Comments on: Another View on Vertical Social Networks

By: John Svoboda

John Svoboda — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:55:43 +0000

The problem with the verticles to date is that most are not granular enough to define a natural community. If you’re out walking your dog and you see another guy walking his, do you automatically pick up a conversation? What about if you both have German shorthairs? Ah, different. The question then is how to build narrow yet have the growth upside. Dog breeds were an indigenous structure that other categories don’t have. Ning bets that user-defined width is the answer but a downward spiral of fragmentation is the likely conclusion. Maybe the answer is not in the structure, which is easier to debate, but rather in the user motivation.

By: danny

danny — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:13:32 +0000

I am a first time reader and like where your thinking it at. I don’t know if Facebook will be the centalized hub for all vertical social networks. But the facebook platform is definately a step in the right direction. Shelfari just created a facebook application and linked it to their website. I wonder if all social netwroks will start doing that as well. Any opinions?

By: Luke Karisny

Luke Karisny — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:36:41 +0000

First, I believe that social networks are inherently vertical. Myspace is where the teens hang out and Facebook is for 20-somethings and tech / valley / alley geeks. Since these were among the original social networks they never had to brand themselves as “The for ” because the idea of a social network was still novel and not the web 2.0 buzzword that it is today.

Secondly, a single ecosystem (or operating system, to use the correct “industry term”) will probably never be attainable (see: OpenID, etc.). If it is, it won’t last long. The web is constantly changing and it only takes me about half a second to click that StumbleUpon link to find the new hot site of the week. Netizens owe allegiance to none, especially not to those who provide no real value or sustenance.

I think that everything we see right now only makes us ask more questions until eventually one person, or a group of people, will realize another way in which our lives can be simplified by technology. Soon after that you start to see many things become obsolete. This age-old observation of technology finds its way into the web where it moves in short and sometimes very long cycles.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:30:32 +0000

The problem with

By: Oliver Thylmann

Oliver Thylmann — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:42:48 +0000

Another thing is social networking as a feature. It does not need to be the entire concept. We got asked recently why we now want to become a social network … well we don’t, we just will. Social Networking is a feature, Tagging is, Ratings are too, … at least if you are in the local lead generation market.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:19:43 +0000

If I hear another person with a plan to be

By: Chip Griffin

Chip Griffin — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:05:38 +0000

I think vertical social networks alone are but a tool, not the end game. I argue in The New Media Cocktail e-book that convergence and the power of niches represent the future of media and content. Vertically-oriented sites that blend content and applications have strong potential. You allude to such a combination when you note that Wallstrip isn’t YET a social network.

Building relationships and providing content together is a powerful combination.

By: robert

robert — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:25:15 +0000

I’m thinking there’s still an opportunity for a horizontal network. The one problem I see with existing solutions is that they all require a user to exist within a proprietary network. You can’t add contacts who are not in the network, nor can you communicate with them. Tell me the scalability in that.

The network is your communication. The network is who you interact with. If I know John Doe’s e-mail address, then I should be able to directly add him as a connection, not waste my time with an invite process. If I know Joe Blow’s mobile number, then I should be able to add him. When I add someone, I should be able to add as much information about that person as I can in the form of simple tags. Others who connect to the same people can fill in the gaps, or fix any errors.

With technology like XFN and other microtags, such networks can flow with the internet. You have tons of people in your blog roll… all representing relationships. XFN tries its best to show this, but it often fails as your need a new HTML microtag for each connection.

When you break it down, you get efficient communication via open standards (i.e. e-mail) – not proprietary messaging locked within a specific service. As the semantic web begins to take over (somewhat), such a network would also allow the attachment of data to specific users (such as iCal).

Take care,

Robert

By: MartinE

MartinE — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:54:51 +0000

Actually if you use ning you could start a vertical social network for practically nothing. You have to pay them something to control advertising and your domain, otherwise there are no dev costs. Maybe a PR retainer and some SEM…

By: paul malin

paul malin — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:54:37 +0000

what do you think of http://www.ning.com