Talk:List of social networking services/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Sprotected

The article is currently semi-protected, meaning new or anonymous users cannot edit the article. Users should discuss what articles belong on the article, but as the note says on the page, only wesbites that have their own article on Wikipedia should be added to the list. Users are welcome to request unprotection. Iolakana•T 19:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did someone take off the protection? I see a few new additions that don't seem to be notable, and several redlinks on the main page... Hmm... --MonkeyTimeBoy 23:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like it was unprotected on the 18th. Yeah, the vandalism is back... unfortunately, I think this article will always be a target. It's valuable information and the article is pretty high-profile. I've been trying to do redlink patrol on this page, but it's easy to fall behind. If the NN additions remain consistent, I think we should re-request protection in a week or two. --Czj 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

www.selfportrait.net

selfportrait.net should be added to the list. It is a social networking site(with its own article on wikipedia) where users can buy and sell art, upload media, access live chatrooms, send messages, add events, and compile music playlists.69.203.146.169 23:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

www.music.com

A social networking site for those who want to discuss music. Messaging, commenting, adding friends capabilities.

I am a fan of music.com I too suggest this site. I wonder why is speakout friends www.speakout.in/friends is not listed here.,

www.akaneon.com

A social networking site made of all real people. Unlimited messages, comments, adds, etc.

Started on Sep. 9, 06. Currently has over 5000 users and counting.

Completely free. Click here to visit.

Alternatively, you can Go here to go right to the signup page.

What about Squidoo

I did not see Squidoo on the list (www.squidoo.com) and was wondering if there was a reason why this site was not included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Socialmedia (talk • contribs) .

• There appears to be an article about it. I think the reason is because it was not included in the social network site category. After looking at it, I personally don't think it is a social networking site. --real_decimic 02:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Playahead

A famous swedish social network is Playahead. I am not sure of how many memebers there is, but I know its big in Sweden. Nearly all my swedish friends have it. You should add it to your list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.205.9 (talk • contribs) .

Facebook now public, needs changed.

Facebook has now gone public, and anyone can join. This should be edited on the main page. Wikihelper7 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the correction. Ashibaka tock 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. and maybe adding to the explanation: (formely colleges)) That would explain the dinamics of that network.

Experts-Exchange.com

Experts Exchange has been around for 10 years and connects IT Experts with Members to provide solutions to their problems. They have a great ranking on Alexa and have a proven audience. Mmuncy123 04:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But they are not an SNS. Ashibaka tock 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

They are the earliest form for social networking -- experts communicate with experts and members and they help one another out and network together -- there is a community and it is a strong community. You are allowed to interact and provide content, make suggestions and rate questions.Mmuncy123 16:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

An SNS is a website like Orkut or Myspace, not a forum. Ashibaka tock 21:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

sportsgist.com

There is a great website called sportsgist.com. It is a social networking site for athletes and fans. Roger Staubach is behind it and some of the country's best athletes and trainers are on the site. It is interesting to see what they are blogging about. http://www.sportsgist.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdonaghy (talk • contribs) 04:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Web Biographies

http://www.WebBiographies.com is a memoir/blogging/journaling/genealogy site that was recently launched. Has a couple thousand members now, needs to be listed here. It's target demographic is older people--like a MySpace for grown-ups.

No evidence of notability. Ashibaka tock 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, here is a list of articles, from the likes of Business Week, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Rocky Mountain News (a branch of the Denver Post) and others who have recently run stories featuring Web Biographies as unique among Social Networks--you can list registration as "open" too:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/20/BUG11KJLTK1.DTL http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_4626191,00.html http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2006/tc20060925_328758.htm Dsargent, Oct. 5

"Web Biographies is a Denver startup that lets people write their life stories and store them on the company's Web site for annual fees of $25 to $85. " That doesn't sound like a social network to me. In fact, IMHO to list such a website would be spam. If you would like another opinion please list this page on WP:3O. Ashibaka tock 19:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

They've initiated a free account since then. Check the website (where "Free" is quite prominent), or sign up for a page, like I did, and see for yourself. See mine at: http://bio.webbiographies.com/dsargent . Dsargent Oct 8

Listed for arbitration/mediation. 19:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your request on requests for third opinion, and I think the primary question here, in my eyes, is a reliable source. That is, a source, such as a technology magazine or nationwide newspaper, which discusses the website. Also, it is considered bad form to link to sites you have a personal interest in, such as being a member, where a majority of users are not. So if you can provide appropriate sources it will help your case a great deal. i kan reed 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help (though with social networks, if anyone with a "personal interest" was asked not to request a listing, MySpace and all of the other top-dogs would never be listed...since I also have pages on Gather, and others, it seemed appropriate that they ALL be listed).  :-) All of my sources above are from national publications. As for Technology-specific publications--Here is one from MIT's Technology Review http://www.techreview.com/blog/posts.aspx?id=16818 You can't get more authoritative than the MIT's Tech Review... :-) Oh, and you can list it similarly to some of the other sites: "Free basic level with tiered paid levels" 21:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Tech Review citation seems good enough for us to give WebBiographies an article. With that done, I checked the actual website, and it does seem to be a real SNS with a genealogy focus-- sorry for the baseless accusation. (As you can see on this talk page, every website on the street wants to be listed in this article.) The final question is network size: it seems to have roughly 3,500 members, is this right? Ashibaka tock 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, that sounds about right as a current number.  :-) Thanks! (And I totally understand about the situation...) Cheers, Dsargent 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

BloopDiary.com

BloopDiary.com should be added! As should LiveJournal and DeadJournal, and OpenDiary. If not, perhaps a new list specifically for blog-type sites.

No evidence of notability. Ashibaka tock 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Livejournal and Deadjournal are already on the list. Argyriou 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

nairaland.com

www.nairaland.com is a community with, as at this moment,56,503 members. And it is growing by the meeting. It is owned by a Nigerian young lad,for Nigerians at home and abroad and their friends to, yes, network. It deserves to be on this list.Taiwo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.201.159.107 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs notable citation. Ashibaka tock 01:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ActorsConnect.com

We should add http://www.ActorsConnect.com to the list. It's the first social networking site dedicated to people in the entertainment industry.

No evidence of notability. Ashibaka tock 16:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Imbee.com

www.imbee.com is a social networking site for children from 8-14. The site was launched in July. Here are some links to articles about the site. It currently has over 10,000 children users and 85 teacher members. CNET: http://news.com.com/Web+firm+tries+to+create+safe+haven+for+tweens/2009-1025_3-6084413.html The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115333833014811453-search.html?KEYWORDS=imbee&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month 206.15.84.10 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Neila

Since this is a pay-only site, I think you should try creating an article at Imbee first and see whether the community considers it notable. Ashibaka tock 01:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Just an update, imbee is no longer a pay-only site. Parents need to submit a credit card for verification, but there is no charge. We will work on the article page. Thanks again. 206.15.84.10 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Neila

HumSubka.com - Connecting Indians across all continents is missing

I am suprised not to see the rapidly growing Indian social networking site HumSubka.com in the list.

When I visited this website some time back, it was very well there in the list.

Now the page rank of humSubka in Google has also improved.

I hope the Wikipedia Team would consider my request and will include HumSubka.com in the Social Networking list.

It doesn't have an article. I think it's spam. Ashibaka tock 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection to curb the spamfest

This article is very valuable; don't get me wrong. However, it seems particularly vulnerable to spam, and always has been. I've seen plenty of instances where various dating sites, redlinked entries, etc. have been added several times within the same day, and reverts have needed to be done across multiple entries. I've seen other instances where valid edits have been added after various spam, so the spam has to be selectively and meticulously taken out if it is in multiple areas. Not to generalize, but I have yet to see an anonymous contributor add anything legitimate to this article. My view is that anonymous editors can either sign up for an account (we'll still get some spam through the cracks, but not nearly as bad -- it'll be a managable level and the article will no longer require constant babysitting), or leave a note on the talk page if they wish something to be added. Needless to say, I feel the article should be semi-protected. I think it should be discussed first, though. How does everyone else feel on this? --Czj 09:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There should be a case made, or at least some sort of independent approval process, for entries to this article. It's a great article--and should be able to stay that way. I've found some very interesting sites through the main list (even joined a couple). I feel bad for the folks that are stuck on spam-watch... But I also know that it's because of these vigilant folks that I can trust this list. Your work is appreciated! --MonkeyTimeBoy 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page. I'm also adding this to my watchlist, so that once it's unprotected, there'll be one more person watching. This situation reminds me a lot of what's going on at Shock site, which was semiprotected for similar reasons. Mangojuice^talk 05:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection seems to work. Even back when this page was semi-protected the first time, people were registering and waiting just to add these spam links. I think we should try full-protection if all this registering-just-to-spam continues. Just to add, the edits since the protection was just vandalism or reverts. --real_decimic 19:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but the protection policy is pretty restrictive in the use of protection. Full protection generally is only given if an edit war is going on. It's really not a big deal if one site gets added here a day improperly; the problem is when it happens 20 times a day, and semiprotection is the difference. Mangojuice^talk 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

YFLY.COM

YFly is an entertainment-based social network. Their mission is to provide Gen Y with an excellent social platform and the most entertaining experience online.

YFly was conceived by entrepreneurs Drew Levin and Daniel Perkins while attending the University of Florida. Their vision to create the ultimate social network was accelerated when they met Nick Lachey through common friends and joined forces to bring YFly.com to life.

Early stage funding was provided by Tom Petters (Petters Group Worldwide) and later AJ Discala (Brax Capital Group).

As of October 18, 2006, nearly 6,000 users are on YFLY. Celebrity profiles received the "Certified Celebrity" designation.

Registration is open to the public.

Postalfalcon 18:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, the best way to get them listed here is to provide several articles from national, or otherwise credible/scholarly publications. Paste the links here, and you'll have a good shot.  :-) --MonkeyTimeBoy 03:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Univillage.com

Phuoq 09:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Univillage.com

I'd like to include univillage.com, it's a UK social networking site noteable for it's university only focus and involvement of Brent Hoberman, a UK based internet entrepreneur. It's been in the news a fair bit

Guardian

NMA

Daily Record

Channel 4 news

This sounds like a reasonable topic, but to include it in the list, one of the requirements is that the site have its own article, and this one doesn't... but feel free to create one. Mangojuice^talk 12:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Outdated Numbers and missing sites

Social networks are my research area and I keep a list of them here: http://trust.mindswap.org/cgi-bin/relationshipTable.cgi

Some of the numbers here are very outdated (e.g. Bolt sites a 2001 article, but their membership is now 7,000,000 larger than listed there - a number easily obtained by searching their membership).

I would happily update these numbers but apparently I don't have access to do it.

I think there are a number of notable sites also not included. Sort my list by decreasing membership and you will see some. For example, many of the Friend Finder suite of pages are not included, though they have millions of members and free accounts.

Golbeck 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to make a supported case (with professional/credible publications) for each SNS that you'd like to have listed--much as the poster did above (see the Univillage entry). It also seems that many Friend Finder sites are largly porn channels, which to my knowledge, will never get listed here. MonkeyTimeBoy 17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Propose to remove Janglo

Both sites listed for Janglo now redirect to a Yahoo! groups page. That doesn't seem to qualify for inclusion.

Golbeck 07:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Friendz.com

Who is in charge of adding a Social Networking site to that list?

http://Friendz.com should be added.

You'll need to make a case for it (see Univillage above). Just follow the same procedure as every other suggested listing case (provide notable publication credits to justify its addition).--MonkeyTimeBoy 04:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sportsvite.com

Sports networking needs better representation on this list. IE a place to find other people interested in pick up games. You know you can't have team sports without teams so it's nice to use the net to find friendly pickup games. Now the one site that is listed here has almost no traffic. Defeating the purpose of the networking. The site above actually has a great deal of traffic and can be used to find people with similar sports interests.

---

Thomas 4 Nov 2006

Facebox

What about Facebox? The site has over 4 million members throughout Europe and only exists for about a month : 1 million in English http://en.facebox.com 1 million in Portuguese http://pt.facebox.com 500.000 in French http://fr.facebox.com 900.000 in Spanish http://es.facebox.com 670.000 in Dutch http://nl.facebox.com 90.000 in German http://de.facebox.com General URL : http://www.facebox.com

Campus Hook

This site was pushed heavily by collegehumor.com, until the explosion of myspace and facebook during the last few years. The site still exists. Seems to follow the model of xuqa.com, but still intended to be a SNS

Meetic

Meetic is the number one dating website with 22,500,000 registered. It should be in the list. Reference: http://www.meetic-corp.com/uk/chiffres.asp

Linked Musicians: First International Multilingual Live Music Social Networking Site

Suggestion to add Linked Musicians www.linked-musicians.com to the list of notable social networking websites. See press release of today.

== First International Multilingual Live Music Social Networking Site Linked Musicians started public beta testing ==

AMERSFOORT, The Netherlands - 9 November 2006 - "Networking the Live Music Community". "Share Your Passion for Live Music". These are the slogans of the first international, local-for-local, multilingual, live music industry social networking website www.linked-musicians.com [1] that just started public beta testing.

The website enables musicians, bands, orchestras, fans and product & service providers to register a very detailed live music related profile, to invite and link to their friends and business contacts, and to link to other members. The site enables guests and members to find musicians, bands, band vacancies, band tour dates, events, companies, products, services, jobs, friends and dates in their own direct or extended network, and to be introduced through people they know and trust.

"Unlike any other industry, in the music industry it´s about who knows who" says Philip Wolffers, founder of Linked Musicians. "Our networking and community services enable musicians, bands, fans, event organisers and music industry businesses to extend, use and communicate with their people network in a powerful way never available before. With more than 250 instruments, more than 900 music styles, more than 70 music industry company types, all countries and states/provinces of the world, and detailed search mechanisms, Linked Musicians provides a very powerful platform for people networking in the music community: local, national and international".

Linked Musicians is targeted at all musicians, bands, orchestras, fans, dancers, DJ´s, VJ´s, engineers, entertainers, managers, music creators - professionals & amateurs - and products & services providers in live music, like booking agents, recording studio´s, instruments & equipment suppliers, music schools, media, theaters, etc.

Public beta testing started on 18 October 2006, in English. German, Chinese and Dutch will be added in the next few months. Other languages will follow shortly. Linked Musicians offices opened in America, Europe, Asia and Oceania for marketing and customer services. PhilipWolffers 12:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My Cancer Place

My Cancer Place is the first social networking site for cancer patients and their families. Would it be possible to add this site to the list?

Thank you, My Cancer Place www.mycancerplace.com info@mycancerplace.com

Get it mentioned in a major news source, first. Then make an article about it, then you can add it. Ashibaka tock 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

divespace

http://www.divespace.co.uk - The worlds first social networking site for divers. Create profiles, search for buddies, log dives, share media, blog, message, post in forums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraleadogg (talk • contribs) 07:23, 10 November 2006

Sites have to be notable enough (per WP:WEB) to have an article about them in Wikipedia before they are included in this list. -- AJR | Talk 11:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ringo.com

Possibly Ringo should be on the page. Its own article on Wikipedia would seem to confirm that it is a social networking site as it compares itself to another on the list. Neil Kemp 11:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, if you think so. Ashibaka tock 04:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What about SIXDEGREES, MAKEOUTCLUB, and CATCH27?

Sixdegrees is bankrupt. Never heard of the other two. Ashibaka tock 04:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Catch27 is a dating site. There is an article on Makeoutclub, but after checking it out, I don't know if it is a social networking site or a dating site. --real_decimic 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

idea !

Can't we sort this long list by country or language? its really long ! Ammar 13:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately some SNSes use multiple countries and languages. Orkut, for example. Ashibaka tock 04:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

hmmm yes correct :) Ammar 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

www.phling.com November 15, 2006

this site should be added to the list of social networking site. phling! is mobile music social networking service that connects you to your music stored on your home PC, your friends, and the entire community of those listening to music on their mobile phone. Being part of the phling! community lets you discover new music, find others with similar tastes in music, read song reviews by others, and submit your own ratings and comments.

While listening to music streamed from your home PC to your mobile phone you can browse other phling! users’ profiles, post messages for them, find out what is in their music collection, review the most played tunes, or even share listening to your music with your friends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phlinguser (talk • contribs) .

Connexion

Connexion.org is a gay and lesbian social networking site that you can add to your list.

StumbleUpon?

I was checking the article today and noticed an interesting addition that I'm not sure if I fully agree with... is StumbleUpon really social networking? --Czj 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

chickadvisor.com

I added the site chickadvisor.com only to be removed moments later by IrishGuy ... i did not fully understand the external linking rules ... i did not find any links in the list to social shopping sites such as chickadvisor so i thought i should add it ...

A good notice to leave on talk pages of users who add redlinked entries

I have reverted your addition to List of social networking websites. In the future, please only place entries there that are wikilinks to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or things that are not social networking sites will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Your cooperation on this matter will help prevent the article from being protected again. Thanks.

This may help curb repeat offenses. The text is based in part on the comment warning at the head of the article itself. --Czj 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this totally needs protected again...  :-( There are several on the list now that weren't supposed to be added in the first place (ones that were suggested for entry by people on this talk page, but didn't have enough notable mentions to get in), and more redlinks just popped in. Mind if I join the spam-watch & deletion party?--MonkeyTimeBoy 17:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. This page to a normal contributor is a "List of *real* social networking *notable* websites", while this page to spammers is a "List of social networking websites that you may add random links as you please". I had an idea to one of the lines in the notice:

External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or things that are not social networking sites will be removed.

I don't know how good adding those internal links will do. --real_decimic 06:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I like those internal links. Here's a template I have created, to make it easier to leave the warning on user talk pages. Just add "{{User:Czj/Template:Social}}" to the user talk page. --Czj 19:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We Should Do Some Housekeeping

Just an idea: The list we have could use a little housekeeping. Several of the SNS sites here (the articles for them, that is) have absolutely no evidence of notability (no sources and citations of note). We may want to start requesting notable sources, and if not provided, we can start cleaning the un-worthies out. We've gotten a nice big list, and I'd love to keep it relevant and professional. --MonkeyTimeBoy 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping in progress... Removing Janglo, not an SNS.--MonkeyTimeBoy 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You should have a look at Yuku too. Ashibaka tock 04:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.... Seems barely like an SNS (though so poorly designed, it's hard to tell). However, definite notability issues (as in, an apparent lack of it). Therefore, posted notability prod. Thanks for the heads up!--MonkeyTimeBoy 06:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yuku is a mix of an SNS and message board provider, but its focus seems to be on message boards more than social networking. I removed it from the list. Since it is part of ezboard, I requested a merge to ezboard. --real_decimic 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Zedge.net and others

If you have Mobango on this list shouldn't the competitors such as zedge.net or mobile9.com be included as well?

Mobango is not an SNS. Removing it. Ashibaka tock 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Match.com

This is a dating site, not a social networking site. Whats the justification for adding it, and not say the other billion dating sites on the internet?--Crossmr 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I'm removing it, since its primary function is not SNS. Ashibaka tock 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagged.com

What about tagged? I tutor some high schoolers and they are obsessed with it...does anyone know more information about how many people use it, etc.? I think it should probably be added to the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.203.88.194 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Ok, I did some research and according to their website - 3.3million registered, 2.7MM unique visitors a month. "fastes growing teen social website"

[2] - Tagged Inc. Secures $7 Million in Venture Capital Funding

Inspire22: They always send me spam mail, but besides that, I think we should include them...

Reunion.com

A note about reunion.com: This is a crazy spammy website, when you try to leave without registering a live human pops up and orders you to sign up! But it does seem like a legit SNS. Ashibaka tock 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just signed up for it. No spam from them as of yet. But they do seem to be legit. Pricey, but legit.--Crossmr 03:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I signed up for it perhaps 2 yrs. ago..and it's been firing off 1-2 emails per day to the email address I registered with... Very spammy...and personally annoying. --MonkeyTimeBoy 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Social mapping sites

Not all the new social mapping sites are really social networking sites, but I think a couple of them should be listed. Platial does collaborative mapping, has profiles, messaging between members, and commenting on content. (I'm the Platial community person)

Frappr is sort of borderline. It maps social networks. There are a few others, too. Tagzania, Plazes, Wayfaring...All of those might deserve inclusion.

What are the criteria for being considered a social networking site? I didn't notice a topic on that, but I only skimmed. I'll look now.

````tracy_the_astonishing, 2006/12/12 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracy the astonishing (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

An SNS is a very specific kind of website. It is not a mapping website. Ashibaka tock 18:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Inspire22: We should try to define this better, as it's kinda crucial to deciding what to add and what not to add (and the list of pending 'requests' is getting pretty long/old. I'd go with anything that has specific integrations for managing the interactions between people. Friends lists is one aspect of that, but integrated messaging and soliciting comments on items users's add seems to be the other two major ones.

Alexa ranking here?

Anyone thought of adding a column for a site's Alexa reach (or rank)? It would probably be more accurate representation of popularity/importance than the cited user numbers that come from a variety of sources, and are not calibrated to one another. Mike Koss 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is the dynamic nature. If it was possible to somehow link to their dynamic ranking that would be great. We'd probably flood the edit history as everyone stopped by constantly to update their daily ranking.--Crossmr 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Crossmr's warning. It's busy enough keeping an eye on the edit history for spam and redlinks as it is... However, the only way to really get an idea of a site's worth is to look at the citations/references/sources. Who has written about it, and what have they said. Just because a site is popular doesn't mean it's necessarily the best. For instance, sites that serve niche markets/provide unique services will, by definition, never gain million+ memberships. However, for those niche groups, the site may be the most valuable and valued resource out there... --MonkeyTimeBoy 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

One way to solve the over-editing problem would be to snapshot all the alex ranks/reach numbers to one particular date (maybe updated it once per month). Maybe this is best done off-wikipedia. Mike Koss 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexa has substantial bias. Many users consider it to be spyware and won't install it, which biases against sites with a high percentage of pro-privacy or anti-spyware users (or more knowledgeable users in general). It also vulnerable to Alexa-usage-exploits that allow sites to inflate their numbers artificially. As a general rule, it can't be regarded as a accurate description of usage. Tarinth 22:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I found one site that gives the current Alexa ranks to some of the sites on this list at http://snlist.com - and they list the tagging sites as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacoda (talk • contribs) 06:04, January 5, 2007

"Many users" don't particularly consider Alexa spyware! Almost any anti-spyware program you care to mention does, though. I cannot see any justification for giving Alexa credence within the SNS subject. Refsworldlee<sup>(chew-fat)</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Blue Dot

It is my understanding that this is a list of social networking sites, as opposed to bookmarking sites. And this is why Digg, etc. are not listed here. Correct? If so, Blue Dot should be removed--requesting clarification here... After I remved it, another user re-added it. However, I've read the article, and more importantly, visited the site itself. The primary focus/mission of this service is bookmarking...much like the other social bookmarking services that are in fact not listed here, it is not a social netwrok service...at least that is not its raison d'etre..and should not be re-added. Concensus needed.--MonkeyTimeBoy 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Digg allow the users to keep friend lists and such things?--Crossmr 02:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Even if that were the case, it's still social bookmarking, which is different (though related) than social networking sites. Right?  :) --MonkeyTimeBoy 02:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Digg allows the creation of management of a friend list, and has functions for viewing comments and bookmarks based on your social contacts. In any case, social bookmarking is generally a subcategory of social networking, and I believe that most industry analysts who cover social networking generally combine bookmarking services with it. Tarinth 22:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would they? They are two distinct services, and Wikipedia defines them as such: social bookmarking Ashibaka tock 01:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Wikipedia is incapable of "defining" things. Outside sources define them. For examples, take a look at what type of sites are covered by http://www.mashable.com ... This should illustrate for you what types of sites are typically considered by the industry to be part of the social networking phenomena. Tarinth 01:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I was the one who originally added the site, and reverted its removal, I wanted to wait until others had a chance to comment before I chimed in. Now that there seems to be at least some support for keeping it listed here, I will add two points in agreement with that.

First, I firmly believe Blue Dot is a social networking site. If you view the news broadcast video provided as a reference in the article [3], you will see that social networking is a critical element of their business model.

Second, the standard articulated by MonkeyTimeBoy, that social networking must be the "primary focus/mission" of every site listed here, does not seem accurate to me. For example: Amie Street is primarily an online music store; AIM is primarily an instant messenger service; DeadJournal is primarily a weblog; Dodgeball is primarily a location-based service; Doostang is primarily a job board; Flickr is primarily a photo sharing service, etc, etc. A great many of the websites listed here would need to be removed from this article if MonkeyTimeBoy is right.

My personal opinion is that this should be a list of websites that provide the service of social networking. Whether they provide an additional service or services seems immaterial. -- Satori Son 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that the Blue Dot user pages have a prominent "friends list" on the side, unlike delicious. I didn't realize that, I thought it was supposed to be a direct clone. I guess Blue Dot might make the grade as a full social networking site. Ashibaka tock 05:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see the argument. I also see a risk to the future of the relevance of this list. Just how broad can the definition of a social networking site be, without reducing this list to near irrelevance? Perhaps there should be other lists with a central page detailing what is included in each list (what this page could be turned into)--where those other sites could be listed more appropriately/accurately, based on primary services and focus for each site. There could be one list of social bookmarking sites, another of blogging sites, etc., etc. Having a list of potentially thousands of sites--all of which are doing quite different things--under an enormous umbrella of "social something-ing" kind of defeats the entire purpose of a focused/vetted encyclopedia page at all. --MonkeyTimeBoy 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether the primary purpose of the website is sharing content with friends (Blue Dot, LiveJournal) as opposed to posting content for the general public or your own benefit (Delicious, Blogger). Ashibaka (tock) 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That could be a good way to manage the list(s).  :-) --MonkeyTimeBoy 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a well-articulated distinction by Ashibaka, and I agree. -- Satori Son 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What does the intent of the author with regards to the audience (for friends, for non-friends) of content have to do with whether a site is a social network? And can you point to a source which backs up whether this distinction is accepted by others? Sorry to be a pain, but I think it is important that we use terms and distinctions that are accepted by other secondary sources, not developed as a Wikipedia convenience. Tarinth 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, the intent of the webmasters and the use by the audience are the same thing. There are only one or two websites, like Gaia Online, where the purpose and usage might be different, and those can be dealt with on an individual basis. Ashibaka (tock) 03:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ashibaka, and to revisit whether Web 2.0 applications/services are being categorized, you may want to visit Techcrunch. (As a matter of fact, they specifically categorize BlueDot as "a social bookmarking service that is similar to del.icio.us" in their current article). It's a basic function of encyclopedias to categorize information from broad fields in order to make it more relevant/usable. For instance, see what has been done on Wikipedia regarding the various genres, styles, and authors/poets etc. of American Literature. Dividing this list up in the manner proposed above, will be a needed, and well precedented improvement for the Wiki community.--MonkeyTimeBoy 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)