Scoble responsible for destroying the utility of the social graph

The other day I was talking with someone who works at Facebook. She and I were having a fun conversation about number of followers and all that. At one point she emailed back that I was “destroying the utility of the social graph.”

How did I do that? By adding people who actually were not my “real” friends.

I asked her to define “real.”

Anyway, this morning, in the comments of my Facebook post I saw a comment from someone named “facebook user” that said “people may not be leaving, but i know plenty of folks who are trimming their friend lists down to true personal friends.”

Ahh, have you ever thought that this is behavior that Facebook wants you to do?

After all, how can they recommend the best sushi restaurant to you if you’ve added people you don’t even know?

Hint: the Facebook employee is right. I have destroyed the utility of the social graph — from her point of view. But I’m there to study patterns of early adopter behavior. For ME my social graph brings me stuff that no one else’s social graph brings.

Which points to what I want in the future: multiple social graphs for different things.

See, I know that Dori Smith (she’s one of the two people who convinced me to start blogging) is a Javascript expert who works in Sonoma. So, I bet she’s also somewhat expert on wine. But, I doubt she’s expert on baby strollers or Half Moon Bay restaurants. So, I want to add her to my “wine” social network. Who would be #1 there? Gary Vaynerchuk, owner of winelibrary.tv, of course. He knows more about wine than anyone else I know.

I really hate the word “friend.” It has no meaning anymore. No one can define what a friend is. Believe me, I’ve asked dozens of people to define it for me. My wife is my most “true” friend, for instance but if you trust her with picking a great wine (she doesn’t drink much) or picking a great sushi restaurant (she hates the stuff) you’ll be very disappointed. You’d be better off asking @garyvee about the wine even though you’ve never met him and he probably wouldn’t be listed among your “true” friends.

This is one reason why I like Twitter and friendfeed. Friendfeed in particular lets me follow different people with different contexts. I can put @garyvee into a “wine” folder, for instance. But I can also put him into “social media innovators.” Twitter doesn’t let me do that, but Twitter also doesn’t try to force me to subscribe to only my “true” friends.

Anyway, in the past eight years I’ve met many thousands of people face-to-face. Just last week I sent off more than 1,000 business cards to Allen Stern’s new business, CloudContacts (and that’s only a small fraction of the ones I’ve collected since I’ve started blogging). His business is scanning them and will build me a new social graph that I’ll bring into friendfeed and other places to study. I can’t wait.

Regarding whether I’ve destroyed the utility of the social graph: that’s up to me to decide, not you. Not Facebook. Not my commenter. I get great utility out of what I’m doing. I see patterns before most other people do and those patterns are getting more and more useful. A year ago I didn’t have the ability to search Tweets or friendfeed items. Today I have very rich search features so I can go through my like feed, for instance, and find every item that mentions Evernote.

Think that’s not important? Well, Feedly, a company that makes a small toolbar that sits at the bottom of Firefox, is using friendfeed’s search API to find people who’ve said stuff about the pages you’ve visited. This is a new kind of application that simply was not possible a year ago.

Yeah, I’ve destroyed the utility of the social graph, but on the other side is a whole new world that I’m discovering has great utility. You must destroy before you can build. Go have fun with your social graph and stop taking this friend thing too seriously. :-)

Comments

  1. Hey Robert. Excellent point and I also agree with this. Lately, I’ve created a Facebook Fan Page and am directing people there. I hate the word “fans” but it helps to differentiate my true friends on Facebook and those that I’m simply connected to via the web. I have 760 friends on Facebook but the value of that to me may be high but socially, the graph is broken.

    Twitter and FriendFeed have great tactics and Twitter is certainly lagging behind FriendFeed at this time (IE groups) but certainly a follower that you don’t have to follow back is excellent and one ups Myspace and Facebook where mutual relationships must be created.

    I, for one, miss the Facebook Social Timeline. It’s buried now but was my favorite part of Facebook and I wish we could bring it back to the forefront.

    Thanks for the post and I’ll try out Feedly. I wish you and I could have sat down at SXSWi but we both kept passing each other in the halls. Maybe next year.

  2. Hey Robert. Excellent point and I also agree with this. Lately, I’ve created a Facebook Fan Page and am directing people there. I hate the word “fans” but it helps to differentiate my true friends on Facebook and those that I’m simply connected to via the web. I have 760 friends on Facebook but the value of that to me may be high but socially, the graph is broken.

    Twitter and FriendFeed have great tactics and Twitter is certainly lagging behind FriendFeed at this time (IE groups) but certainly a follower that you don’t have to follow back is excellent and one ups Myspace and Facebook where mutual relationships must be created.

    I, for one, miss the Facebook Social Timeline. It’s buried now but was my favorite part of Facebook and I wish we could bring it back to the forefront.

    Thanks for the post and I’ll try out Feedly. I wish you and I could have sat down at SXSWi but we both kept passing each other in the halls. Maybe next year.

  3. Glad you said that because, although I ditched Facebook altogether a few weeks ago and have no plans to return, I am on LinkedIn and MySpace as well as Twitter and, if I had to reduce my contacts to my close personal friends, the three of us might as well just stick with Skype and forget the rest! LOL

  4. Glad you said that because, although I ditched Facebook altogether a few weeks ago and have no plans to return, I am on LinkedIn and MySpace as well as Twitter and, if I had to reduce my contacts to my close personal friends, the three of us might as well just stick with Skype and forget the rest! LOL

  5. I’m amused that the Facebook employee didn’t realize the irony of the fact that with their recent redesign they’ve done a better job of destroying the value of the social graph on their site than a thousand Robert Scobles adding anyone & everyone to their “friend” list.

  6. I’m amused that the Facebook employee didn’t realize the irony of the fact that with their recent redesign they’ve done a better job of destroying the value of the social graph on their site than a thousand Robert Scobles adding anyone & everyone to their “friend” list.

  7. I will have to look into Friendfeed in order to put “different people into different contexts”. I have two accounts on Twitter: one is for my company and revolves around the telecom space, and the other is more for me and is a little more personal. I just went through my company account and unfollowed those who didn’t have anything to do with telecommunications in order to better follow those in my industry. It has worked well, and I have been thinking about how I can do that for other groups like small business or website optimization. And maybe group that is just friends, whatever I determine that to be.

  8. I will have to look into Friendfeed in order to put “different people into different contexts”. I have two accounts on Twitter: one is for my company and revolves around the telecom space, and the other is more for me and is a little more personal. I just went through my company account and unfollowed those who didn’t have anything to do with telecommunications in order to better follow those in my industry. It has worked well, and I have been thinking about how I can do that for other groups like small business or website optimization. And maybe group that is just friends, whatever I determine that to be.

  9. It’s good that Linnet Woods mentions LinkedIn, because LinkedIn is the prime example of a place where you can use introductions to connect to people that you have never met in real life, and achieve real benefits (a position, a consulting gig, whatever) because of it. While Facebook’s approach isn’t necessarily wrong, one could claim that Facebook’s approach “destroys the workings of the economy.”

    And even if you’re not trying to get a job, there’s always the possibility of learning things. I can learn many things from my Facebook contacts. I can learn many more things from my FriendFeed contacts.

  10. It’s good that Linnet Woods mentions LinkedIn, because LinkedIn is the prime example of a place where you can use introductions to connect to people that you have never met in real life, and achieve real benefits (a position, a consulting gig, whatever) because of it. While Facebook’s approach isn’t necessarily wrong, one could claim that Facebook’s approach “destroys the workings of the economy.”

    And even if you’re not trying to get a job, there’s always the possibility of learning things. I can learn many things from my Facebook contacts. I can learn many more things from my FriendFeed contacts.

  11. Simply put, you are correct. You have to destroy to create. This is one of the fundamental principles of creation.

    And I also have to agree with the word “friend” losing its meaning in the social networking world. Facebook telling me “You are now friends with Jennifer” when Jennifer is my Sister, is simply ridiculous. Likewise telling me that about people I barely know is ridiculous. I am now “connected with them” on Facebook.

    I’ve recently started using FriendFeed (at your video suggestion) and am amazed at how that has opened my ability to see what’s going on around me -on all these social network sites.

    And why shouldn’t you have as many “friends” as you want? For whatever reasons you want. It’s not your job or ours to make Facebook’s programming tasks easier by limiting our possibilities or opportunities.

  12. Simply put, you are correct. You have to destroy to create. This is one of the fundamental principles of creation.

    And I also have to agree with the word “friend” losing its meaning in the social networking world. Facebook telling me “You are now friends with Jennifer” when Jennifer is my Sister, is simply ridiculous. Likewise telling me that about people I barely know is ridiculous. I am now “connected with them” on Facebook.

    I’ve recently started using FriendFeed (at your video suggestion) and am amazed at how that has opened my ability to see what’s going on around me -on all these social network sites.

    And why shouldn’t you have as many “friends” as you want? For whatever reasons you want. It’s not your job or ours to make Facebook’s programming tasks easier by limiting our possibilities or opportunities.

  13. Gawd, you are such an asshole! I don’t know who is worse, you or Arrington.

    No wait, Arrington is

  14. Gawd, you are such an asshole! I don’t know who is worse, you or Arrington.

    No wait, Arrington is

  15. Robert, this is the number one issue around “social media” … and the crux of much of the confusion about social media sites IMO. From twitter’s “asymmetric” follow to Facebook friends/fans to friendfeed’s “subscribe.”

    Given Facebook’s rule of “no pseudonymity”, people tend to infer that Facebook “friends” should be “friends In Real Life” – which I reject completely. I’ve “unfriended” family, co-workers and “in real life” friends for various reasons. I also have “Facebook friends” I haven’t met (yet).

    I’ll save the discussion of “what makes me unfriend you” for another time.
    Oh dear – I’ve really “overdone” the “quotations” :)

  16. Robert, this is the number one issue around “social media” … and the crux of much of the confusion about social media sites IMO. From twitter’s “asymmetric” follow to Facebook friends/fans to friendfeed’s “subscribe.”

    Given Facebook’s rule of “no pseudonymity”, people tend to infer that Facebook “friends” should be “friends In Real Life” – which I reject completely. I’ve “unfriended” family, co-workers and “in real life” friends for various reasons. I also have “Facebook friends” I haven’t met (yet).

    I’ll save the discussion of “what makes me unfriend you” for another time.
    Oh dear – I’ve really “overdone” the “quotations” :)

  17. Hi Robert,

    Thanks for this great post! If you agreed, I would say this is not only a great post but also one of the best introduction I have read to the company I am running.

    Pearltrees builds a collaborative map of the Web : each user creates, edit and organize the maps of its Web navigations. Users’ account are the living maps and sub-maps of their favorite contents.

    As a consequence, Pearltrees enable the type of experience you described in your post… and even beyond.

    Users can put other user’s maps in their own maps : the “Bordeaux rouge”s map of one user and the “californian champain”‘s map of another user into their own “wine map”. Other user’s can then take the later “wine map” into their “great meal” or their “grate life” own maps… By doing so, they not only separate information according to their context: they organize information and build its context.

    There is much more. As each user is drawing her own public map of the Web, she contributes to the very substance of Pearltrees : an humanly edited map of the Web –an interest graph, if you prefer- through which everyone can now browse freely.

    Would like an example? Just check my account at http://www.pearltrees.com/patrice . Or – much better- would you directly like to join pearltrees community ? please type http://www.pearltrees.com.

    Patrice Lamothe
    CEO of Pearltrees

  18. Hi Robert,

    Thanks for this great post! If you agreed, I would say this is not only a great post but also one of the best introduction I have read to the company I am running.

    Pearltrees builds a collaborative map of the Web : each user creates, edit and organize the maps of its Web navigations. Users’ account are the living maps and sub-maps of their favorite contents.

    As a consequence, Pearltrees enable the type of experience you described in your post… and even beyond.

    Users can put other user’s maps in their own maps : the “Bordeaux rouge”s map of one user and the “californian champain”‘s map of another user into their own “wine map”. Other user’s can then take the later “wine map” into their “great meal” or their “grate life” own maps… By doing so, they not only separate information according to their context: they organize information and build its context.

    There is much more. As each user is drawing her own public map of the Web, she contributes to the very substance of Pearltrees : an humanly edited map of the Web –an interest graph, if you prefer- through which everyone can now browse freely.

    Would like an example? Just check my account at http://www.pearltrees.com/patrice . Or – much better- would you directly like to join pearltrees community ? please type http://www.pearltrees.com.

    Patrice Lamothe
    CEO of Pearltrees

  19. I consider myself a common user of social networks…one that doesn’t live in SF or NY or anywhere hip to have initials, for most of my “friends” it’s family + friends in real life + one degree of separation…works great for me. Following 100 or 1000 ppl is impossible and for most of us we couldn’t get 1000 followers if our life depended on it.

  20. I consider myself a common user of social networks…one that doesn’t live in SF or NY or anywhere hip to have initials, for most of my “friends” it’s family + friends in real life + one degree of separation…works great for me. Following 100 or 1000 ppl is impossible and for most of us we couldn’t get 1000 followers if our life depended on it.

  21. I should think, that one of the purposes of social networks is to meet and engage people in discussions who may share common interests who you may not have otherwise met do to geographical differences. Part of the problem in this discussion may be the need to redefine terms such as “friend” when discussing Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed…. since they really twist the term in ways it was not meant to be used.

  22. I should think, that one of the purposes of social networks is to meet and engage people in discussions who may share common interests who you may not have otherwise met do to geographical differences. Part of the problem in this discussion may be the need to redefine terms such as “friend” when discussing Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed…. since they really twist the term in ways it was not meant to be used.

  23. Bring on change. Feedly, Socialmedian, FriendFeed, Twitter and Facebook are all changing the way we interact and find people. Don’t let somebody else do the defining for you.

  24. Bring on change. Feedly, Socialmedian, FriendFeed, Twitter and Facebook are all changing the way we interact and find people. Don’t let somebody else do the defining for you.

  25. That’s actually really funny. My wife was doing the exact same thing today, deleting contacts she didn’t know well. I didn’t pick up on the connection.

  26. That’s actually really funny. My wife was doing the exact same thing today, deleting contacts she didn’t know well. I didn’t pick up on the connection.

  27. Friend: Someone of value to you that is ranked slightly higher than an acquaintance.

    Most internet “friends” aren’t at all. They’re acquaintances.

  28. Friend: Someone of value to you that is ranked slightly higher than an acquaintance.

    Most internet “friends” aren’t at all. They’re acquaintances.

  29. I just love it when people start to equate the random ppl with whom they casually twitter or “follow,” as “real friends”. Although, I have developed great friendships over time online, I would have to say that the majority of them are better categorized as associates, than “real friends”. Real friends are there for you through thick and thin…and thin doesn’t scare them! Real friends have positive things to say to you when you most need it. And, they show up when you have triumphs as well. I value *all* of my associations but I am not at all unnerved that at any given time an online “friend” may “unfollow” you. That may have nothing to do with ME.

  30. I just love it when people start to equate the random ppl with whom they casually twitter or “follow,” as “real friends”. Although, I have developed great friendships over time online, I would have to say that the majority of them are better categorized as associates, than “real friends”. Real friends are there for you through thick and thin…and thin doesn’t scare them! Real friends have positive things to say to you when you most need it. And, they show up when you have triumphs as well. I value *all* of my associations but I am not at all unnerved that at any given time an online “friend” may “unfollow” you. That may have nothing to do with ME.

  31. But this post brings up the modern dilemna: “What is the definition of an online friend”. We hold our real life friends to different demands. In Facebook, my friends can either be family members, friends or friends of friends. I message anyone I have no connection with that wants to friend me on Facebook to do it through Twitter (and I will follow them back). Twitter=public, Facebook is people I know or am connected with. We need to think of a better term in Facebook then “friend”. But Facebook was started for College students. I think the social graph needs to be re-worked now that Facebook is being used by “everyone”.

    How about “friends” and “online community friend”. Online community friend means you connected with them online but may have never met them. Friends should really be people that you actually spend time with. But there is no way to break out friends in Facebook versus online friend (other then lists…)

  32. But this post brings up the modern dilemna: “What is the definition of an online friend”. We hold our real life friends to different demands. In Facebook, my friends can either be family members, friends or friends of friends. I message anyone I have no connection with that wants to friend me on Facebook to do it through Twitter (and I will follow them back). Twitter=public, Facebook is people I know or am connected with. We need to think of a better term in Facebook then “friend”. But Facebook was started for College students. I think the social graph needs to be re-worked now that Facebook is being used by “everyone”.

    How about “friends” and “online community friend”. Online community friend means you connected with them online but may have never met them. Friends should really be people that you actually spend time with. But there is no way to break out friends in Facebook versus online friend (other then lists…)

  33. Great points Robert, which in part also seem to mirror some of what Steve Gillmor is saying in his TC post today (in his usual wonkish way, though still pretty readable):

    “Whoever conquers Track will be like those who made music and pictures come out of thin air, coursing over invisible wires and virtual rabbit ears. The big networks emerged out of that soup, and to this day they remain powerful beacons. Now the social media clouds are forming, and they have no choice but to confront and conquer the microstream.”

    techcrunchit.com/2009/03/22/please-stand-by/

    You’ve been working on conquering Track via Friendfeed as you describe. It’s definitely one of the main if not THE problem of our time, since attention has already become the only truly scarce resource in this information economy. For the same reason of I’ve recently been experimenting with using Thunderbird to import my Twitter “with Friends” RSS stream and use simple (email client) message filters to accomplish similar things.

    On a much lighter note, whenever the topic turns to the “true” meaning of Facebook friends, it might help to remember the following (as per Dickipedia):

    “In 2004, Zuckerberg debuted a primitive online social networking site called Facebook, named for the annual publication that collegiate upper classmen use to identify attractive freshmen girls with low self-esteem. At the time, Zukerberg planned to offer the service only to students within the Ivy League, because, as is widely known, Ivy League students have long had problems finding ways to network with one another.”

    Cheers!

  34. Great points Robert, which in part also seem to mirror some of what Steve Gillmor is saying in his TC post today (in his usual wonkish way, though still pretty readable):

    “Whoever conquers Track will be like those who made music and pictures come out of thin air, coursing over invisible wires and virtual rabbit ears. The big networks emerged out of that soup, and to this day they remain powerful beacons. Now the social media clouds are forming, and they have no choice but to confront and conquer the microstream.”

    techcrunchit.com/2009/03/22/please-stand-by/

    You’ve been working on conquering Track via Friendfeed as you describe. It’s definitely one of the main if not THE problem of our time, since attention has already become the only truly scarce resource in this information economy. For the same reason of I’ve recently been experimenting with using Thunderbird to import my Twitter “with Friends” RSS stream and use simple (email client) message filters to accomplish similar things.

    On a much lighter note, whenever the topic turns to the “true” meaning of Facebook friends, it might help to remember the following (as per Dickipedia):

    “In 2004, Zuckerberg debuted a primitive online social networking site called Facebook, named for the annual publication that collegiate upper classmen use to identify attractive freshmen girls with low self-esteem. At the time, Zukerberg planned to offer the service only to students within the Ivy League, because, as is widely known, Ivy League students have long had problems finding ways to network with one another.”

    Cheers!

  35. Lijit is doing some interesting things, but its also not disclosing ANY guidance moving forward on its ability to remain solvent. The Publishers Union of Bloggers advises ANY publisher installing or using Lijit have either a visible or invisible search alternative to back things up in case Lijit becomes insolvent and publishers search/content is offered to the highest bidder.

    Will keep all posted if the Union of individual P.U.B.’s learn more,

    Barney Moran
    P.U.B.

  36. Lijit is doing some interesting things, but its also not disclosing ANY guidance moving forward on its ability to remain solvent. The Publishers Union of Bloggers advises ANY publisher installing or using Lijit have either a visible or invisible search alternative to back things up in case Lijit becomes insolvent and publishers search/content is offered to the highest bidder.

    Will keep all posted if the Union of individual P.U.B.’s learn more,

    Barney Moran
    P.U.B.

  37. I believe you should focus on Twitter and your WP blog. With these others sites (FB and FF) you divert valuable time away from your true potential.

    Twitter = news. Blogs = content. Plug in Adsense and you’re in business. Email to verify identity. That’s all you need. Keep it simple.

  38. I believe you should focus on Twitter and your WP blog. With these others sites (FB and FF) you divert valuable time away from your true potential.

    Twitter = news. Blogs = content. Plug in Adsense and you’re in business. Email to verify identity. That’s all you need. Keep it simple.

  39. In 2005 I started asking myself the same question: with social networks taking over, how should we redefine “friend”? Now it’s 2009 and I have learned that the real definition of friend has never changed. All the “friends” I have made through social networking have not enriched my life nearly as much as people who are obviously true friends. Some friendships have been sparked by social networks, but the friendship did not blossom until it was taken offline and brought to a face-to-face level of interaction. I’m sorry but purely social networking “friends” are only acquaintances.

  40. In 2005 I started asking myself the same question: with social networks taking over, how should we redefine “friend”? Now it’s 2009 and I have learned that the real definition of friend has never changed. All the “friends” I have made through social networking have not enriched my life nearly as much as people who are obviously true friends. Some friendships have been sparked by social networks, but the friendship did not blossom until it was taken offline and brought to a face-to-face level of interaction. I’m sorry but purely social networking “friends” are only acquaintances.

  41. Some fantastic points here Robert. Great post! I really like how you described the new concept of an acquaintance on the internet. Someone who is neither a personal fried nor someone you actually know in real life, but someone whose opinion you value.

  42. Some fantastic points here Robert. Great post! I really like how you described the new concept of an acquaintance on the internet. Someone who is neither a personal fried nor someone you actually know in real life, but someone whose opinion you value.

  43. Hey Robert.

    I agree with you, also I like beng connected with people who are really all over the World. Maybe I have not met them but Facebook opens the chance to have that happen. It’s great for business.

  44. Hey Robert.

    I agree with you, also I like beng connected with people who are really all over the World. Maybe I have not met them but Facebook opens the chance to have that happen. It’s great for business.

  45. When you say “multiple social graphs for different things”, could that be a “dynamic social graph” which changes according to the “object-of-sociality”?

    Like a system that gives me recommendations (about wine, books, concerts, movies, holidays, art etc.) depending on the different social graphs for each object?

    If such a social graph could be a truly distributed one, each social network would have to worry about its own users. But a larger social graph could be aggregated from each network. Something for DISO?

  46. When you say “multiple social graphs for different things”, could that be a “dynamic social graph” which changes according to the “object-of-sociality”?

    Like a system that gives me recommendations (about wine, books, concerts, movies, holidays, art etc.) depending on the different social graphs for each object?

    If such a social graph could be a truly distributed one, each social network would have to worry about its own users. But a larger social graph could be aggregated from each network. Something for DISO?

  47. –snort–

    Me, know anything about wine? I know what’s local to me, but that’s about it.

    I do know a little about baby strollers, but much of that is probably out-of-date at this point. Lately, all I’ve seen are what I call “urban assault strollers.”

    And personally, I’ve pretty much junked all the online uses of “friend” and started using “colleague.” I’ve found that term to be much more applicable to my online relationships.

  48. –snort–

    Me, know anything about wine? I know what’s local to me, but that’s about it.

    I do know a little about baby strollers, but much of that is probably out-of-date at this point. Lately, all I’ve seen are what I call “urban assault strollers.”

    And personally, I’ve pretty much junked all the online uses of “friend” and started using “colleague.” I’ve found that term to be much more applicable to my online relationships.

  49. Nice post, Robert.
    I only know you via Internet.
    I’d met my wife in internet too.
    So, beware.

    Regular people don’t care about social networking. They care if their real life friends are in somewhere having fun or not. I was jealous when I’d found out that many of my friends back in Turkey had already been registered in facebook. It was a great find.
    Why jealous? Er, I’ve been using internet since 1997, and while living abroad, not knowing anything better than ICQ. hehe. I’d discovered web forums related to my profession earlier, but didn’t know about social networking until 2006.
    I remember myself being registered in a lot of places, and I thought “Oh, what’s the buzz about this”. I thought twitter was facebook.

    Facebook was and is great for me, because I wanted to ‘meet’ my real life friends and follow them.
    Lately enjoying twitter, because it makes me feel like I’m part of the internet which was not ‘accessible’ before.
    All this made me feel like blogging.

    See? For a ‘regular user’ like me, things can get pretty much upside down.

    It should make sense. Not everyone lives in internet. It should be just a part of my real life, improving it.

  50. Nice post, Robert.
    I only know you via Internet.
    I’d met my wife in internet too.
    So, beware.

    Regular people don’t care about social networking. They care if their real life friends are in somewhere having fun or not. I was jealous when I’d found out that many of my friends back in Turkey had already been registered in facebook. It was a great find.
    Why jealous? Er, I’ve been using internet since 1997, and while living abroad, not knowing anything better than ICQ. hehe. I’d discovered web forums related to my profession earlier, but didn’t know about social networking until 2006.
    I remember myself being registered in a lot of places, and I thought “Oh, what’s the buzz about this”. I thought twitter was facebook.

    Facebook was and is great for me, because I wanted to ‘meet’ my real life friends and follow them.
    Lately enjoying twitter, because it makes me feel like I’m part of the internet which was not ‘accessible’ before.
    All this made me feel like blogging.

    See? For a ‘regular user’ like me, things can get pretty much upside down.

    It should make sense. Not everyone lives in internet. It should be just a part of my real life, improving it.

  51. Mr. Scoble. Re: the use of the word “hint” that is pervasive in your writing.

    I don’t believe that word means what you think it means. That just based on how you are using it.

  52. Mr. Scoble. Re: the use of the word “hint” that is pervasive in your writing.

    I don’t believe that word means what you think it means. That just based on how you are using it.

  53. “AC: a true friend is one who’ll help me move or sit with me in the hospital while I’m sick. The rest of the definitions are unsatisfying.”

    Well, that’s a switch…you actually focus on how a friendship benefits you.

    Wait!…sorry! I got confused. That actually *is* consistent with how you view the world.

  54. “AC: a true friend is one who’ll help me move or sit with me in the hospital while I’m sick. The rest of the definitions are unsatisfying.”

    Well, that’s a switch…you actually focus on how a friendship benefits you.

    Wait!…sorry! I got confused. That actually *is* consistent with how you view the world.

  55. I’ve recently done a mass pruning of my fb friends. I went from over 400 to under 300. Using a simple set of rules, I figured out who deserved to stay on my fb friend list and who doesn’t. You are cut from my list if 1) I have had contact with you less than 10 times or 2) I do not know you personally and haven’t contacted you in the last 2 years. Of course I make special exceptions of certain people (parent of friends, professional connections, etc)

  56. I’ve recently done a mass pruning of my fb friends. I went from over 400 to under 300. Using a simple set of rules, I figured out who deserved to stay on my fb friend list and who doesn’t. You are cut from my list if 1) I have had contact with you less than 10 times or 2) I do not know you personally and haven’t contacted you in the last 2 years. Of course I make special exceptions of certain people (parent of friends, professional connections, etc)

  57. [...] Think that’s not important? Well, Feedly, a company that makes a small toolbar that sits at the bottom of Firefox, is using friendfeed’s search API to find people who’ve said stuff about the pages you’ve visited. This is a new kind of application that simply was not possible a year ago. via scobleizer.com [...]

  58. <h2 align=”center”>Don't Do For Ugg Boots UK</h2>

    –>If you own a pair of Ugg boots, ugg classic short, be sure to take proper care of them and clean them regularly. With the proper care and cleaning, Uggs can last several years or even a lifetime.

    You love sheepskin footwear and ugg classic because they are comfortable and fashionable. How to keep them looking great? The following are a few tips to help you to know what you don't do for your natural beauty and functionality uggs.

    –>Tip one, don't store your cardy boots ugg in a light place. Because they can bleach in extreme sunlight.

    –>Tip two, ugg boots should not be worn in extremely moist or muddy conditions as moisture can cause problems.

    –>Tip three, don't clean the exterior of? your uggs knightsbridge with a hard brush or cloth at first time dirty.

    –>Tip four, trying not to saturate the sheepskin footwear with water, especially warm or hot water. And don't clean them in a washing machine or dryer, this will cause problems with shrinkage and can adversely change the sheepskin.

    –>Tip five, if need, except specially detergent for sheepskin product, just like classic ugg mini, don't use any wool detergent. Also don't use high concentration cleaning solution.

    –>Some suggestions for you to protect your natural beauty and functionality uggs long periods of time. And also hoping to help you solving your hesitation, spending little time to know more information about ugg boots.

    –>All rights reserved, reprint, please specify source comes from http://www.goodugg.co.ukbailey button,ugg knightsbridge boots,cardy boots,ugg tall classic