is locating people that you haven't talked to in a while. It's not so much that Myspace is a powerful search engine or anything, it isn't. If everyone had personal web pages Google would be just as (probably more so) effective. But Myspace has reached that critical "everyone HAS to have one" stage where everyone ages 13-28 (maybe older) who might not have had a web page to has a myspace page. Because of its centralizing nature, it makes finding old friends/being found by old friends that much easier. This is its biggest asset. This is similar to how Windows got so popular... certainly not the best, but it reached a critical mass of users, so developers HAVE to develop for it, attracting even more users. Even if you hate the OS, you have to buy it because its the only one that will run the app you need.

Eventually though many people will realize that a) no one is reading their stuff, so why bother writing, or b) they can move to a niche site where there are people that WILL read their writings. Once enough people leave, Myspace will no longer be good at the one thing it is currently good at; and it will be a shell of its former self. Unlike Windows, people are not attached to their social network site and this will happen very quickly. See AOL for an example of this in another domain. I predict by 2009 Myspace will be largely forgotten (still around, but no one will care).

Doomed to fail by the almighty dollar (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439336)

Any real attempt to consolidate these sites will see about as much luck as the DOJ saw getting AIM fully interoperable with AOL provided code. Just like AOL these sites are all ads. If they consolidate to one page or site- bang! There goes their revenue.

some related efforts (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439340)

There are a bunch of efforts at linking sites and identities together using either HTML or RDF, including XFN [] and FOAF [] .

Re:some related efforts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439998)

Oh I like this [] idea. Sort of Usenet meets P2P. Crossplatform and GPL.

Absolutely, but... (4, Interesting)

dominion (3153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439372)

if they don't open up and embrace standards allowing greater interoperability among the different networks.

It makes perfect sense for people outside of these corporations to see that... But from within, how do you balance interoperability with the business necessity of maintaining your users? For-profit sites aren't interested in that balancing act. They'll keep their walled garden as isolated as they can.

I've been developing an open source, distributed social networking software called Appleseed [] , and honestly, I think the solution is going to have to come from an open source solution. As long as profit and market share are the main motivating factors of companies like Facebook, Friendster, Myspace, etc., there is absolutely no incentive to design things properly.

Appleseed, and open source in general, has the freedom to be able to do things right. Create an interoperable network of social networking "nodes" which use a standard protocol to connect and interact. It's very simple, and the rules of business that these companies have to follow is the only thing keeping that from happening from within the proprietary world.

I see it as analagous to the old days of email. Back in the day, you had Compuserve, you had AOL, and Prodigy, and other competing services that attempted to monopolize their user base by refusing interoperability. But eventually, they had no choice but to adopt standard E-Mail for their users.

Let's face it, in this day and age, there is no single, good technological answer for why a user on MySpace can't send a message or a friend request to a user on Friendster, other than "We [myspace] doesn't want them to." Which is not an answer that people will tolerate for long.

This is an itch, and open source (namely, Appleseed, since it seems like the solution which is the farthest along) is the only way to scratch it. []

Absolutely, money in it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17440224)

That's all well and good...however servers aren't free. It's not weither the social software is free, but the hardware (as well as the people who maintain and run it). That's what needs to be paid for (bandwith too).* Software is easy compared to that problem.

*The profit and marketshare you just poo-pooed.

Re:Absolutely, money in it. (1)

dominion (3153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440326)

*The profit and marketshare you just poo-pooed.

With Appleseed, you can set up a node using an $8 a month shared hosting account, and handle probably around 25-50 users comfortably. Or spend some more and make a dedicated site for, say, comic book geeks or cat enthusiasts, and spend a couple hundred bucks a month for a colocated server so you can get a thousand some users. Throw some google ads up on the site, and a donation button, and you'll easily make up your hosting costs if you've got loyal, active users.

See, that's the beauty of distributing it. It's not just technical load sharing, it's social load sharing.

The fact is that these proprietary, corporate controlled walled gardens are a dead end. There is no reason why 50 million users should be on one site. In fact, it creates more problems keeping them walled in than it is to create a free system that interconnects.

I'm sorry, but as technology progresses, we'll all realize that the profit and marketshare motive has been holding progress back.

There's no reason that social networking couldn't have been distributed from the get-go. Which means that it's an inevitable evolution.

Re:Absolutely, but... (1)

jesterman (932975) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440490)

I'm surprised to see this topic on slashdot, since it is also the subject of a project I worked during the last half of 2006.

I was/am working on a platform and network schema involving social and collaborative network. As I see, the problem of social network is tight coupled with the digital identity (and I recommend watching the identity 2.0 presentation [] about this), specially when it comes to decentralization and interdependency. And that's something the big players are realizing in slow motion (if realizing at all). It's tiresome to setup an account in a closed service that offers X features, building your digital persona (linking interests, friends, communities, data, etc) and then, watch another service with X+1 interesting features, and not been able to use all the ground (interests, friend networks, photo album, etc) previously crafted. It's tiresome to be locked up by such services as well. Of course, this is just a glimpse on the burden of the present configuration and in the way those services are offered and used (at least, the ones that don't offer appropriated API's or other interoperability mechanisms). Not to mention the focus on features rather than people.

While working on this project, I've found that is more interesting to have a powerful communication standard that could structure people and information rather than create Another Social Network Service. For now, it seems less interesting to focus on application features and services than to focus on human identity, the information that surround it, and the way it is organized, related and published in the network.

I odd is to have a fragmented identity as we have now, spread along diverse systems that simply refuse to talk with each other? I feel ashamed when remembering I used to take this for granted.

Also, not long time ago, I heard about the project open-croquet [] . Personally, I fell that this project captures most of the essence I look for when thinking about social/collaborative network and personal computer usage.

Anyway, about the big players approach and inspired by (and quoting, in someway) a friend's affirmation: as long as they (big companies) try to model the user identity in it's own private space, social networking is not going to happen in all it's power. It's simply not good enough. In the same way, it doesn't make sense to have those myriads of social networks as isolated islands.

Our approach for the project, OTOH is an open one. We are looking for something more natural and organic, but still, using the web architecture (as opposed to open-croquet's approach). A better way to express ourselves, to experiment and use the network in social activities. A better way to structure and publish people and information for heterogeneous consumption. And we are working on it, using open standard all the way (such as Jabber, Atom, etc). Not really focusing on developing an application (like the parent), but on a communication model that applications can use (and, of course, proof of concept, prototypes and product implementations). We have made some presentations on free software events, and we will (possibly) go to FISL 8 [] to give a talk about this subject and our project as well.

Unfortunately we're still moving our project code (mostly prototypes and betas) to a project repository, so we don't have an official (and international) home page yet. But anyone interested in this subject and willing to share ideas (or directly contribute) to create something better in terms of social network is welcome (my contact is on my personal webpage [] )

Re:Absolutely, but... (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440494)

In the IM space, the Jabber (XMPP) protocol seems to be the preferred open standard. Jabber has authentication with a server, identification of contacts or friends, distributed communications between servers, file transfers etc. Do you see Appleseed as having any future overlap, integration with or extension of the Jabber protocol?

Reminds me of online chat and roleplay (2, Interesting)

Martin Foster (4949) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439456)

When I started getting more active in online communities, I recall getting involved with a site named WBS. This system was massive, featuring hundreds of rooms and thousands of players at any given time. Of course, like most things during that day if it showed an inkling of success it was purchased by a large corporations and subsequently change in a way to sour the proverbial milk.

Eventually, WBS was shut down as a web-based chat system and people were scattered to the wind. Some smaller sites opened up, some of which are still active today, but none of them ever captured the greatness that was prior to their inception and none worked well with one another. It was during I decided to kill a bit of time and code my own site, being throughoughly disgruntled by the administration of certain of those sites.

The code I built grew in scope, adding features that had been lost when WBS fell, adding my own, expanding into galleries, forums and adding new features including a social network/dating profile addition. Naturally people started to notice and flocked to my site which generated a modest amount of traffic day in and day out.

There was one difference however from my site and others who offered similiar services and that was code released under the GPL and made freely available. While the code to this day is still a bit difficult to install (tons of modules it depends on) other sites managed to get it going and it caused an unexpected side effect. Essentially it allowed other people to create a multitude of splinter sites, without having to know programming, database administration or even administration of a Unix based server.

As a result of the GPL, these sites featured the same options, functionality, features as the main site with a possible lag in development/release time. However even when I closed my site and people moved on, I noticed that the splinter sites kept popping up with (specific niche needs) here and there using the code and the features that had been put into the code for years.

Perhaps social networking is in for such a step. Essentially, a commodity-based approach to the product and through standards/common code allow people to find communities that match their needs. Sure it may not be a Lavalife, Facebook, MySpace in which everyone and their dog is there, but people do seem to find comfort in a little corner to the world being their own, a community of like-minded people a net centered neighbourhood.

On a side note, I also found that once the code allowed for things such as import/export of handles and such, people tended to flow freely from one site to another. I wonder if implementing OpenID on the system would increase that movement?

Re:Reminds me of online chat and roleplay (1)

bwerdmuller (668895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439778)

That's what Elgg [] is aiming for - a GPL social networking platform. OpenID is more or less working and will be released in the next few months.

Interesting timing... Ziki (1)

neelm (691182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439476)

I just started checking out Ziki, which let's you integrated all your RSS feeds into your profile (blog, flickr,, etc) and shares them back out as one feed.

I wrote up a short review on my first impressions: social-thunderdome.aspx []

I think the problem... (1)

Bin_jammin (684517) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439484)

here is that there's too much overlap in social networking sites, everyone is trying to do the same thing the other guys is doing, only better. At that point, there's no reason to offer interoperability because it offers nothing to pare down the sameness of each site. I think what social networking sites need to do first is offer some type of differntiation amongst themselves, more than a simple "myspace on cingular" or "friendster mobile email". Only when each site is unique will there be reason for interoperability.

Usenet (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439490)

Yep. Usenet.

YOU FAiL IT.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439494)

an3 Executes a []

I'm already sick of them (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439504)

Does that count?

Myspace is painful to look at, and really, no one I know is so interesting that I need to go read their blogs. The entire idea of a whole page dedicated to me is egotistical in the extreme; I realize I am not that important.

Wow, someone missed the point of these companies. (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439540)

O'Hear writes: "Unless the time required to sign-in, post to, and maintain profiles across each network is reduced, it will be impossible for most users to participate in multiple sites for very long."

Duh. The point is the sites are in competition with one another. You're not supposed to use all of them, you're supposed to sign your allegiance to one and ignore people who use the others, kinda like high school cliques in real life.

users may soon tire of social networks -- if they don't open up and embrace standards allowing greater interoperability among the different networks.

Hey, just like the IM networks. Oh, wait...

What does Slashdot think -- is data portability among social networking sites a big deal or not?

Only for people who use multiple sites and are heavy users. There are ways to consolidate things to a point. For example, one could maintain a single blog on one site and on the blogs of the other sites post a single entry linking to the true blog. I would personally not post my photographs to my MySpace page because of that stupid user agreement clause saying that News Corp owns all content you post to it. I'll post snapshots maybe but most of the stuff I would open a Flickr account to keep stuff on.

I was fatigued before I started. (2, Interesting)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439590)

My friends have occasionally directed me to their blogs and myspace/facebook pages over the years, and it's honestly been more of a hassle than I cared to deal with to sign up for each and every one just to see their crappy cell phone pics or whatever. The few I care enough to read regularly (like the blog of my friend in Japan) I just comment "anonymously" with my name in the comment. When MySpace wants me to login, I use BugMeNot to get a random login. Same for YouTube's oh-so-scandalous "mature"-tagged videos and the rest of that crap.

The point? These sites aren't just "fatiguing" current users; they're scaring away potential users like me who aren't willing to sit through 5-10 minutes of entering (fake) personal information just to occasionally watch a 3-minute video clip or read a meandering myspace post written by a friend who's too lazy to just goddamn email me.

Not. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439612)

What does Slashdot think -- is data portability among social networking sites a big deal or not?

Social networking aside, data portability isn't a big deal for 99.9% of computer users.

Coming? It's already here. (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439618)

Old news, I've been tired of this for well over a year.

RSS would help (1)

Skudd (770222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439636)

I typically avoid social networks at all costs. Due to my friends and family neglecting all other forms of communication, aside from Facebook and MySpace, I've found myself adding these sites to my bookmarks and visiting multiple times a day.

I just fixed the RSS feed for my blog, so that Facebook could resume importing from it. MySpace, on the other hand, isn't going to be so easy. I ended up posting a bulliten on MySpace, informing my friends that they could visit my blog for updates since MySpace doesn't support such a system as RSS.

I think some sort of uniform standard, such as RSS, would be of great benefit for us "more technical" users. Once the youngsters see it in action and see how easy it is to use, I imagine it'll catch on in popularity.

Not happinin' (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439652)

"Unless the time required to sign-in, post to, and maintain profiles across each network is reduced, it will be impossible for most users to participate in multiple sites for very long."

This will not happen because these for profit sites do not want you to use other networks, certainly not with theirs.

Ctrl+F "privacy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439668)

Where is the tin foil helmet FUD crowd on this one?

Re: Social Net Fatigue Coming (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439734)

ZDNet blogger Steve O'Hear [claims] that users may soon tire of social networks -- if they don't open up and embrace standards allowing greater interoperability among the different networks

The commons hasn't embraced standards in IM, why should social networking be any different? You build a successful on-line community by appealing directly to your target audience:

Countries and Cultures, Age and Sex, Income and Interests. The commons won't care that you've built a walled garden, if the garden is where they need and want to be.

Social networking sites have a life cycle (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439756)

As I wrote once before, social networking sites, like nightclubs, have a life cycle. They start out, get some users, and if they're well run and lucky, become cool. Then they become too popular, the percentage of losers goes up, the cool people leave, and they go into a slow decline.

This has already happened to AOL (peaked sometime last century), Geocities (peaked before 2002), Nerve (peaked in 2002), and Tribe (peaked in Q1 2006). Facebook, Myspace, and LinkedIn look flat, but it's too early to tell.

Who's on the way up? YouTube, which is rapidly acquiring social-networking features.

(Slashdot, incidentally, peaked in Q1 2006, when Digg took off.)

It depends.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17439834)

I work for a company that does make you sign in for the services, but it saves you a boat-load of time in the long run. You see, we aggregate reviews from a lot of social-network-consumer-review-sites and we let business owners see what's being said about them on these sites under their business listing. They don't have much time on their hands, but I think if the trade-off for signing up once means you can see and maintain your web presence without going to several sites than it's a pretty good situation. But ultimately, yes, there's too many of these social network sites out there to keep track of. The company that I'm talking about that aggregates these reviews is MerchantCircle [] .

I may be wrong here (1)

dbmasters (796248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439880)

But didn't Microsoft try a login in once login to all type thing called passport or something and everybody cried foul? Memory may be wrong here, but I think I remember correctly... everyone is a pillar unto themselves, and it'll stay that way in an effort for everybody to retian their own client base. Personally, I think social networking is stupid to the level of MySpace, but who am I against a billion people that seem to love it...

Okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17440046)

"What does Slashdot think -- is data portability among social networking sites a big deal or not?"

Uh, what's a social network? Is there a RFC?

Drupal has (1)

eat worms (1038660) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440150)

It enables "Single Sign-Ons" between related Drupal sites on one server with a shared database. I have not integrate [] with it -- I think I should.

Already complained (1)

ianalis (833346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440156)

I have already complained about the lack of standards and social networks in a post [] . BTW, I am still not subscribed in any social networking site. :)

I build my own interoperability (1)

nFriedly (628261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440238)

Here's what I did to make my myspace, facebook, and wordpress blogs play nice together.

- I post everything to my myspace blog.
- A service called Make Data Make Sense turns the html into an rss feed.
- Feedburner grabs this rss feed.
- my wordpress blog (on my server) has a plugin called feed wordpress that grabs the feed burner feed and posts everything then
- facebook grabs the wordpress rss feed and posts everything as notes.

Notes about this system:
1) It works. I write a post once and it shows up in all 3 places. :)
2) It could work better. Myspace is the absolute worst of the 3 and, surprise, the one nobody else wanted to work with. I could not find a way to automatically import posts into myspace. That's why I have the start there.
3) Feedburner regularly tells me that my feed is bad because when myspace times out, so does make data make sense. Feedburner is part of the chain so that wordpress doesn't have to deal with this.
4) You have to be careful about formatting. My myspace blog has a white background while my wordpress has a black background. This makes adding a lot of color a bit tough. Facebook reformats everything, stripping most of the html and moving / resizing all of the images. I generally stick to <b> and <i> tags and not much else.
5) It's a bit slow - if I time it wrong it might take 4-6 hours before the post shows up on all 3 sites. I generaly post around midnight then go to bed, so this isn't a big issue for me.

What I would ultimately like is a system that allows me to post to wordpress and then pushes those posts out immediately to the other sites with proper formating.

Standard? (1)

eatergator (753719) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440284)

Standard Login? Yea, how about rfid brain implant.

Strange words (1)

dnc253 (1039198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440428)

What do all these strange words mean that I'm reading in these threads? "friends"? "social life"? "human interaction"? I'm not familiar with such terms. Maybe there's another /. article around here that explains them....

Hm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17440448)

Is it just me or have they been saying this every month since like June of '06?

I can tell you one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17440578)

...I'm certainly sick of MySpace right now. For the past two weeks it has been fucking miserable, slow to the point of unusability. It takes 10 or 15 attempts to get a goddamn page to load-- probably because all the kiddies have been off from school and clogging up the tubes every day.

On the plus side, the slowness has frustrated some of my friends to the point where they have started using real e-mail and IM again, which means I can avoid MySpace for a while and communicate with them through other means.

Maybe if ol' Rupert had let that OJ book go on sale he'd have had enough money to put in some more servers and they could handle all this traffic.

Web 3.0 to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17440630)

1. Keep standards proprietary or non-existant. 2. Start digital personal secretary/assistant shop. Follow DO NO EVIL! creedo... 3. Maintain all profiles for that one person--users ages 12-18 (and doing the parents a deal by acting like the US gov't and flag bad habits). 3. Outsource personal secretaries to India. 4. Profit!
Load More 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>