What BrightKite Does Well

April 21, 2008 · Comments

brightkite BrightKite allows for a granularity of “friend” adding that I appreciate. I can add someone. I can add them as a TRUSTED friend, which means they get even more private info. And then from there, I can send their updates to a stream, to my phone via SMS, or to my email account. As social networks pile upon social networks, it’s time for you to start paying attention to the features that we’ll really need. Here’s a need:

I need for networks to start realizing a delicate social situation. It’s important that I accept people who know me from my blog and twitter as “friends” on a network, while still keeping them in the “small f” category of my life (until they grow into being more). Facebook doesn’t allow this. Hell, with Friend Suggest, it’s almost the opposite lately. I’m adding six-twelve new people a week that I don’t know, but presume I know from my blog or twitter or my friends.

What else do we need? We need a persona/profile that displays different values depending on the network. A service like ZLoop has an interesting service. They allow one to make several personas from one account, such that you can be a business version of yourself, a church version of yourself, and a friends version of yourself, or whatever versions you need to support.

What do YOU need in a social network platform these days? What tools do you need for the way you WANT to do work on these networks? You can start asking, you know. They need to start differentiating soon. It might as well be with your recommendations.

Screen caps made with Skitch

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Tagged as: , ,

ChrisBrogan.com runs on the Thesis Theme for WordPress

Thesis WordPress theme

Thesis is the search engine optimized WordPress theme of choice for serious online publishers. If you’re a blogger who doesn’t understand a lot of PHP, Thesis will give a ton of functionality without having to alter any code. For the advanced, Thesis has incredible customization possibilities via Thesis hooks.

With so many design options, you can use the template over and over and never have it look like the same site. The theme is robust and flexible enough not only to accommodate a site like ChrisBrogan.com, but also to enable the site to run far more efficiently than it ever has before.

  • My all-time favorite has been LinkedIn because it's clean & to-the-point. Little spam and it's a great way to stay in touch professionally with that group of people that you want to maintain contact with. But...as networks expand I definitely agree that it becomes important to differentiate one group of contacts from the next (who you've met and where & the extent of your relationship). It sounds silly, but these things are important!

    Though FB is nice because you can interact informally, it's difficult to keep up with everyone! Sure you can mass mail everyone an update or a greeting, but where's the personal interaction in that?

    I hesitate to try other social applications like Naymz but hey, if this will get your organized, why not give it a shot?
  • Chris, right on. Today we have what seems like a million different social media tools, yet each treats all of my contacts as the SAME pool of friends. You, my mom, my blog readers, my boss, my wife, my clients, my college friends are all on one mass level.

    What I really want is fewer social media tools, and for each to allow me to segment friends. Sure, I'd like a handful of tools with discrete functionality, say text (Twitter), email, funk (Facebook), publishing (Blogger), and distribution (Digg). But there is no way that you should be in the same mass pool with my high school buddy ... at least, not yet man.

    The deep irony is that with all this social media innovation, we are still treating everybody the same. Feels a bit like mass media.
  • I've been thinking a lot about how normal social interactions might be defined with regard to information sharing between people. Off course how social networks handle this is of great interest to me.

    Relationship types (and the mutual sharing of profile data) seems like a recurring theme in social network applications. Differentiation and 'definition' of the relationships you have is a basic social phenomenon. However, in my opinion most social web applications (even the ones allowing you to create different groups) have treated the concept of 'friends' exactly the wrong way around.

    Most sites allow you to designate a relation (usually just 'friend', 'co-worker', 'family' etc) and based on that those people get to see more or less of your profile. This is exactly the opposite of what happens in our daily lives.

    In real life, you start out with an initial level of disclosure towards some person, usually just your name and profession maybe. After that, the relationship might grow, and more (two way) disclosure follows. If all goes wel and neither of you causes a trust problem, then at some point you have a friend relationship. With other people such as colleagues, the (again two way) sharing of information doesn't move beyond a certain point (i.e. no details about private personal things are shared).

    So, to sum up; it's not the relation 'tag' that determines what you share, but it's what you share that determines the relation you have.

    For social applications it follows that there is actually no need to explicitly name relationship types (friend, co-worker etc), but granular profile sharing should be implemented. Off course grouping your contacts every which way you want is still very useful, but it's not strictly based on relationship types. (I could decide to group my contacts on an entirely different basis). Moreover, when grouping is based on predefined relationship types, a person can be only in one group at the time. Not likely in real life either.
  • Chris,

    What about a concept of not having friends at all... but defining trust based on groups... and having dual profile personas (social & professional) that you display depending on the nature of the group that you're communicating, sharing and networking with?

    Yes.. this is a plug.. I've just described what CollectiveX does. I felt the need to mention it based on this post. Social networks are very friend-centric... and not very group-centric. CollectiveX-powered Groupsites are 100% group-centric, so defining levels of friendship isn't necessary. The group defines the context and you decided how much of yourself you want to share based on that context and your level of trust in the group.

    Try it and let me know what you think. So far it seems to be working... over 14,000 groups of all types and sizes have setup Groupsites powered by the CollectiveX platform. Not a single friend has been defined ;-)
  • I'm late with this comment, but I think that in addition to what you've suggested Chris, they should also start looking at recommending those already IN our networks. The last grows everyday and people get lost in the process of connecting all the time.

    I'd love to know the following:
    - When I've recently "re-connected" with someone via a message or replying to their content
    - Who I haven't talked to that has tried to contact me
    - Who I've tried to contact that hasn't responded to me
    - Recommend users for certain groups based on keywords or tags
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post: What Comes Next With Social Media

Next post: Thinking About Magazines