Just re-discovered Christopher Allen's really interesting analysis of social networks.  A really good read.  Relevant to my collection of thoughts on the 'usefulness' of social networking systems in my earlier post, this is a must-add.  Here's an excerpt :

"Barriers of Usefuless

With all the effort it takes to join and start these services, as well as the ongoing effort it takes to maintain them, ultimately there has to be a payoff in some utility. This can be in new friends or contacts, or new business, etc.

At this point I'm not sure that for me that it will be worth the effort. Maybe that is because I'm fairly good at networking to start with, and secondarily because I don't want to overspend my personal relationship capital on frivolous stuff. Maybe if I didn't live in the bay area where many of my contacts are already based, or if I had some more immediate needs, such as looking for a VC to pitch to on LInkedIn, or to party with Ryze members, or to invite people to join an intentional community on Tribe.

Another part of the problem is that there are a number of these sites, and they seem to have a lot of the same people. Maintaining more then one and synchronizing your contacts across multiple services is very difficult. If there was one site that everyone was on and offered the best of all the features, I'd consider dropping all the others.

Related, if everyone doesn't discriminate who they choose as friends, the functionality of these sites may break down, or just become popularity contets."

And Chris Corrigan, in a comment at my post, (bold is mine) takes this conversation further into describing work he's doing with emerging Aboriginal leaders.  Where social networking software seems far more relevant and useful :  

"Seems to me that social networks have a hard time exisiting in the abscence of a reason to do so. I have played around on Ryze and Orkut and to be honest they hold no glamour for me. I have a number of real life social networks from whence my business comes, and my weblog provides me with another social network from which I derive a lot of learning.

But I could never find a reason for the Ryze's and Orkuts of the world. And without a reason to network, networking becomes just noise.

One application fo rthese types of things that I am working with a little is using social networking software to support emerging Aboriginal leaders here in British Columbia Canada who are working on interesting things in remote and far flung communities and who will really benefit from have some contact with each other.

But I wouldn't dream of inviting them to Ryze. Interesting, eh?" 

7:52:27 PM    comment []  trackback []

Three voices questioning the relevance and usefulness of social networking. 

Three voices raising issues that really need to be addressed by social networks. 

Three voices that strike a chord in me - articulating much of what i feel as i quite mindlessly join every new SNS that is launched.

Judith Meskill who asks the question in a very interesting post filled with some neat links - "what value, if any do you derive from them" :

"How can we - as early adopters - influence the evolution of Social Networking Services so they do enhance our communications - aside from the current widely practiced activities of job searching, dating, friend finding, and strengthening weak ties?

If you utilize one or more of the current entrants in this swell of online SNS offerings [such as LinkedIn, Friendster, Orkut, Ryze, and/or Tribe] - what value, if any, do you derive from them? And, harkening back to the citation with which I started this post, has one [or more] of these services assisted in helping you to successfully reduce the 'traffic congestion' at the 'intersections' in your life? And, in closing, any insights, comments, or ponderings on the recent and future blurring of lines between 'wetware,' 'software,' and 'hardware' in an infinitely connected wireless world?"

Denise Klarquist, who has broken past her blogger's block, and says "i'm hoping to see more of the benefits before the noise dampens my enthusiasm"

"Each time I'm invited to join or add someone (frequently unknown to me) to my Linkedin network, or asked to update my contact information via Plaxo (again, usually by someone I barely know) I wonder how far my online social network extends. And how useful it really is. I'm still intrigued and excited by the possibilities of online social networking. But I'm hoping to see more of the benefits before the noise dampens my enthusiasm."

Stuart Henshall who says "Social Networking is Broken" :

"So now I have these planetary social networks each with their own orbits spread across the heavens. So while I've visited all these places I can't remember the name of the ship that offloaded me last. That's about as damming conclusion as any user (dare I say consumer) of the SN product can draw. However, lets face facts. For the most part none of these social networks are on my desktop, unless I happen to have their page open. And then with the exceptions of Ecademy, Tribe and Flickr they don't let me know whether any of my friends are online or not. As most of the people I really work with either don't use them or are as sporadic as me I still little chance of finding spontaneity within. They all fail for none of them provide the things I really need. "

Stuart shares some interesting observations - he makes a very insightful distinction between 'associating' and 'socialising'.  Associating can be useful ... still it takes you only so far.  Socializing implies converting those associations into meaningful relationships. 

He also introduces the thought that presence indicators might just make for better socialising :

"What have we learned.

10:52:09 AM    comment []  trackback []