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

Advice: how to sort and find information in this table

This List has a sortable table. This feature may help you find some information here, without reading the whole table. To "sort" the table based on the contents in a certain column, click on the little symbol with two triangles [inside a square] in any column heading at the top of the table. Then, the symbol should change to a single triangle - pointing upwards or downwards. You can then click again on that [triangle] symbol to toggle the sort order (change ascending to descending order, or vice versa). Or, you can click on a double-triangle symbol, above some other column. For example: it may be useful to sort by Registered users (descending order) or by Global [...] Page ranking [...]. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion on List

I understand that a site must have its own separate Wikipedia article before it will be included as part of this list -- that makes sense. But I call into question the requirement that social networking must be a site's primary purpose. I think we should instead simply define the minimum functions which constitute social networking and then agree upon a minimum number of members to merit inclusion in this list. Then if a site meets these criteria, it should be included -- irrespective of whether social networking is primary.

Consider this: What if the social networking area of a site is a secondary function and yet still itself is much larger than other sites whose sole function is social networking? Why should such a site be excluded merely on account that it provides other services as well?

If you wonder how we should go about defining social networking functions, I submit we can use Wikipedia's own article on social networking as the starting point. It says,

Most services are primarily web-based and provide a collection of various ways for users to interact, such as chat, messaging, email, video, voice chat, file sharing, blogging, discussion groups... ....Some social networks have additional features, such as the ability to create groups that share common interests or affiliations, upload videos, and hold discussions in forums. Geosocial networking co-opts internet mapping services to organize user participation around geographic features and their attributes.

Jeff Mincey (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Vox

A blogging site not Social Networking (primarily anyway)! Wikipedia she shouldn't be an advertisement for sites to get more traffic and members. I suggest this and others be removed? 11:11 29th April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.184.47 (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Zanby

May I ask why both the page for social networking site Zanby and the link from this list page were removed? Tomcat66 g500 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Tomcat66 g500 16:56, 2 January 2008

because the article was speedily deleted as having not established notability per WP:WEB. this list only includes social networking sites which have an article on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Habbo

Habbo should be added. See here.

Habbo is one the world’s largest and fastest growing virtual worlds and social networking services for teenagers. Localized Habbo communities all around the world are visited by millions of teenagers every week.

I understand that social networking has previously not been the main focus of Habbo, but this has changed with the advancement of the Internet, and Web 2.0. Habbo consists of two main features; a virtual world, which is presented in the form of a massage chat room, and user profile in which community members have the ability to express themselves by customizing and sharing content with each other through their own Habbo homepage.

It's clearly a social networking service, hence it should be added to the list. --Supermatique (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the kinds of sites we've discussed before. Sites which weren't social networking, then because of web 2.0 throw a few social networking features on. Does it really make them social networking? This is a marketing description, and social networking is a buzzword (term) right now. If you actually go to the habbo sites themselves, I don't see social networking mentioned on the front page, its only referred to as a virtual world. Regardless of their marketing, the primary focuses seems to remain that of a virtual world.--Crossmr (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. However, websites are changing their standards to meet with how the Internet is today, the service has existed since 2000 — and era when social networking websites weren't really around, they can't be blamed or restricted from being a social networking website just for moving along with the rapid future of technology today. The virtual world is just an advanced Chat room presented in the form of a virtual world which is a service they have made the focal point of their product, just like Last.fm made music the focal point of their service. However, they have not limited user interaction with various other services such as messaging, discussion groups and profiles. --Supermatique (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is blaming them or restricting them. Not being on this list doesn't effect the site in anyway. However we have to look at whether or not social networking is their primary function. And there may be entries on this list which need to be removed. I've made one pass at it in an attempt to clean it up at some of the more obvious one, but each entry needs a little scrutiny to make sure it belongs here. For Habbo, while they've created the ability to have a profile and a friends list, social networking doesn't seem to be their main function, that's the key criterion for being on this list (in addition to being notable and already have an article on wikipedia) Thank you for bringing up Last.fm, because after I've gone and read the page, it doesn't seem like social networking is the primary function there either. Its a good spot to start the cleanup.--Crossmr (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)gfdsgfdsfgdshgf tfdsghf

How is Habbo not a social networking service? Last.fm's primary purpose is radios, that's for sure. Habbo, on the other hand, is as much social networking as social networking can get. From the Social network service here, Habbo fits quite well into the definition. The purpose of Habbo is exactly that, to chat around and meet and make friends, which is exactly what social networking is about. Just because it's a virtual world with animated 2D sprites, doesn't change the fact that its primary function is social networking. Ufopedia (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

giblink.com

I would like to see www.giblink.com added to wikipedia. The site was banned because a past user tried to add the listing, but filled their submission with blatant advertising. A simple listing would cover the bases, and with 26,000 members signing up since September, it would seem this is a legitimate website for small and home-based businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msjvd (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a website to this page, a user has to write the article first. If the article does not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especailly WP:V and WP:RS, it is likely to be deleted. Please do not add a site to this page before that is done. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yuwie and iYomu

I think both of these are notable and should be put on the list. 172.194.15.162 (talk)

Before adding a website to this page, a user has to write the article first. If the article does not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especailly WP:V and WP:RS, it is likely to be deleted. Please do not add a site to this page before that is done. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

seniorennet.be

18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)~

Hi,

I came to this page via google and looked at the list. I am member of www.seniorennet.be. And it is not in the list. There exists a Wikipedia article on it, on the Dutch Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniorennet (didn't found any on the english one)

It is a Belgian website with over 1 000 000 members (I heared a few months ago over 1.3 million; but i am not 100% sure), and all the members are all seniors (50 years or older) and is one of the 10 biggest sites in our country. So it is maybe interesting to add it to the global list.

sorry if I am wrong if it isn't a good site for the list.

Until someone writes an article in English WP, the site should not be on this list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ipernity.com

Maybe you might want to check Ipernity.com, a Flickr-alike growing site, with blog and multimedia file capacity. I have no idea about the number of users. It's France-based but pretty international and growing in Europe.

81.75.222.76 (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless it has an article on wikipedia which meets WP:WEB it won't be added to the list.--Crossmr (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.241.248.235 (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Connectture.com

A very interesting Social Business network which is growing, reminds me a bit of one of the big business networks. Connectture.com has a lot of usable features. Its a multilingual site, right now its in English, Swedish and Danish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.215.181 (talk • contribs) 17:44, January 16, 2008

First it needs an article and to create the article it needs to meet the criteria laid out at WP:NOTE for web content.--Crossmr (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fubar

Why is Fubar not added to this list? I am curious as it's also a community similar to myspace, facebook, bebu, hi5, etc. Ariyen (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because entries are only included in the list if there is a Wikipedia article about the site which satisfies the guidelines at WP:WEB for the inclusion of articles about websites. On this list, the principle of Write the Article First is followed. -- AJR | Talk 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been added now. Haoie (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

vampirefreaks

I think this site should be added. http://vampirefreaks.com/main.php

Its a social networking site inventied for the goth and industrial subcultures, but also has many metalheads, cybergoths and punks on it. I would say its a social netowrking site for people of alternative music subcultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.230.85 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have a Wikipedia article. All entries require Wiki articles to have already been written. You can start the article if you'd like. -- FatalError (t|c) 01:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tuenti.com

Tuenti had a formatting issue that made it appear at the top of the list when sorting by total number of users. I looked at their main Wiki entry and apparently they have had some issue with someone overzealously promoting the site here, so I went ahead and just fixed this for them. Robbiemuffin (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagging with Onesource, Out of date, and Page number

Not sure why you don't understand why I added the 3 template tags: {{Onesource}} because only one of the the registered user numbers is sourced, {{Outofdate}} because the registered users numbers get outdated very quickly, and {{Page number}} because the one source listed just says "New York Times". Libcub (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding WP practice for list articles allows the sourcing to be in the article linked, but because you apparently feel strongly about the tags, I added a second source to justify my removal of the {{Onesource}} tag. I took away the {{Page number}} tag because the source is the online edition of the NYT (which I clarified), and someone has left page numbers off of a lot of the internet. On the {{Outofdate}} tag, could you point to a particular number that is out of date (note from the edit history how frequently this page is updated): it's the whole lighting a candle is better than cursing the darkneness concept: how about helping make the page better like the rest of us rather than just throwing tags around? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of items

Several editors are continually removing other editor's additions to the list, citing Wikipedia:Write the Article First. That page is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It is not appropriate to remove items from the list because of what the essay says. Libcub (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding empty Red links to an article does not add any content or meaning to wikipedia and is an unhelpful contribution.--Hu12 (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against adding social networking sites without a corresponding Wikipedia article. I'm just saying that it isn't appropriate to justify a deletion with an essay. Libcub (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It does represent the Vast majority consensus for inclusion criterion, and avoids the repetative task of repeating the same statement to the hundreds of ip's and WP:SPA accounts spamming redlinks. It need not be policy, however the consensus process, basically, means that the majority of editors can more or less agree that additions should conform with WP:WTAF. Hope that helps.--Hu12 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The references to WP:WTAF are similar to the references to the essay WP:AADD in deletion discussions: the essay reference provides a shorthand (that fits in the edit summary) to the editor's reasoning (which, as Hu points out, is universally shared by the editors who have made the majority of the contributions to this page). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Medical Social Websites like CareFlash.com

How about a Medical Social Website like CareFlash.com? Klostermankl (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Booksie.com

I added Booksie.com but see that it was deleted. I created a page for it so can it now be added. It's one of the biggest literature social networks on the Web that I know of. --Phillanuto (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BannedFromEverywhere

There is no page for this site, also listing contains advertising. I checked out the site and there are only four members. Seeing that other listing where deleted because of this, I removed this listing. Ediciuz (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Floxtar

No page exists for this entry. (And bad formatting.) Removed. Ediciuz (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

urSESSION

What about this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.120.188 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

www.urbanstop.us would be a nice addition to this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tx Nique (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

the "Registered users" Button doesn't work proprely !

it sorts the numbers with faults

~~Mario~~ ~~ 12th March 2008 ~~ ~~ 18 h 22 ~~

Last.fm

I added Last.fm. It has an extensive wikipedia page and definitely deserves a place on this list. Actually, its wikipedia page already linked to this page without it even being on it. Ingridjames (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It was removed because social networking wasn't its primary function. This list is for sites whose primary function is social networking. Social networking seems only to be a footnote in the introduction to this website.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Its slogan is "the social music revolution". It qualifies as much as iLike. -- FatalError (t|c) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

QQ is the biggest SNS in the World!

Check this [1]. I add it to the list with unknown number of users --Zinayida (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

enhancing this article with another column

The most significant thing in social networking is how so many major social networks are launching platforms for third party developers. I'd like to see this article enhanced with a column that lists whether each social network has launched such a platform (like Facebook and Friendster), or has announced support for OpenSocial. The Wikipedia Article on OpenSocial lists about 20 social networks that have announced support for it. I'd like to see that info added to a new, far right column entitled "Platform Support."

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Paulballen (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Social Networking for children

Are there any safe sites available for my 10 and 7 year old daughters? They would like to use one but i am not sure what advice to give. I don't want them to use myspace, bebo etc. and then lie about their ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.236.159 (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't the place to ask. "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." However, you might find this post useful. -- FatalError (t|c) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorting

I know this may not be the place but I cannot sort the table properly using the down button under the column of Registered Users. Does anyone have an idea or a solution? --Jack in the box (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Do you have JavaScript enabled in your browser? -- FatalError (t|c) 01:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the sorting too. I'm using FF2 with NoScript and all scripts allowed. I can sort by the first four coloumns but I can't sort by the Alexa-coloumn. And I sorting by the number users doesn't work correctly as I get this order: [14], 70mio, 9.6mio, 70mio, 68mio, 0.475mio, 0.382906mio, ..., 20mio, 2mio, 110mio, 10mio and then comes all the rest without this cell filled. Sorting by the other three coloumns gives the correct result but that is sorting my letters not numbers. -- JanCK (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well the Alexa column doesn't work for me either; I don't know if it's supposed to. And I didn't notice the problem with the Registered Users column. I'm guessing the <ref> tags are messing it up. -- FatalError (t|c) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The alexa column doesn't wok, because it is missing cells. it needs a whole load of {{ntsh|0}} entries. Mayalld (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Scuzz.com

Would I be able to add this site to the list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuzz#Scuzz.com

It is mentioned under the article on the rock channel Scuzz, and the site can certainly be classed as a Social Networking site. It is a Social Networking Site for Rock/Metal fans who want access to new music, in a similar style to Rockworld.tv, only it allows profiles to be set up, has talk functions and the ability to upload photos, videos and music files, in a similar method to Myspace. Starom (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like another WEB 2.0 mash-up. That doesn't exactly make a site a social networking site because you've tacked on profiles, etc.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sites to Consider

1. SummitPost.org - Climbing/Hiking, Rocks/Mountains
2. BookQube.com - Books
3. EmoEarth.com - Alternative Social Network —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.98.177 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not exactly here to consider sites. There is one criterion to have an article listed on this list: It has an article on wikipedia. However that comes with its own criteria, notably it meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEB. If you feel those sites meet those policies, most importantly WP:WEB, then feel free to create articles based on them and add them to the list.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User Numbers

3 problems: 1. Almost all the user numbers are uncited 2. Those that were cited are often several years out of date 3. The numbers quoted do not match those in the actual article on the site's WP page!

all 3 of thse pose a serious problem in a factual encyclopedia! rather than simply have this page deleted, i've removed all the numbers that seem to have arisen out of the ether/someone's arse and left spaces for nice, cited, utd ones Jw2034 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, i've added (some) of the alexa global rankings for each of the sites. a very crude and NPOV way of judging relative number of current users, but far better than unsourced speculative user numbers Jw2034 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work, BTW ;)--Hu12 (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also like the removal of the uncited numbers and the "unknowns"; thanks for that. I am less happy about the Alexa column: there are big problems with Alexa numbers (statistical bias - see the WP article), but I also think they change too frequently to be encyclopedic or useful: it is kind of like putting the closing stock price on every company article in WP, which we would not currently do. Do you have a big problem if I remove the Alexa column? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i do have a problem. The alexa numbers update frequently, but wikipedia also lists company operating profits (updated quaterly or more) and further, data on sports scores and events, updated near instantaneously. Yes, there is some bias - particularly in the number of page hits - in the alexa data, but the alexa ranking generally strongly correlates with the number of users of the social networking site. Besides, for at least the top 5 by alexa ranking, there are few people who wouldnt disagree that those 5 are certainly the largest and have the most active users. Either way, the alexa data is npov, far better than 'numbers of users' which may be a)inflated by advertisers (a major problem with this article continuously), b) inflated by users, c)from a news article 2 years out of date (i've corrected this particualrly in the case of facebook) d)not count active users (which the alexa data at least gives a idea of). Further, the alexa ranking cannot be manipulated - if alexa says it's 1000'th globally, then it is that!

A major problem on this page is spammers artificially inflating popularity of adlinked sites - the alexa data may not be perfect, but it is a better, npov, unmanipulatable (at least by single users). Anyway, there is a link to alexa in the article itself, where such statistical matters are addressed and the reader can make up their own mind as to precision. Can also add Google Pagerank figures, which should help. Jw2034 (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that each cited user number should include within the cell the date (or at least the year) that the number was current. The reasoning being that having the information all laid out in a table form begs for the reader to compare the sites. As it is not obvious that the numbers weren't obtained at the same time, aren't always current, and may even be multiple years old, the comparison the reader makes as they analyze the information is an unfair one. Does this make sense, or am I just out of it right now? SidShakal (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Selective lists of competitors on main website page

Another thing i've noticed is websites listed here tend to give something like 'similar to Myspace, Facebook, etc...' in their description. Since this list is selective, and tend to be 'similar to big popular website' it clearly raises issues with NPOV and advertising in articles. Ideally, all such comparisions should be made to this article instead Jw2034 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and replaced with a different company

Why was college tonight deleted from the list? Blm0303 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A mystery. This site appears to qualify for listing, and no explanation for its removal was offered by the editor that removed it, so restored. Mayalld (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) Blm0303 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, meant to revert another spam edit. College tonight is ok to be added. Jw2034 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How does one indicate that a listed social network has shut down?

I noticed that Consumating.com is on the list, but it shut down on March 14, 2008 -- according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumating

I think it should perhaps remain on the list.. but with an added column of its closed status? Especially since there many be more of these sites that end up shutting down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhfive (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should cover notable historical sites as well as present ones, since the article's part of an encyclopedia, rather than merely a web directory of present-day sites. --Delirium (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexa numbers should be removed

Alexa is not useful for this page -- it has an English-speaking bias and many of these websites are international. Shii (tock) 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexa recently changed its methodology -- I'm not saying that it no longer has any English-speaking bias, but it's a reasonable metric that is freely obtainable. Compete.com or Comscore numbers might be better, but they're expensive to obtain, I think. (Alexa has incorporated ISP traffic data, so it's not just using its toolbar anymore)

I vote to leave the Alexa numbers in for at least some metric of traffic because user registrations numbers can be vastly inflated and traffic can offer at least some hint as to whether the user numbers are generating a proportional amount of traffic.

Mhhfive (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, hence unfortunately will have a bias towards English sites anyway!Jw2034 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we should exacerbate it with data from American ISPs and English speakers using the toolbar. Shii (tock) 15:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

English Speakers RUNNING WINDOWS AND IE using the toolbar, actually, which makes it even more biased. --194.202.236.116 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Youtube

If Flick is in the list, Youtube should be there too, as it's a video-blogging platform where you can build a network of "favorite users/channels" and post video-comments on video-blog pages. Jcak77 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is a video sharing site. Flikr is a photo sharing site. Neither are social networking sites, and should not appear hereJw2034 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is the definition of social networking site, "A social network service uses software to build online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others," then both Flickr and YouTube should definitely be included in the list of social networking services. In Flickr you can join groups to post and discuss specific types of photographs. You can also add contacts who form a network of people who view and comment on your pics. YouTube, similarly, allows you to add contacts who are alerted when you post new videos. You can also not only comment on videos, but video reply to videos. There is also a video blogging feature (called vlogging). Both of these sites provide the infrastructure to interact with others in a social networking style, they just have a specific medium in which the social networking is fashioned around. They may not fit the original Friendster or Orkut format of social networking, but they're definitely indicative of the direction that social networking is headed. Barefootmeg (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC

read:
http://www.youtube.com/t/about 'Founded in February 2005, YouTube is the leader in online video, and the premier destination to watch and share original videos worldwide through a Web experience. YouTube allows people to easily upload and share video clips on www.YouTube.com and across the Internet through websites, mobile devices, blogs, and email.'

you can also have: YouTube, quote 'YouTube is a video sharing website where users can upload, view and share video clips'

youtube is a video sharing site, as defined by Video hosting service it it not primarity a social networking site as defined by Social networking site and should not appear hereJw2034 (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bug/Misformatting?

The last two columns cannot be sorted (the Alexa rank and Users ones) in Firefox 2.0.x.x on Windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.177.26 (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong planet

The article's listing of popular and high-traffic discussion boards should include Wrong Planet, an online community and social networking site for members diagnosed with Autism and Asperger's syndrome. The site is where many autistic adults sought advice in social situations they find difficult and to promote a sense of community among others with their neurological disorder. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad numbers for spaces.live.com

The numbers for windows live spaces are inaccurate. They include *all* traffic to live.com, only 4% of which is actually to spaces.live.com. Alexa only shows stats for top level domains.

Quantcast shows much more realistic numbers for the spaces subdomain: http://www.quantcast.com/spaces.live.com 64.81.57.203 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

funny counting

wtf? File:Http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/227/clipboard01jb4.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.217.115 (talk) 01:56, 1 June, 2006 (UTC)

Giving external link to image above: [2] --real_decimic 05:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Geni.com registered users

The number of 15,000,000 users registered on geni.com is simply false! The number refers to profiles. A member can add as many profiles to his family tree as he/she wants. That does not mean that the person he added to the family tree is registered but that there is some info on the person in Geni's database. The correct number would have to be YXZ family trees, because there has to be at least 1 user registered on geni.com to build a family tree and this is probably a much smaller number. Newbie1980 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie1980 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaboodle

Kaboodle is not on the list but does have a wikipedia entry. Kaboodle is primarily a social shopping site that uses social networking as the engine to drive traffic. This usage of social networking, (similar sites are thisnext and zlio) that is increasing.Bealby (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) bealbyBealby (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why no Pitch Buzz?

There is a list of social networks and almost all of them have wikipedia pages. Pitchbuzz.com is also a social network and should be listed and have a page . It has members and is fully functional. I have made several attempts to create a page for the site but they are always deleted. Pitch Buzz should not continue to be over looked.

Thank you,

Star788 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star788 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See the guidelines for notability WP:WEB. Unless the site meets those criteria it cannot have a page and cannot have an entry on this list.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Add Spoke.com

Help! someone, I'm lost editing the table! Someone please add Spoke.com. It's FAQ claims: "Spoke gives you access to over 40 million businesspeople at over 2.3 million companies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.209.133 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is Digg and Reddit

What trash is this list. --Leladax (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Digg and reddit and other sites like them were discussed long ago. Their primary focus is not social networking. --221.143.25.19 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

obviously that 'old' discussion had no idea what it was talking about. --Leladax (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You feel digg and reddit have the same focus on social networking that a place like Facebook has? These sites have a primary focus of sharing links. There is no requirement to partake in social networking to use the site. You don't need to network with many people to share the links, nor do you need to network with many people to view the links. While compared to Facebook where most of the features are fairly useless/boring without doing any social networking.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

it's not what you think it is, it's what people talk about when they say 'social networking'. digg is constantly listed with that description. --Leladax (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And so is any other site which has some kind of web2.0 mashup. It doesn't make them a site whose primary function is social networking. Everyone wants to be a social networking site because its the hippest thing to be right now. Next year it will be something else. This list is concerned with sites whose primary function is social networking.--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

this is ridiculous, wikipedia is not the soapbox of pedantic use of language. It's a double standard having that behavior here and another elsewhere in wikipedia. I don't care what's the proper way to do it, but it certainly isn't to do it differently in different parts of wikipedia. --Leladax (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't ridiculous and calling it such doesn't make your case. The issue of mashups and sites which aren't primarily social networking has come up several times in the past in this article. The editors have always agreed and abided by the fact that the sites must be primarily concerned with social networking, otherwise we would end up with a flood of sites who really just tacked on a "friends" system and try to call their site a social networking site. I can make a friend's list on my userpage here on wikipedia, is wikipedia suddenly a social networking site? I don't think so. Much like some news corporations have "blogs" which aren't really blogs, just renamed articles or op ed pieces, some sites take the term social networking purely for marketing value and not because it is what they actually do. There has never been any double standard in that.--Crossmr (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"I can make a friend's list on my userpage here on wikipedia, is wikipedia suddenly a social networking site?" Why not? Don't be a fanatic, wikipedia has done such things in the past and keeps doing them. --Leladax (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Insults don't make your point. The point was that many editors decided that only sites whose primary function is social networking should be listed here. Other sites who have other primary functions will find themselves on other lists, such as dating sites.--Crossmr (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a double standard having that behavior here and another elsewhere in wikipedia. Which article(s) are you referring to, Leladax? --Bonadea (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Digg and reddit are not predominantly social networking sites. The are blogging and newsfeed sites. Same as youtube is a video sharing site first, with some aspects of social networking (see talk above) - it is not predominantly a social networking site, therefore it stays off the list (and any attempt to add it will be immediately reverted) Jw2034 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Luach.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luach.com

As the Wiki page says "Luach.com is a Jewish community online bulletin board, sometimes referred to as the "Jewish Craigslist" in which members of the Jewish communities of more than 40 North American cities, or in Europe or Israel"

This is the largest Jewish Community Classified website in the world with an average of 30,000 unique vistors a month.

Can someone add this for me. I don't know how.

Mse25 (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: A new site is here. It's registered, live and still under improvement. www.realfakeworld.com It's an open and new world for users (members/ businesses) to create their ideal new world. It was launched in 2008 in the UK but is not limit to the UK. Giving the world the opportunity to create what they want rather than being force fed what they have to have and get used to.

Real Person @ Real Fake World —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realfakeworld (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Military Science

Military Science Online databases and Military Science Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.232.218 (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Hyves is certainly not especially for students. It's for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.204.129.239 (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

xiaonei.com

Hi, I couldn't see xiaonei.com on the list. I has the highest traffic for social networks in China according to Alexa.

Site: http://xiaonei.com/ Info: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/xiaonei Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaonei

Worth adding? Still new and reading up on how to use Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybergen (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Going to remove the active users column

Just a heads up: it makes no sense to have a column where only 7 of the 100+ entries have entries, especially since the active users has almost a perfect linear relationship to the regisetered users for those sites. Also, the sorting does not work on a column that has blank entires. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ZenZuu.com

I believe zenzuu.com should be added to the list as they have over 170,000 members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortex6930 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the number of Facebook users incorrect?

The articles refers to http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-9973826-36.html which shows it had ~124m unique visitors not registered.

Should it be changed to the more reliable figure of ~110 as posted on http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics ?

Cybergen

Hyves

Where's Hyves? It has a page on the English Wikipedia, it is by far the largest social network in the Netherlands with 1/3 of the Dutch having a page (5 million, including the prime minister and many many Dutch artists) and 2 million non-Dutch and still growing very fast. 192.87.23.21 (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered adding it yourself? Mayalld (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's there already Jw2034 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wireclub

Disclaimer: I am one of the owners of Wireclub.

Just wondering what would be necessary to get our social network (wireclub.com) added to Wikipedia's list. I think we are 'notable' - at least I hope we are. We have just over a million members now (http://www.prweb.com/releases/wireclub/chat/prweb1704224.htm). Unlike other revenue-oriented social networks, Wireclub is a community-oriented service where the user experience is the main concern. It would mean the world to us to be mentioned on Wikipedia.

Rod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.78.2 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wireclub doesnt exist. 'Wireclub is a community-oriented service where the user experience is the main concern' sounds like advertising, which is against wikipedia policy. if you create the page Wireclub, and have it stand, it mkaes the list. simple. Jw2034 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rod: I read it somewhere that I am not supposed to create a page for a business I own. I don't know much about how Wikipedia works so please bear with me. Should I create a page to see if it stands or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.78.2 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:WTAF. There is no reason why the owner, employees or anyone involved of a business cannot - its the same situation as a film star or a footballer being able to edit their own page; there are no specific rules against it as long as the page remains within wikipedia guidelines. In this case in particular find 3rd party reviews, sources that arn't your site and that are reputable, verifiable and notable as per WP:NOTE, WP:CITE and ensure the article doesnt read like an advert as per Wikipedia:Spam. as an example all pages currently on the list meet this guidance and are checked to ensure they manitain a neutral point of view. it may also help to sign up for an account and declare your interest on your own talk page, although this should not be necessary Jw2034 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Univision.com

Hi. I manage product development for Univision.com, but didn't know if I should add Univision.com myself to the list. We recently passed 1 million social networking profiles, and I thought that this milestone merited us being added to the list. Our social network is powered by a company called Onesite, and profile count can be viewed in real-time by visiting the following URL. http://univision.onesite.com/. Please let me know if you'd like any more info, and perhaps someone would be willing to add us? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnivisionDeveloper (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

N For anybody considering this, the user has been blocked for self-promotion and - looking into it - the site doesn't warrant an entry. As I understand it, "onesite" hosts social networking sites. Ergo, univision isn't a site in its own right. So, no, this shouldn't be added. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 22:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation?

A page like that would be great in the french wikipedia. Thanks for any effort. 04:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.167.56 (talk)

Panoramio

I suggest the inclusion of Panoramio on the list. I think it's considered a social network since it's a geotagged blogged user photo gallery and has quite a userbase, besides its interaction with Google Earth.