Just a matter of time until this isn’t just street law anymore.

Since when was Facebook smart enough to know the name of the new Kanye West album? Spooooky!

But seriously - this is the smart kind of functionality we should have been building all along. Let’s watch as Facebook pushes social networks towards this smart sharing instead of just “pix with fri3nds”, only for Google to then write better algorithms and take over the space.

Until then - anyone hear the new Kanye? Is it worth getting?

Facebook has friendship pages now?!

In my opinion, this is huge. This could turn Facebook into a network of connections, instead of a large social graph. This could add the dimension that it was missing and really get people somewhere else.

The problem right now is that it’s a “friendship” page, and not a “relationship” page.

All the data is out there - it was uploaded by the users. To win people, you just need to organize it correctly. All of the information is available, some of it is just harder to find.

Apparently New York is the place my friends like to live the most.

Want to see simple information about your friends, like male/female ratio, age categorizations, and where they’re living?

Microsoft is pimping it’s docs.com to format some of your data to do just so! I checked it out - it was worth an interesting minute, but there’s no real depth in this project. Essentially, it’s a good way to generate buzz about their online/free office products (aka look what we can do and Google Docs can’t do (even though they could if they wanted to)).

More than anything, this project makes me think, “Facebook is no Google”, as in, if Facebook was more ‘Googely’ (thanks Jeff Jarvis) they would have built in metrics of your social graph. “More information is better!” is what Google would cry, while Facebook would say “Build it yourself!” and Apple would look straight into the screen, telling the users “You don’t want that data cluttering up your experience.”

With a post titled “You’re not always the same person. Why should it be any different on the web?” the Orkut (Google’s current social network) is showing that it understands a large part of how people are social.

The core functionality of Orkut, starting today, will be to interact online with “social circles”. This list-centric approach will allow users to add others as connections, but dump each user into a bucket/buckets. For instance, I would make a list of my friends from high school, my a cappella friends, my technology loving friends, my family, etc. Personally, I already do this on both Facebook and Google Contacts, so I naturally think it’s a great approach.

Orkut will “automagically” generate groups for you, based on your current interactions, which you can then tailor. Then, you will be able to privately share things within those groups, including links, photos, videos, etc.

My big question would be, can you share something (ie photo) with a group (ie family) but later add a person (ie mom when she joins Orkut)? As in, if only my brothers and I are on Orkut, but I want to add Mom to the conversation, will she have access to previous conversations? I like the idea, but I’m not sure on the semantics yet.

Also, while this makes a lot of sense, it also limits the “discovery” aspect of what makes the web great. One reason I do love Facebook is that I can jump into a conversation with friends I don’t talk to all the time on Facebook on a hot social issue or funny video. If they limit who they share to, this limits my access to their social content. At the same time, this raises my interest in becoming a strong player in their social network, and thus will increase my socializing in other dimensions (read offline).

Unfortunately, I can’t really test any new functionality out. I only have one friend using Orkut, and he’s only using it to stay connected with his friends in Brazil (he studied abroad for a semester). Also, Orkut does not have a “suggested friends” or anything like that to entice me to make more connections. All it really has is “Invite friends by email” at the bottom of your contacts. Google’s gonna have to get it’s users to grow it’s network if/when Google Me launches.

Yes! A long awaited feature I wanted!! I’ve tested it, and it worked beautifully. All of my friends/family/contacts now have nice little synced photos when chatting/looking up in Google Contacts.

Note: The thumbnails imported are not the same image quality as found by manually uploaded thumbnails. Some thumbnails match full quality, some are about a 2/3rds size. This could have to do with up-scaling smaller thumbnails, or down-scaling larger ones.

If Contacts adds a thumbnail photo in listview, it’ll become dangerously close to an early Facebook… (Of course I’ve added and made nice all of my Google Contacts, so this would be fore me, but not for most. At least, not without some work.)

I also like that you can revert to a users posted picture at any time. I had one friend whose (gorgeous) default was replaced by a rather unflattering photo, and it took only 3 clicks to revert to their old one.

I’ve also noticed that since updating to 3.8, Picasa continues to recognize faces that it hadn’t before. I think there was an update in the facial-matching technology, which is always cool. I love seeing “Suggested 20 photos of Jordan”…especially when they’re all right!

(via Google SystemBlog)

“We hooked up in 2002 and it was mind-blowing.”

Remember “How do you know ______?” If has been a forgotten feature of Facebook for a few years now, one which might have been a true loss.

In his book, The Facebook Effect, David Kirkpatrick notes that one of the largest problems in online social networking, for Facebook in particular, is the lack of qualifiable relationships. If the online social networks should mirror the offline social networks, than wouldn’t adding someone as “friend who I want to IM chat with because I think he might give me a job one day” or “friendly security guard which I don’t actually want to reveal personal info to” is a bit awkward.

Facebook in a little bit of a sense has regressed in this. You used to be able to let Facebook know exactly what kind of relationship you had with a person.

Why did this feature die? Here’s a few guesses:

1. Lack of use - not many people actually filled this out. Who wants to type in details for hundreds of friends? One of the reasons Facebook works is because each person contributes their own information, and the rest is already completed by all their friends (ie contact/personal info).
2. Lack of seriousness - Like mentioned before, if inputted at all, many of the inputted relationships were far from serious. I know one group of girls in college who were apparently living in an apparent lesbian orgy (if I had taken their inputted relationships to be true).*
3. When Facebook open its doors to the general public, aka Mom, Dad, and your future employers, some of these options probably wouldn’t have been received well. I’m mostly talking about “John and Jane get weird in laundry room in Freshman year and it got real soapy.”

This layer should have been grown, not diminished. To achieve this, let the users do the work! Encourage users to input these details in a non-obtrusive manner, and help them organize their social network, thus leading to a more efficient interaction with them! Creation and organization is is an extremely gratifying experience. Think to popular computer game The Sims. Most people I knew had more fun entering infinite resources codes and building ultimate houses compared to actually playing the game. This same idea can be exploited by Facebook to have it’s users organize it’s data into more strict networks.

Once these networks have been identified and created, it is the the job of the online network (Facebook, Twitter, “Google Me”) to push notifications to the appropriate people. The concern doesn’t just lie with privacy though, but with relevancy. I want pushes from @Leo Laporte about his views in tech, even though I’ve never met him in real life. I want my “OMG Brittney on GLEE!” updates from popculturebrain even though we’re acquaintances. I want my family reunion photos from my Mom and cousins too. I also want news from my friend Tom that he just got a job as a writer.

The real question that needs to be addressed is “Should different networks be delegated different purposes; personal, news, business, blogging (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr) or should we aggregate all of these with greater specificity?”

The answer may be both. Let all these things exist in their own space, but integrate them in a top layer. Let Facebook be your personal profile, LinkedIn your business network, etc, but have a top layer skin to coat everything into one. I’ve posted Threadsy before - an exciting site which ties email and social networks together, but the site is a little too buggy for me to use on a daily basis. I’m still hoping something that starts with a “G” and ends with a “oogle Me” the solution I’ve been asking for.

Why do I want social network integration? Easy: it is the most effective way of spreading content. As a man of the internet, I like to share funny videos with my friends; videos of me performing with the a cappella community, friends, and family; thoughts on technology, media, and social networks with all of you; etc. Right now, it has been statistically shown that most online interaction is derived from organic social network postings. Not automatic YouTube updates (ruperte908 liked “DOUBLE RAINBOW SONG!! (Hardcore Cover)”), but “just watched a hadcore double rainbow cover hahaha what does it mean?!”

We need to tie networks together and not just push from one network to the next. I’ve unhooked my Tumblr posting to Twitter posting to Facebook posting to Google Buzz for the most part, on the premise that it was actually annoying my friends who didn’t care about my tech views. What I should be able to have though is my friends to subscribe to the feed of my posts, so it will show up in their newsfeed, without unfriending me.

The future I want is one hose, only relevant information pumping through. I think we can get there.

*To clarify, I have nothing against college girls having lesbian orgies.

Facebook Places has finally arrived. While I won’t be using the service anytime soon, it’s definitely worth considering.

Right now, I think the biggest problem with this technology is that the people who are technologically efficient enough to use it right now aren’t necessarily roaming about concerts and bars. Even if they are, and their friends are too, one person would need to check in, followed by their friend seeing person A check in, then contacting person A, then meeting up. Call me old fashioned, but I don’t see this eliminating inefficiency.

What I do see is a large possibility in the retail space. Reward shoppers for checking in their physical stores with a 10% coupon or some other deals. Don’t spend on advertisements - let the shopper save and do the advertising for free. Nothing is more powerful than a brand endorsement across a social network. That’s not just true in the digital space, but in all spaces.

When it comes down to it, I’m not using this service, and neither is my mom. We’ll see what happens in 2(+?) years when the barrier of entry into mobile web drops and it’s extended to a new group of people. Honestly, if I had the capability, the real thing I’d be asking for is for better “Places” pages, ability to link check-in’s to reviews, etc. Facebook is getting there, but could definitely do better with how all the data is connected.

I figure out one reason that Facebook “Likes” fail. I don’t always like things. While it’s good for telling people what I like, it’s not good for telling people what I don’t like.

What I want from my social network is a list of all the books, movies, TV shows I’ve watched, and a rating for all of them. Call me fickle, or too into data, but what I like is only half the data. I just saw Scott Pilgrim. I give it a four/five. Is that a like?

What I want is an integrated GoodReads into Facebook, as well as one for music movies, television - something that I “check into” every time I’m ingesting a piece of media. The more automatic the better, then it can queue things up for review when I finish them. Then, I can broadcast my own opinion to my current friends, as well as find people with similar interests.

Am I saying Facebook is bad? No. What it got right was a clean-cut easy-to-use interface. What I need is that but with as much detail as I want to add (but as little as I want as well). It can be as unintrusive as I want, but should have the reach of the most detailed user. Store all the records details like it does with the like pages, grabbing them off wikis and Amazon, but only display the title/author for general users. Let people put “read” and 1-5 stars, but then let them add everything that GoodReads lets you.

Movies, books, TV shows, music, places, websites, events, governments. Do it up for everything.

Go forth and make my social network of the future.