A lot of stuff about Friendster is still impressive, but a number of things about it continue to alienate me. The bulletin board delivers a message to the poster's 1-degree friends, and any responses only go to the original writer, condemning any chance for thread-discussion. The personal-picture guidelines are overly strict, and unevenly enforced: a self-portrait I sketched for use on the site (prior to the inclusion of the current, draconian guidelines on the Add Picture page) was deleted from my profile. Without knowing the roolz, it seemed arbitrary. After reading the rules, and proceeding to see pictures of Bruce Lee, Brad Pitt , and the Rubik's Cube in use as other's image, it seemed a particularly lame move on the site's part.
It's clear that there is some reasoning behind the people controlling it who want it to remain a form of valid reputation-through-association, which in turn may lead to some form of trust-based-system for like minded friends, or members of similar taste tribes can hook up and get down. However, in the spirit of "the streeet finds its own use for things," it has the potential to be so much more than what it is. Rather than just being a gropester service, why not use it to create communities, and new opportunites for networking information, like a very massive multi-user weblog?
But alas, the first time I tried to share a website with my direct, one-degree-separated friends through Friendster's almost comically limited "Bulletin Board" feature, when it refused to post do to inappropriate content. I'm not sure if it was the URL or the initials "mp3" appearing within the text, but up-it-would-not-go. I don't mind the fakesters at all, even though they break the association model. Why not allow an "association type" setting, so you can see "business contact," or "ex-S.O." or "trusted movie-going partner" or "imaginary friend" and then cull the network based on type?
Maybe it's because that would lead to a complications of Friendster's UI, which is impressively clean. Contrast it with Tribe.net, which allows and encourages all kinds of interactivity and weird usage, but suffers from a very cluttered UI.
It's statistically more likely that one will find existing friends on Friendster, due to its userbase. That's why I'm using it to turn people onto Tribe.net...
It's clear that there is some reasoning behind the people controlling it who want it to remain a form of valid reputation-through-association, which in turn may lead to some form of trust-based-system for like minded friends, or members of similar taste tribes can hook up and get down. However, in the spirit of "the streeet finds its own use for things," it has the potential to be so much more than what it is. Rather than just being a gropester service, why not use it to create communities, and new opportunites for networking information, like a very massive multi-user weblog?
But alas, the first time I tried to share a website with my direct, one-degree-separated friends through Friendster's almost comically limited "Bulletin Board" feature, when it refused to post do to inappropriate content. I'm not sure if it was the URL or the initials "mp3" appearing within the text, but up-it-would-not-go. I don't mind the fakesters at all, even though they break the association model. Why not allow an "association type" setting, so you can see "business contact," or "ex-S.O." or "trusted movie-going partner" or "imaginary friend" and then cull the network based on type?
Maybe it's because that would lead to a complications of Friendster's UI, which is impressively clean. Contrast it with Tribe.net, which allows and encourages all kinds of interactivity and weird usage, but suffers from a very cluttered UI.
It's statistically more likely that one will find existing friends on Friendster, due to its userbase. That's why I'm using it to turn people onto Tribe.net...
Comments
Post a Comment