|WikiProject Websites / Computing||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
This article should include the fact that Facebook Connect has been discontinued and is now replaced by Open Graph and OAuth 2.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I came across this page trying to find information about open graph, figuring that if the information I need isn't here, there would at least be a link to another Wikipedia article. The information under the Open Graph heading provides little insight. I would edit it, if I had any knowledge on the topic (although I did add the link to the social graph Wikipedia article. --Timmo13 (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
"Open Graph is creating Facebook’s own extensive and highly interactive version of a search engine. " I also noticed this section seems to be full of marketing buzzwords. Was it planted? --18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Also I see Open Graph called a protocol and I see the Graph is called an API. Most APIs do not work across systems like these do. They are actually web services, correct? I am not sure what the correct terminology is but I doubt that "protocol" and "API" are the most accurate. I came here attempting to get the correct terminology. I wish people would use the correct terminology but instead Wikipedia is proliferating incorrect terminology. Sam Tomato (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"By the end of 2010, Facebook will no longer be accepting new FBML applications, but will continue to support existing FBML tabs and applications. Facebook recommends the use of iframes for new application development."
If the FBML defines as a sub-set of HTML to mark up content, and it does. And if the iFrame page indicates iFrames structure nesting pages in the browser window, and it does. Then, how can structuring content replace marking-up content? This needs a few extra lines explaining what the change means or entails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtian (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
"Facebook uses iframes to allow third-party developers to create applications that are hosted separately from Facebook, but operate within a Facebook session and are accessed through a users' profile. Since iframes essentially nest independent websites within a Facebook session, their content is distinct from Facebook formatting."
Since iframes nests independently hosted content, the content is already "marked up." Rather than modifying content from within Facebook, it essentially acts as a portal to already-styled/-formatted content. Stephen.california (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Facebook Connect cannot be used by users in locations that cannot access Facebook (e.g. China), even if the third-party site is otherwise accessible from that location."
Obvious statement II
- "Tech blog Valleywag has criticized Facebook Applications, labeling them a "cornucopia of uselessness"."
He can talk now...5 years after the mobile revolution! Heck, it's the mobile devices that made the Facebook apps useless. The idea of Facebook as an app platform is dead, however it looked very different 6 years ago. Maybe somebody may mention this in the article, instead of citing people that just tell us "green is green, blue is blue..."? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Open Graph as a search engine
I removed the following from the article:
- While currently Google still attracts more traffic than any other website, Facebook is a close second. Even without a good internal search engine, Facebook already drives more traffic for some searches, specifically social searches, than Google itself. And in attempting to link Facebook with the rest of the web, the Open Graph is creating Facebook’s own extensive and highly interactive version of a search engine. Web pages are turned into Open Graph Objects by adding metadata.
- "Alexa Top 500 Global Sites".
- "Google vs. Facebook: Drawing the battle lines | The Social - CNET News"".
As others have commented above, it sounds a bit like boosterism or something not quite right for the encyclopedia. It also seems like a bad comparison to me. Searching is the opposite of browsing in information discovery; describing browsing as "highly interactive searching" does indeed sound like bogus marketing speak, especially when name-dropping Google. Though there are references in the above text, none of the citations are there to support the main point; they only support the background given before the real point is made. So it also seems like original research. -- Beland (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)