Social Networks vs. Social Websites
Daniel: A social network is like a carnival without rides.
Phil: Like a circus without...elephants.
Daniel: Dude, a circus without elephants isn't a circus, it's a suckus.
Back in October, Joshua Blankenship posted about his antipathy towards Facebook, and he elaborated in the comments:
And therein lies the unexpected aspect of social networking sites we’re starting to realize - once I find everyone I want to, and they find me, and I have all my info there and such - what the hell do I do?
I think I've decided that the question of what to do is the critical element here. It's why people add crappy extras to their MySpace and Facebook accounts. It's why people who hate the extras get bored. You see, I believe Blankenship's implied opinion is correct: there's nothing to do on social networks after you've connected with everybody.
I think there's another type of site on the 'Net, however, and I'll call those "social websites" for the sake of simplicity (and lack of creativity?). These sites, in my opinion, are communities based around a particular activity or idea, not around the vague notion of a generic network. Flickr has a thriving community based around photography - sharing, appreciating, technique, etc. Vimeo has made a name for itself because of its community that's proud to produce original content, no matter how cheesy. I believe these websites flourish because people actually have something to do, and the execution of that something-to-do sells itself.
It appears, to this mere blogger, that better presentation, functionality, or general execution hasn't necessarily affected social networks. MySpace is notoriously hideous, but they continue to grow. Facebook was trim and clean for a while, but that seemed not to be the draw - and when they started getting downright funky with the Apps, it didn't seem to drive too many folks away. As for features, what do I care if Facebook's friend-adding function suddenly changes for the worse after I already added most of my friends? And Virb? Well, it looks gorgeous, but gorgeous hasn't helped to draw users from other networks because, "All my friends use Facebook already."
Social Websites, on the other hand, seem to a greater extent to depend on the execution of that something-to-do, because that's why people signed up in the first place. I believe Flickr would lose tons of users, for example, if you could no longer make images private, or if uploading images became dramatically difficult. Sure, some folks would stick around because it's what they're used to, or their friends still use it. But let's face facts - Flickr is a photo-sharing tool first, and a community second. The plus side in this, as I see it, is that folks are more likely to continue using Flickr even if the community turned sour.
Certainly this clarifies my reasons for continued interest in Vimeo and Flickr while I've stopped using MySpace and nearly finished with Facebook. I still have use for Vimeo and Flickr (and even del.icio.us occasionally) because I take pictures and enjoy looking at them, and the same goes for video.
I think I'd rather connect with people apart from social networks because then the experience and the something-to-do are up to us, or in the case of social websites, provided for us.
