Talk:List of social networking services

This article was nominated for deletion in July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. This article was nominated for deletion in January 2007. The result of the debate was also keep.

www.neowin.net

Neowin added friends, member profiles, profile comments and other social networking features when they upgraded their forum software (December 30, 2006). Does this mean they are now considered a social networking website? According to their forum index they have 162,380 registered members and a total of 6,472,463 posts (as of January 3, 2007). Esptoronto 18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

allpoetry

I'd like to nominate Allpoetry.com, a poetry SNS site I administer. 170k users, People add others to their "Favorites" list, so a digraph form, but I think it's still worth of the SNS title. Built in messaging and chat. Inspire22 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it already has an article (at Allpoetry) and it does loosely fit the MySpace sort of layout I think it qualifies. Others might consider it simply a free webhost, though. Ashibaka (tock) 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it has a pretty strong social networking component, so I would support its addition here. (The article itself, though, really needs some reliable, third-party sources to establish sufficient notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web).) -- Satori Son 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bragoff.com

Bragoff.com. I think we should add Bragoff.com to a list of social websites.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bragoff (talk • contribs).

Does it have a Wikipedia article yet? I could not locate one. Based on your username, I assume you are affiliated with the site, so please remember to read and comply with the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks, Satori Son 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the Bragoff.com and I think that it fits into the category of photo sharing websites, though it does have a number of social features. Thank you, Smartz. 1/16/07

Chainofthoughts.com

Chainofthoughts.com is a recent start up with emphasis on stream-of-consciousness and/or tagging. Users can basically write anything they want (30 characters at a time) and only the main page gets edited. It is a loose social gathering place where people from different organizations or groups can associate themselves. Here the concept of registration is outmoded, users need only create a tag unique enough to identify themselves. I have no idea how many unique visitors there are as the site looks fairly new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.34.3 (talk • contribs) 15:47, January 10, 2007

It looks like it does not yet have a Wikipedia article, so it would not yet be appropriate to add it to this list. But thank you for checking here first. -- Satori Son 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neatvibe

I think Neatvibe (www.neatvibe.com) should be added. I don't know how much, but there's a whole lot of people there, I use to be active there before it got invaded by philippinos.. now everywhere you go the threads are in tagalog... but anyway, it should be here! Infinito 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it does not yet have its own Wikipedia article yet, so it doesn't yet qualify for this list. -- Satori Son 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Friends Reunited

Oops! I should have looked at this Talk Page earlier. I have perhaps jumped the gun in adding Friends Reunited without reference to here. I was not aware that submissions were being filtered through Talk.

However, I am firmly of the opinion that this site, with a .com domain as an entry page (making it truly international), and a claimed membership of between 10 and 15 million (depending on whichever page you visit in which country) built up over 7 years of existence, should be acceptable to all; however, if consensus deems otherwise, please remove it entirely. Refsworldlee 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the info in the Friends Reunited article, your addition of it here looks okay to me. -- Satori Son 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Archived

The 49 previous discussions have been archived here on 18 Jan. 2007. The previous two archives have 18 and 17 discussions each... if the third archive is too long, it can be split into multiple parts. --Czj 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the last archive was a little too big, so I have unarchived the January discussion back to here. (Some of them were pretty recent anyway and might still be active.) The third archive is now from September 17 to December 31. Still a little big, but I don't know if we need to break it down any further. -- Satori Son 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

GamerBio.com

Its the only gaming social network that I know of, I don't see why it wouldn't be noted here along with the others. Does anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCitizen (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Its on the chopping block for not asserting its notability. If the article is properly sourced and notability established and its not deleted then it can be re-added to the list. But as it is, Id on't see anything screaming notability [1]. Other than results for the site itself, all the results seem to be links to people's profiles and forum postings, of which there are only 82 unique hits.--Crossmr 15:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr at this point. If for some reason an admin denies the speedy request, then we can examine the issue again. (Also, see my comments here.) -- Satori Son 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As predicted, the article was speedy deleted under CSD A7. -- Satori Son 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Online dating services

I know this was discussed in the archives, but I wanted to state my opinion. (Sorry of consensus was already reached!) There is no online dating service list article (the online dating service article links here). And there are far fewer "online dating services" than non-dating "social networking websites." Moreover, the difference between the two isn't so clear--ie, when compared to Facebook, orkut has quite a few "online dating service" aspects. So, why not just add a few (to the 60 here) in (ie, Yahoo! Personals, Match.com, American Singles, eHarmony)? --gwc 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because they're really not the same. Social networking sites are for social networking of all kinds, while dating sites are just for dating, many dating sites don't allow for things like friends lists which is one of the key components of social networking.--Crossmr 15:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogger?

Someone just added Blogger. Does it count as a social networking site? I'd say no, but it's close as Blogger adds more LiveJournal-like features. Argyriou (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm of a similar bent. But there are many blog-specific sites already listed...to boot Blogger would mean booting those others too...simply out of fairness.--MonkeyTimeBoy 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - looking at the above section on dating sites, I wonder if categorization of these sites would be worthwhile, or if there would be too many borderline cases to usefully decide. Argyriou (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

LiveJournal is a social networking site because both its software and its actual use reflect largely with who you have added as your friend, and whether the relationship is mutual. Its clones may or may not preserve that social aspect. Blogger has no social networking function. Ashibaka (tock) 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Blogger doesn't currently have a place on this list.--Crossmr 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been put into the list, if consensus says remove it, why hasn't it been? Speaking unboldly myself, unfortunately! Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yelp, Amie Street

I added Yelp, which is an important up and coming social networking site. I couldn't find a reference for the # of users. Also removed (commented out in case anyone wants to add it back) Amie Street because I couldn't find any indication that it's a social networking site, just a music upload and download site. If I'm wrong or overstepped, sorry! Wikidemo 11:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Amie Street links users to each other ("friends") to allow them to automatically get RECs (see Amie Street) sent to them from their friends. They also allow users to become "fans" of artists. Seems pretty much like any other basic social network to me... Paul^C/_T+ 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are users able to contact each other directly?--Crossmr 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yelp encourages users on the internet to sign up and write reviews for them. It encourages current members to invite their friends to join and write reviews. There is a Talk facility as a side offering. This is an internet social network if anything, as I can see no evidence of any member actively meeting other members face to face bar bumping into them in the only city listed. It doesn't appear to be notable outside San Francisco, CA, except perhaps through the internet - it Googles well. There are no details as to its membership numbers. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 14:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Amie Street, on the other hand, seems to be about selling music tracks through download and little else. It uses 'community' download popularity figures to determine the current price of a track, but does not appear to set up a model for putting 'community' members in contact with each other, unless that is hidden behind the signup process i.e. revealed when one becomes a member. I am a little reserved about this one. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 15:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that Amie Street doesn't allow users to contact each other? If there is no method for users to contact each other or keep publicly viewable profiles then its not a social network website.--Crossmr 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't know if registered users get a contact facility once they've signed up (I don't intend to test this theory either), but it's not advertised on the outside. My opinion is that some people's concept of social networking is different to that defined in Wikipedia - the 'community' aspect alluded to by me above in Amie Street and here for example. In all the comments found, the word "I" is repeated many times, whereas the word "we" is not to be found. I firmly believe that the basis of this site is music download for self, not networking amongst many. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I would say the burden of evidence lies with the individual who wants the site included in this list. I as well don't see anything here that indicates the site actually allows people to network beyond these "RECS". I think in order for it to be a social networking site the users need to be able to communicate with each other via some kind of messaging system. RECs seem to be a predetermined communication with no possibility of including personal messages.--Crossmr 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

hrm I took the time to sign up... its difficult to say. It certainly doesn't operate via a method which I've seen some sites operate. You can comment on individuals profiles via a comment field, but there doesn't seem to be a private messaging option. Maybe that becomes available after you friend someone. They do allow friends lists, and you seem to be able to send messages to individuals who have stores. But we did already have the case of the social bookmarking site which did allow some of these things but its primary function was sharing bookmarks not networking. I would say this site falls into the same thing, networking may be a possibility here, but far and above its primary function is to sell music.--Crossmr 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a time factor regarding my testing the signup - I just have so many usernames and passwords for different things, I refuse to add to this merely to join something I have no intense interest in. I certainly won't be withdrawing Amie Street, although I suspect there's wool being pulled over eyes somewhere here - suck it and see, I suppose. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say this is no different than the social bookmarking sites we had. The sites focus doesn't appear to be social networking and is instead selling music. Even if its done in a community that doesn't make it a social networking site, much like the bookmarking one. Unless someone can demonstrate that social networking is the primary focus of this site I don't think it belongs on the list.--Crossmr 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me towards the discussion on the social Bookmarking changes so I can figure out the criteria you have for inclusion on the list? StumbleUpon, which I primarily think about as a social bookmarking service, made the list, so I'd like to see some specifics on the changes. Thanks. Paul^C/_T+ 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion, why isn't Amie Street a social network? Sure, the site exists to sell music, but the idea is to find friends who have similar musical taste so you can find good music through their RECs. It seems like trying to connect with other users is a main goal of the site. The idea is to make enough friends that when you do REC a song enough people buy it so you can get free music. An easy way to connect directly to bands and other fans of the band is a great way to meet new friends. Isn't that how MySpace really got popular? Connecting bands to fans? Just because there is a store mixed in with that how would that change the fact that you can connect with people through the service? What is your definition of a "Social Network"? How do Ruckus, MOG, and Last.fm fit? How are they different/better than Amie Street to merit their inclusion on the list? (Although I will admit that is a bad way to argue for Amie Street's inclusion.) I'm going to revert and then comment out the Amie Street entry until this gets hashed out a bit more... Paul^C/_T+ 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So can you shed some light on exactly what system Amie Street offers to put one member in touch with another on a personal basis, and not just through a common 'voting' system for tracks, such as REC would be in its simplest form? Whatever system there is seems hidden behind the signup - is it? Please read the above comments thoroughly and prove to us why we should agree with you. You are also right to doubt the way you argue your case by quoting the other examples. Because they could suffer the same fate if consensus goes against. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Amie Street actually does allow users to contact each other directly, as well as contacting artists directly. Users are able to restrict this form of contact to the entire community or just their friends. Users can also post comments on other members' profiles and upload pictures to their own.24.184.0.45 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Elias (co-founder, Amie Street)

I've been using Amie Street for a little while now [2] and you can contact other people (although I will admit not as easily as I would like). You need to be friends with someone to send them a message but your profile is public (see above link). (Apparently you can set preferences to govern both of these things... pretty nice actually, I didn't know that.) Paul^C/_T+ 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're just re-stating a fact, which I for one would like even more info on, as requested. Because I now took the time to sign up, and I'm afraid the closest I could get to social networking was to stare at a load of member profiles. That's not getting in contact with anyone. Also, merely adding them to a list of friends or reading their recommendations on music tracks is not social contact! Convince me further... Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the reaons/features that make Amie Street a social network:

• 1. Users maintain a profile, including their tastes, interests, and photo
• 2. Users may opt into friendship with each other, in many cases enabling a greater level of communication.
  • 2a.Options for communication include the ability to send messages to other users/artists, the ability to contribute recommendations to your "friends," and the ability to communicate via wall posts.
• 3. The primary method of discovery on Amie Street is a loose association of people sharing similar interests in music and/or pre-existing social ties offline.

To me, this would definitely constitute a social network, and that has certainly been our intent, but, of course, I defer to what the community feels on this one. 24.184.0.45 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Elias (co-founder, Amie Street)

I have indeed now found the means by which one user contacts another user. Although buried deep within the web site, far from the entry or home page, this facility still means that you are probably correct in stating that it is a social network. You will also understand (and you admit to be co-founder) that there are grave concerns among Wikipedia editors and admins regarding the slightest suspicion that articles are being added purely for promotional purposes. I can find no evidence of that either. Unfortunately, I cannot prove concensus one way or the other all on my own, so if other editors would like to join the discussion, we'll quickly resolve this one, no doubt! Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion on social bookmarking sites: Talk:List_of_social_networking_websites/Archive_3#Blue_Dot. Last discussion in the last archive. Having a friends list doesn't automatically make something a social networking site. It also seems that the site can be used to purchase and upload music without forming that social network. Upon logging in there were all kinds of recs just sitting there, I didn't need to get them from my non-existent network. There doesn't seem to be a primary focus on social networking and you even describe it as a "loose association". --Crossmr 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how that discussion provides any real guidance on how Blue Dot makes the cut as a social network service and Blogger doesn't, other than there being a list of friends prominently on the users page (which Amie Street has). (Quite frankly, I don't think that discussion should have been archived, but I guess if anyone has any real qualms about it they can just start a new discussion thread on it.) Additionally, Tarinth's point was never really addressed... the fact is there is no clear criteria of what is supposed be allowed in this list. From everything that has been said I'm not sure how Amie Street doesn't fit. There are "friend" capabilities between users and artists, messaging is facilitated between the two, and these connections are shown explicitly on the website. Additionally, right underneath the "advanced music search" link below the main search bar on the top left is a "find people" link. Clearly they are trying to get people to network with each other. Should there be even more of an emphasis on it? I'm just not sure how much more explicit it needs to be to warrant a mention on the list... Paul^C/_T+ 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It does, because the purpose of sharing has an ulterior motive on Amie Street. The whole point in sharing RECs is to get credit and drive up the price of a song. Social networking doesn't even really have any play in that as an unnetworked user can just walk in and see a list of RECs. The article about the site doesn't even really cover any social networking aspect or say why its important to the site and not just some tacked on feature. If the social networking aspect of the site is such a crucial focus and feature of it, I'm curious as to why its not in its wikipedia article?--Crossmr 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you on that point. Sure, you can see a list of RECs when you first login, but those are just recent RECs from every user on the site. The idea is to get a group of friends that share your musical tastes so you can have relevant RECs sent to you making it easier to find music you like. Additionally this "ulterior motive" (which I'm not sure has anything to do with this discussion as there are ulterior motives at EVERY site on this list...) is completely irrelevant with regard to becoming a "fan" of a band. That is there to just give support to the band and communicate with them directly if you like. As for why these features (social networking in general currently is) aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia article, I believe it is mostly because these social networking features aren't really anything terribly innovative (but that doesn't mean they aren't there) compared with the variable, demand-based pricing model and ability for users to earn credit which make up the bulk of the current article. But you are right, there should be a section on social networking in the Amie Street article. We have hashed out most of the content that should be there in this discussion tho so the fact that it isn't in the wikipedia article itself is not a good reason to argue against inclusion in the list. If anything it is an argument for us to try and add to the Amie Street article so it is more accurate. On that note, I just posted something on the Amie Street talk page that links to this discussion. I'll get started adding some more content to the Amie Street article, but I'd appreciate some help. Paul^C/_T+ 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that doesn't sell it for me. If the social networking aspect was such a large major feature of the site, it probably should have been mentioned in the article before it was added to this list. Bringing it up at this point just seems like an attempt to make the site look like it meets criteria which, to me, it doesn't. I've seen forum software that allows you to keep a buddy list, you also get to have profiles and send private messages to people. Regardless of how notable that forum might be, there would be no reason to have it on this list because thats not its primary focus. Slashdot also allows for a buddy system, and gives your buddies custom icons when you see them posting in stories. After reading the article and visiting the site, I still don't see anything compelling that indicates social networking is a major focus of the site. As was mentioned in the blue dot discussion many of the new web 2.0 sites that will come out will feature some sort of buddy/friend component. If we don't keep the list to sites whose primary focus is social networking will end up with a ridiculously long and unmanageable list.--Crossmr 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was hoping I wouldn't have to quote directly from the archive, but if you are going to continue to bring it up as a reason why Amie Street shouldn't be on the list I'm going to have to address it directly:

"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)"

That is Satori Son's first take on why Blue Dot should be kept. I should point out the examples used above are still on this list with the exception of Amie Street and AIM. Although again I should say that I realize that isn't a good reason to argue why Amie Street should be kept, I'm just pointing it out for sake of discussion... but why WAS AIM scrapped? Quite frankly they are a social network, one of the first really-what do you think a buddy list is?-just a listing of your friends and an easy way to get in contact with them. Just because they dropped the ball on the implementation for discovery of new friends and didn't advertise themselves as a "social network" doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed here. The discussion continues:

" 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)"

Okay so now it is defined as the "primary purpose of the website is sharing content with friends". Now as far as I know, Amie Street intends to be all about that. In fact, a big part of the recent redesign was an additional way to share songs with friends directly through email or Facebook and according to Elias above "they intend to be a social network". But I will admit that content does seem to be geared toward "the general public". The problem I have with that is the fact that you still need to sign up to make any significant use of that content (actually purchase and download songs) and once you sign up you have a vested interest in becoming part of the community and start to communicate and share content with friends. Plus, just by the nature of music, people usually want to share it with friends (witness P2P file-sharing and Napster back in 2000.) Again, this was refined further:

"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)"

That is the end of the discussion (and why I think it should be "unarchived" and discussed further, considering that the last post directly contradicts Blue Dot's current inclusion on the list). What this all boils down to is the fact that there are no clear guidelines for what does and doesn't belong on this list. Where do you put sites that facilitate social networking but not as its primary purpose? I think what was being discussed was that this should be categorized further into genres on separate pages, but no real effort has been made on this front. I think it is premature to start to remove sites from the list when the current focus of this page still seems to be in flux. (Or is it "the primary purpose of the website is sharing content with friends"?) At this point I'm not going to continue to argue for Amie Street's inclusion unless another editor chimes in, but I do believe we should attempt to start to break down this list into more refined categories. Obviously social networking is a very broad field and can be used in many different contexts, trying to shoehorn "pure" social networking sites with sites that try do social networking around a specific genre seems to be causing some controversy here. Paul^C/_T+ 03:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the social network service wikipedia article... the "basic" definition:

In general, social networking services allow users to create a profile for themselves. Users can upload a picture of themselves and can often be "friends" with other users. In most social networking services, both users must confirm that they are friends before they are linked. Some social networking sites have a "favorites" feature that do not need approval from the other user. Social networks usually have privacy controls that allows the user to choose who can view their profile or contact them.

If there is some other guideline that sites on this list must have it should be mentioned in the lead or that article needs to be changed. Paul^C/_T+ 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There obviously is a great deal of difference between sites like friendster and amiee street. We do need to realize that with web 2.0 where every site is going to want to make you sign in so you can have an identity and start mashing together services that sites will become a little fuzzier. It might make sense then to split the list either into two sections or two lists entirely. One where social networking is an obvious and primary/sole function of the site, or one where its incorporated into a larger purpose.--Crossmr 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm anti-splitting as far as doing it to accommodate a whim is concerned - it counteracts all the good work done by editors active in merging, to create a leaner and more manageable Wikipedia. I've really no other thoughts to add on Amie Street itself. This thread is certainly the longest I've been involved in without resolving an issue! Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be kept on a single page, however there needs to be a distinction made between sites like Amiee Street and Friendster. They're not the same and lumping them together on a list defeats the list. When I created an account at amiee street and logged in I did not get the feeling that it was a social networking site. If people come here to use this list for comparitive purposes of "like" items, the items should be "like" or they need to be split into subsections.--Crossmr 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to re-read the archived discussion (quoted earlier), as it contains a proposed solution to the "so how do we break this into genres?" issue. Without re-hashing what I wrote back then, I'll just say I think it's a good idea, and will help Wikipedia adapt to the realities on the ground (or Net) as Web 2.0 matures.--MonkeyTimeBoy 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

tagged.com

For this one there isnt article on wikipedia, but is growing quickly. i havent been able to find how many people are in tagged.com--ometzit<col> 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless it has an article here, it doesn't belong on the list. If you can't find any people are on the site then its only opinion or marketing that claims its growing quickly.--Crossmr 14:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What is his point, if it can't be added to the list due to its lack of an article? And new posts belong at the bottom of the tree (corrected), with no unnecessary linking to external sites (corrected). I'd be interested to hear his expansion on this. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 14:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It was probably added to this list when it did have an article. According to the Deletion Log, it was deleted as a CSD due to lack of notability. --real_decimic 04:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Must have been Speedy. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I added Tagged to the list of social networking websites and it got removed and I got a warning, Now I have made Tagged its own page on Wikipedia please check it out Tagged and contribute thanks! User:Spikeyhairedsam

You are mistaken. Tagged is a redirect page to Tag. You must be referring to Tagged (website), which admins have speedy-deleted. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Table layout

I think the new table layout is unnecessary. The biggest problem is that this sort of layout sorts numbers alphabetically and not by actual size. It'd be a good function otherwise, but as it stands, this layout really does nothing new except add confusion and taunt users by offering options which don't work how they should in these cases. Also, some things are just pointless, such as putting the descriptions in alphabetical order. Opinions? --Czj 10:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I kind of miss the lines.--Crossmr 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not worried either way - a list's a list. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that MySpace appears in the middle of the list, sorted by population Asymmetric 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I just had a look at it again and sorting doesn't work properly. If that can't be fixed we might want to consider going back to the other design.--Crossmr 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I now agree. If usercount should sort to highest *claimed* figures, it certainly does not work. I nominate one of us to revert it. (?) Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of table work, I can have a look shortly if no one else gets to it and see what was changed and if I can change it back.--Crossmr 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Golf Social Networking Community

I would like to nominate: www.iGolf.to, to the social networking list. This is a golf community site for anyone who plays golf. iGolf.to provides a platform for golfers to: add friends, blog their games, create golf communities, create golfing events and network members.

The site is in pre-vc stages (http://www.igolf.to/news_page.php?cat_id=5) and currently has 417 confirmed members (members displayed on home page).

Personally niche social networking sites could become a phenomina on the net with far greater advertising value per unit.

20:12, 7 February 2007 (GMT)

Hi. To qualify for addition to List of social networking websites, your subject must have a Wikipedia article, and the title when listed must lead to the internal link for the subject article. Otherwise the entry will be reverted, as has happened. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My appologies - read the terms and conditions thought it was okay to add - a number of the sites reference the actual sites, this was done for user count as its on the home page. Thanks for your help. b 22:07, 7 February 2007 (GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chateauxc (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

if it "could become" something, then it hasn't yet. If that is its claim to fame when it does become that then it will likely qualify for an article here and a link. There are some notability guidelines which are required to have an article with the hardest to meet criteria being that the website should be the subject of multiple non-trivial articles written by reliable sources.--Crossmr 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ticket4one

I wish to nominate Ticket4one.com as a social networking website with over 15,000 members this makes them the largest singles events website in the world.

Surely the largest website in the world of any type is worthy to be included in wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky4885 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi. There is no such thing as nomination of a website here. You are of course at liberty to create an article named Ticket4one.com; if successful this can then be added to a list as an internal link. However, please see WP:WEB for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, until such time as an article of that name exists, it cannot be added to the list for which this is the talk page. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

HI REFSWORLD.

Sorry i read the beginning of allpoetry and golf social networking and they both started by nominating. My error i will read the guidlines on article submission and try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky4885 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

• Interested parties should see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ticket4one. — coelacan talk — 06:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable user figures on MySpace

Hi. The user count for MySpace has recently been increased to 154,000,000. The editor concerned has pointed this to the same linked source as previously for the same date as previously, merely adding "Feb 2007". Where is the verifiability for the new figure quoted? I have searched the internet for a reliable updated membership figure, but every source I access comes up with a 'ball-park'.

If no concensus or fresh information on this, I will revert the user count, or 'Unknown' it. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I bet I know where this is from. When you log in, it gives you a total amount of users, it currently lists "154,490,765" in my network.--Crossmr 16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

RateItAll

At first glance this looks very much the same in principle as the 'limboed' Amie Street - review-based, income-generating, and social contact strictly reserved for the signed-up member. Or can anyone tell us how it's different and therefore worthy of staying out of limbo? I have not removed it, let's get a little consensus. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the page needs serious clean up and referencing. Given that it was just created it might need to be checked to ensure the site meets the requirements to even have an article here. There is some POV issues on it before I even want to look at what its core purpose is.--Crossmr 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The number used is not the user count but the traffic. Do you think it should be changed ? 84.102.230.123 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For Canadians?

BusinessPartnerships.ca, Trade-Pals.com? 74.98.241.198 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Danica

User Count Sort Broken

The feature that sorts by "User count" sorts alphanumerically rather than by the actual number. As a result, 100 would show before 500,000, which would show before 70.

Can this be fixed? -- SandManMattSH 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See conversation on this subject here. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 22:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ChangingThePresent

This entry, when referring to Usercount, states "too soon to say". Would this not then compromise its notability under present guidelines - someone is admitting that this is a 'fledgling' organisation, and perhaps not ready to be listed? I have repeated this line of approach on its Talk page. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've tagged it as speedy as it seems to meet the criteria.--Crossmr 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Flirtomatic

So far this has been legitimately de-tagged as far as speedy deletion is concerned. I for one have no intention of removing the listing from the list at present, as it seems to meet the criteria looked for. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to state plain fact, this is now under AfD. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 14:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

CherryTap.com and Shuzak.com

Just reporting two more websites: CherryTap and Shuzak. CherryTap is an social "crush" site, and Shuzak is for "geeks". --Andrex 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are they notable enough to receive a wikipedia article? If so, one can be created per the notability guidelines at WP:WEB. Once thats done they can be added to the article.--Crossmr 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi5

I apologize if I am not doing this appropriately, please feel free to let me know. I went through the list of social networking sites and I did not see Hi5 (www.hi5.com). The site is popular among people from Florida (within the US), the Caribbean, and Latin America. In the corporate portion of the site it states that they have 50 million users. It is similar to the other social networking sites where you create a page, have friends, join groups, etc etc.64.194.208.5 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)XOHottie

As long as the website meets notability guidelines WP:WEB its good. First it needs to have an appropriate article created on wikipedia then it can be added to the list.--Crossmr 20:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi5 already was on the list but someone deleted it. I think it should have its separate article as soon as possible, because it's one of the most popular of these sites. --Greg-si 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No single "someone" deletes pages in Wikipedia. A process is gone through, where notability is examined thoroughly, and an administrator will either 'speedy delete' the article if it is unarguably non-notable, or post it to 'Articles for Deletion' if there might be some merit to it. That's where the consensus of several editors will be sought, giving an opinion as to whether to (usually) Keep, Merge, or Delete. It is not a vote, but admins will look at all the opinions before deciding the outcome. Hope that helps you to understand how it works around here. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he means this list. It was removed because it was red linked, not because hi5 isn't a notable social networking site. I'm sure if someone wanted to start the article, there are sources out there on which to establish notability and create it.--Crossmr 23:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

though I should have googled before saying that. Hi5 indexes every profile. So a search for hi5.com results in thousands upon thousands of profile pages completely flooding the search.--Crossmr 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you delete Hi5 when other entries like mugshot, blackplanet.com, migente, etc. have equally crappy written articles, should you not be removing those as well or did Hi5 eat your babies? 202.175.165.37 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these sites. None of them seem to meet Notability standards. They have all been tagged or prodded.--MonkeyTimeBoy 14:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bebo.com

I updated the number of "users" on Bebo (to 31,500,000). I can vouch for this as I am an employee and looked at the stats just a minute ago. This refers to registered users - not active. I think this list would be much more useful with registered users vs. active users. MySpace reports 160 million registered users but it is widely known that they have a much lower number of active users. Jozecuervo 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. At the moment there is no formatted list table for this to be feasible - if you come up with one, it might be worth trying it. However, there is always a burden of proof involved when quoting any figures - and you are really only giving us hearsay when you comment about your employment position with Bebo - what Wikipedia really wants is a linked source for this kind of thing. You may have to be prepared for another editor to change the figures to what he or she can verify through the internet (not me on this occasion).

By the way, when posting to a talk page, please make sure that the newest post is at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it, add to bottom... Regarding the hearsay on my identity, Here is a link to the about page on Bebo http://bebo.com/StaticPage.jsp?StaticPageId=2517103831 - and here is my user profile: http://jozecuervo.bebo.com - Being that Bebo is a social network, I think you could verify by my network of friends that I am who i say I am and that I am telling the truth about my employment/membership status (My Bebo username matched my wikipedia username too). I am a verifiable primary source and though I may have a personal interest in Bebo, I'm telling the truth and no member of the press has access to the info I am quoting. Unfortunately, we do not make our stats public at all times and any press article is going to be dated - the site grows quickly as I'm sure would be evident by all the recent hype. I also doubt that any of the major sites would make all their figures available at all times and again, how can you trust what any of them say over me and vice versa? So, as I was saying, Bebo has 31.5 million registered users (Today) and I am not sure I can divulge active at this time, but I would like to see a column added for active users (active in the last 30 days) because it is a more accurate depiction of where each network currently stands. I would add the column but it seems premature, since I don't have stats on the other networks right now. What I will do then, is work with one of our ad partners at Monster/Tickle and see if they have a non-biased list of comparative stats on all of the social networks that they feed ads into via the Tickle Grapevine. These Include: Bebo, EZBoard, Hi5, LoveHappens, Ringo and formerly piczo. Hopefully, the wikipedia community will agree that the 3rd party Tickle/Monster has nothing to gain by rating one network higher than the others. Jozecuervo 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we need a source we can verify and not a first-hand account of confidential data only published in Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And indent by using the colon (:) key for each space you wish to go inward, and for each new paragraph you post! Have a look at the Edit page source to see what I mean.

I was not intending to say that I did not believe you. It's just that you are obviously in a very privileged position in a way, and one can only envy your inside knowledge where active and registered users are concerned. However, let me put a further neutral point of view (we love that here at WP!) on the likelihood of being able to retrieve enough active user stats from the growing list that is social networking websites to make another column worthwhile.

My dread would be to see an empty column, or one filled mostly with the word "Unknown", occupying what should be a rich source of information. We are currently lucky if we can access only the registered ones I'm afraid. There are a suspected high number of 'guesstimates' contained within the list column, as the referenced URLs usually lead to just a homepage with no figures quoted, or require registration to be able to see the stat. And my esteemed colleague has just quoted a very important WP Policy which means that you cannot really use your position for the purpose.

Let us know your further thoughts if you would though. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I understand why Wikipedeons need to be "Neutral" and untrusting of non-press for the sake of a valid source of information and I appreciate all that you people do to keep things "objective". I have advised Bebo PR of the need to release stats officially on a regular basis. I am curious, if Bebo decides to make public a "community stats page", can this be permanently used as a reference here or does the press actually need to re-report it? Also, how does wikipedia categorize corporate blogs vs. bloggers vs. "real" press? Sorry if I'm shooting from the hip, can someone point me to an article?

I have again updated the Bebo reg count, this time to 31,000,000 - even though it is today actually 32.2 million. PR runs a little behind, but The Register picked up on the 31,000,000 stats in a recent article - I assume from a press release that Bebo put out. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/28/bebo_orange/

Also, I do think the active users is pretty important - more so than registered users. Other stats that are important are the average session time and the average number of pages turned. Obviously this is tough data to source across the board. Some useful data that can be sourced from Alexa and other sources:

• Worldwide Alexa rank
• US Alexa Rank
• Top regions per site

Jozecuervo 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Geni

Geni.com would like to be added. How can we prove we are a legit social networking site? We have over 100,000 users, an article in the wall street journal and hundreds of blog postings about our site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.30.105 (talk • contribs)

The site's beta-test is only a month old, and the only references I see for it are PR releases copied into venture-capital blogs. LastChanceToBe 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Wall Street Journal Story and our normal company page. We launched Jan 16, 2007. So is taking down the word "beta" from our logo required before we can be listed? Thanks. Andrewfromgeni 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ComicSpace

Over the weekend I created and added a good, to the point entry on ComicsSpace. Then I edited the list of social netowrking sites to reflect this. My change to the list was rolled-back due to the link not being to a Wikipedia page. Why did this happen? I checked the Wikipedia ComicSpace page before I added the link to the social networking list, knowing the rule to adding entries to the list. Now it appears the ComicSpace page is gone - and doesn't even appear in "My Contributions" any more. I've read the instructions on editing, and wrote a proper encyclopedic description. I've received nothing on the ComicSpace entry I added, though it appears to have been deleted. Admittedly, I am new to Wikipedia editing and may be overlooking some subtle parameter (though eager snarksters should note: I joined a long time ago and waited, lurking and learning, until I made any additions or serious edits). Regardless of my own plight, ComicSpace is a major social networking site, is referenced numerous times throughout Wikipedia, yet there is no main entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calgodot (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Since I am not an admin, I cannot look at the text of the deleted article, but from looking at the page logs I see that an administrator did delete the article on 3-17-2007 for failing to meet the notability standards for inclusion. It was also deleted for the same reason once before on 12-13-2006.

My guess is that it, like many other new articles, did not provide any citations to non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. If you decide to recreate the article at some point, you absolutely must provide those references; see Wikipedia:Notability (web) for full info.

If those references don't exist yet, you'll have to wait until the website becomes more notable before you try again. Thanks, Satori Son 16:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

4single

As regards the dreaded statistics, this subject does not Google well, nor does it appear particularly busy according to Alexa. Although that's not the be-all or end-all, it nevertheless appears that this is not a notable enough website to justify an article here. That's only my opinion of course. I note that this has been removed from the article prior to possible deletion. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

tagged.com

Isn't tagged very similar to facebook? Nadyes 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and your point is? I assume you might be saying "Why do people keep removing it from the List"? As mentioned in my post to your talk page yesterday, any sites added to the List must have a Wikipedia article before anything else is considered regarding notability, etc. Tagged.com has not, so cannot be included in the List. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

foodcandy.com

Social network for foodies: FoodCandy. It has 1200+ members now and mentions in various press. If people find it interesting, please add a page. It's my project, so adding it myself isn't kosher. Dblockdotorg 05:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If the website meets the inclusion critieria of Wikipedia:Notability (web), you should put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. We cannot add it to this list here until it has its own article. Thanks, Satori Son 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Autosorting

Czj switched off autosorting, referring to an already obsolete discussion. Correct number sorting can be forced using sorting templates. The way to do this is already explained in a comment at the beginning of the table, but i'll it copy here:

Please use {{nts}} and no commas for the user counts so they don't not mess up sorting.
For examle: {{nts|1234567}}
Use {{ntsh}} with non-numeric user counts, for example:
{{ntsh|0}}Unknown
{{ntsh|1000}}Thousands

(Look into the wikicode if it's still not clear.)

It's a bit of a hack, but it's invisible to readers, and not too difficult to maintain; and I think the ability to sort by community size is important enough to do the extra work. Any objections against switching it back? --Tgr 11:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A few regulars to this article seem undisposed to having sorting, as there will always be cross-browser incompatibility, no matter how you hack. If you so wish, you can convert the formatting once again yourself. Don't be surprised if someone (not me) switches it off again. Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find any mention of browser compatibility issues at m:Help:Sorting, nor at Template talk:Sort. If there are, they should be reported at these places. But I don't think that was the problem; somebody just forgot to add the proper sorting template. (There was at least one missing in the last revision that had sorting.) --Tgr 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If they were reported, it wouldn't achieve much, as some scripts never will work with certain browsers. With non-sortable, at least you are guaranteed that the results are viewable to some standard in all popular browsers in use today. As I say, with editors being bold, you may find that the first one to suffer incompatibility problems removes the formatting while calling 'foul' on the talk page at the same time. Or not, who knows? Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorted by user count

I'd like to see this same chart, sorted by usercount. The number of users isn't a bad way to judge the notability of a Social Networking Site. Mathiastck 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to add external link to 100+ Social Networking Portla

Dear Author,

I request you to visit my analysis on 100+ Social Networking Portals categoriezed in 6-7 categories. Analysis & ranking is given on the basis of popularity and traffic genereated by portals. Hope this link will be helpful to readers. Here is the link:

http://www.brainbubbles.biz/social-network-analysis_Social-network_content_4.aspx

I am now aware whom to ask to add external link so i am using this page.

Thanks