|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program.|
How is the mention of Twitter vs the FTC related to Geosocial networking? Twitter may have geosocial capabilities and features, but the site is not dedicated solely to geosocial networking, and even if it was, the section seems to be about problems with Twitter in general. Parcanman (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggested it, but I'm not committed one way or the other. Google numbers favor geosocial (97,000 references) over geo-social (11,000 references). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't start the proposal, but I agree with it. The destination page (Geo-social networking vs Geosocial networking) was not decided, but I like Geo-social networking better so I picked it. Also, Geo-social was started April 27, 2007 while Geosocial was started July 12, 2007, making Geo-social older. --TIB (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I think one aspect that needs to be considered as the content of Geosocial networking expands is whether this article will stand on its own or if it might be a valuable addition as a section of an already existing article. If it remains a separate article, then a lead should be developed to give an overview of geosocial networking and its relevancy among the abundance of social networking options that currently exist. What are some ideas for the different sections of the article? One part of the article that I find very interesting is geosocial networking being used in disaster scenarios to develop awareness about hazards and disaster aid. Are there examples of this process that have actually been used to address disaster scenarios? That would be great information to include, and I think a valuable area to expand on. What would the specifics of that process be and how would it help people? Are there sources that discuss it? A citation would be really helpful for that. Another area that caught my eye is some of the terminology being used - I think it might be difficult to understand some of it, so it may be helpful to provide a little more detail and simplification for terms such as hotspot trilateration, collaboratively filtered geotag information, KML, and query software. One more observation I have is about the separate References and Sources sections. Are the articles under Sources meant to be external links for further reading? Or are they going to eventually be incorporated into the article as sources? I hope some of this is helpful! Gsrogers (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion. The major difference I see between geosocial networking and other forms of social networking is the centrality of GPS technology and how that changes the way the networks are formed. For instance, Facebook or Google+ more or less rely on networks of social circles. While its possible to engage with people outside the "6 degrees of separation" if you will, its less likely. It seems to me that we are more likely to friend people we already know or who know people we already know. This of course assumes we are using Facebook for personal networking. Other kinds of networking may be desired in different use cases. I use the first comparison because when I think of geosocial networking I think of apps like Grindr or Blendr who's use is to facilitate networking between people based off of their geolocation rather than familiarity. I think focusing on why it is distinct from something like Myspace or Facebook is crucial to the article being useful.
As for the writing itself, I think leaving it as its own page for the short term will allow it to develop its own specifics and once that is hammered down we should consider folding it into a more comprehensive article, at least as a short summary with a link to this page.
I think the first sentence of the lead is great - and does a good job of summarizing the concept briefly. The article's name implies that it is about the social aspects of geotechnologies - so I wonder whether the segment about the disaster scenarios is relevant, or should perhaps take a back seat to the purely social uses. Before anything else - I think sourcing needs to be improved. Once more references have been added I would suggest summarizing the most popular types of geosocial networks - maybe find data that gives the amount of users currently accessing varied networks? In the history section you could include a very brief overview of the rise of social networking in general and then speak about how geosocial networking arrived and began integrating itself into the already established market. It seems like the privacy concerns section as well as the additional features section are a solid foundation that could use some expansion. I agree with Gsrogers that some terms could be explained (very briefly) in addition to linking them. Photos of some geosocial networking interfaces could make great images. I think the article has a lot of potential and with a little more expansion could be really useful. Clairestum (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Great picture Hayes! You might want to reduce the image size just a few pixels smaller. I'm not going to edit it for you so you can decide for yourself how small you want. But great job on the pictures. user:SoAuthentic 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)