business, entertainment, stuff

TODAY`S KNOW HOW

I wont explain you why crocodiles, cattles or elephants don`t fly. Is pretty obviously ..

But I can tell you why certain so called ’social sites’ sucks.

1. Most of them are slow.

No, I don`t speak about connection speed, loading speed. Is about communication speed. Allmost all allow sort of internal communications, but is not in real time, is not like a chat. Often, you can`t see if a user is or not online. They usually have no chatrooms.

2. Most of them are standard.

Many of you, people, espect to find something different when you join a new social site or, sometime new features to be add to old places. But that`s not what is there. Majority of social sites are detail similar one with another. Many of them are simply software copy of anotherone, same menu, placed in same area, same features (sometime the menu is there but feature is disabled ..)

3. Rules

Maybe I`m unlucky person, but wherever I registred, I never need it to read the rules, privacy policy, terms of use and so on. Well, ok, site owners (requested to webmasters to ) put a “I have read and agree the rules” button, and anyway, ignorance of rules (any law, in general) is not an excuse for broking it. But I never received nor ever hear of a social site where new registred user to receive the essence of rules and/or links in email. Even less (if is possible something to be less than zero) for reminder addressed to older users, nor about eventually changes … Well, I found it possible, coz it happen to Paypal users - they are notified by ANY rules change. Same is available at Linkshare, ComissionJunction and few more. But not on social sites.

4. Time waste

Even dating sites does not offer to regular user what is expected. Matches are mathematically corect, you input the desired characteristics, site engine give you back results. As to avoid miising things, matching input must be a bit understandards. Then, you have to browse hunderths of profiles. Among them, some profile have the “user decided to share … only with his accepted friends”. So, you apply to become friend.. why ? Coz user nickname sound nice ? Coz user say is from Bambatu islands and you`ll move there from next year ?

5. Users

Is well known that, beside and excluding identity teft, on net you can be anybody, from anywhere, any age, any sex, size and so on. You can post pics of a model as yours. You can say you`re older-younger, different gender. Behind the nickname, you can be who you`ll never be. You can like a user and find out is a “nigerian scammer”. As they are now, most of social web 2.0 sites are just an extension of web 1.0, with all the indulged errors.

6. Hide of real things

There is a big question of what to post there about yourself. And how, and when. To many details would sure increase the chance to find usefull and related to your needs results, but also raise to unacceptable risks the chances to expose yourself to people you interact in real life or other sites. Well, supose one understand or accept my idea about rejecting the false informations. Then, there are 2 options available - cut off descriptions or say less and only general things. Then, obviously, one profile would be less intersting …

7. Care about users`s safety and privacy

As far as i`m awared, most of social sites are very concerned about them users data security and safe use of them site. Most of sites have a more or less developed system to report ilegal and imoral use, things as scam attempt, insulting, racial offense and so on. Sure would be more to be done in order to prevent such events, also in direction of giving to users a motivation to make the use safer.

8. Educative things

I didn`t found nor hear about any educative activity. All ’social sites’ are just simple old style “register and use, we have rules, you have responsabilities.” I didn`t find any safe system to promote values over the allready existing style of “we give you web space, you put there impressive and attractive items. We reserve rights to …, without any future explanation”. That I found it as bullshit. Most of social sites have an undersized staff, suffer for big lack of PR and there is hardly noticed any activity on educative activities area.

9. Many users, low quality content

“Social sites’ often show pride for the big number of users they have. And they have. Just a part of those kinda sites have the option to delete accounts, to temporary suspend (at user`s will, sort of vacation time). There is no or low direct control of what a user put in his space. Some may say that “well, if is 2-3 admins and 500 tousend users, that is impossible”. Sure, and all cats are black at night. Ignore until is revealed, that seems to be the approach way. Uncontroled, and then low quality average content, caused, in time, users to switch to one site to another. I didn`t notice chances to search by categories of personal accounts, usual can search by gender, age, location. The old “asl” from irc. Hardly to search for at least large categories as music, poetry, soft, news - search into users for those type of pages. Then, users, most of them, insert pictures, few words, some copied quotes and/or media, then ther`s the low quality content.

Overall, I highly doubt that what is actually seen as “web 2.0″ sites are really what people espect to be. Most of them are actually dating sites undercovered by disclaimers they are not only that …
Overall, the old “automate your biz” is highly valid for most of social sites. Barely human activity involved from side of site, except if a user complaint about something ..

.

My 2 cents …

As usual, you may ask me anything about whatever.

You think I may not have the knowledge to give good answers ? Try me !

There are 2 ways.
One way is to ask one question on comments, the answer you`ll get on next day post.
Another way is to register to peopleized and interview me from there (for more than one questions).

DISCLAIMER :
- The main use of this Question-Answer game is to be fun, be usefull, get new knowledges and so on;
- Top-left rules are valid. Specially the first 2 paragraphs.

.

.