![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
quite funny to see people believe that facebook will close. Bit more information would be needed on this section on the updates of the lawsuit. Under this article [1] that ConnectU propose that Facebook merge with them but not sure if this is relevant.-- 88.105.39.88 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a source citing court documents through the proceedings provided by this blog. KyuuA4 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
From a glance at the relative size of the various topics, the page's description of Facebook dwarfs in comparison to the criticism of facebook. While I think the criticisms themselves are valid, I feel like they should be moved to a second page on facebook criticisms simply due tot he size. Any thoughts? 152.3.85.176 03:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
IT'S NOT TRUE. It's can be more visited websited specific on college-focused webpages or such but not just say "the second more visited website".
Anyways many statisticals are representatives to US states (plus UK) and not for the rest of the world. If you say that google, yahoo and such are widely popular then you can be right mainly because they are localized to many countries but if you say that Facebook... oh my!, is popular but in China, Japan and the rest of the world..
-- Magallanes 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Why Americans always seem to be totally oblivious of the world around them, I haven't a clue, but from my experience, that attitude doesn't go down well on an international community like Wikipedia. I removed "Scotland" from immediately after "Uni of St Andrews", because there is no reason to annouce the location of it simply because it isn't in the US! If that weren't the case, we should be announcing the location of all universities, regardless of country.u want to know where it is, click on the link. martianlostinspace 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what happened to "Pulse"? Both the public and logged in versions are redirecting me to home.php although the "Election Pulse" remains. Does Facebook plan to sell this data to marketing research companies or is this a temporary 404? -- LEKI ( talk) 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions that Facebook is now open to all Internet users, and describes the validation techniques now in place. However, it doesn't exactly state what restrictions were in place before it became an "open" site, so I have no idea of the significance of this move.
I assume that the site was restricted to members of particular institutions (hence the references to certain colleges "having" or "not having" Facebook), but how was this membership validated? Was it purely by e-mail address, or were there other methods in place? Presumably undergrads could retain their Facebook membership after graduation, but was it possible for alumni of that institution to gain Facebook membership? 217.155.20.163 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Facebook's use in investigations shouldn't be forked from this article. I recommend merging it back into this one. --- RockMFR 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Per Spudtheimpaler, ElKevbo, Timclare, and myself I have moved the subarticle to Use of social network websites in investigations. Feel free to expand it there with incidents regarding MySpace and the rest as well. -- LEKI ( talk) 07:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Where do Facebook get their money from? It's a free service and I don't see any advertisements... -- Josteinaj 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think someone should add in something about peopleradar.com. I'm not sure what date facebook started it, but it is sure to become a controversial issue pretty soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.105.169 ( talk • contribs)
I think some mention needs to be made of the latest Facebook feature. It was introduced as a temporary thing and for charity, but the charity aspect of it seems now to have disappeared without any notice. *smb 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone just made an addition to the gift section, stating that today (April 6th), Facebook added a new gift, the nail. They say that this is interesting because today is Good Friday, the day that Jesus was nailed to the cross according to the Christian faith. While I do agree that this is interesting, should we really be adding things like this to this section? I'm just afraid that, if we do, it could soon become a huge list of every gift facebook has released. Should this information be removed, or does it need it's own subsection, perhaps even it's own article (if the list does actually grow)? -- Mears man 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The addition of Andrew McCollum as Co-founder to the Key People sidebar was deleted a couple of weeks ago. Is there a rationale for that edit someone could offer? When Mark wrote Facebook during his sophomore year at Harvard, Andrew was a key contributor, especially to the graphics. He solved various problems that arose and generally supported Mark throughout the development of the site. It was Andrew's summer internship at EA that prompted Mark to go out to Palo Alto with him in June of 2004, and Chris and Dustin to go along to help out. Within a few weeks, Mark persuaded Andrew to leave the EA internship to work full-time on developing Wirehog, an idea he and Mark had come up with that spring. The potential for legal problems with Wirehog being a file-sharing site led them to create it as an entity independent from Facebook, but Andrew was always present at the house and, later, in the Thefacebook office, helping with any programming problems that came up that no one else could solve. That's why his name stayed on Thefacebook site's own list of "About" people ("General Rockstar") for so long, despite not being a regular employee of the company, per se, and why he is recognized as one of the original founders of the business. I'm not sure, then, why he shouldn't be recognized as one of the Co-founders in the sidebar. The same could be said of Sean Parker, whom they joined up with in Palo Alto in June 2004 and who contributed invaluable business expertise to the project at just the right time and place. -- Salspsyche 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Key People (Variable: key_people) - Which three people closely associated with the business organization are most popular and efficacious? *Use: no more than three names unless reasonably appropriate. *Use: popular names instead of formal names, if available. *Note: The executive branch of a business organization is not necessarily the key people.
"Another problem is that Facebook users may be under the impression that deleting something from one's Mini-Feed deletes it from the News Feed as well. It does not."
So why does the dialog that comes up when you click the 'x' to delete a story in your feed say "Hiding will remove the story from your Mini-Feed and prevent anyone from seeing it."? 87.112.83.155 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
How come the Mini-Feed and News Feed aren't detailed in the Features section of this page? Seems like they're important features. sociate 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"On 2 March 2007, a survey was conducted by eMarketer.com that discovered Facebook was the most viewed site by females in the United States (69%) ages 17 - 25 in 2007 and also the most viewed website by males (56%).[78]"
By "males" does it mean all males or only those in the mentioned age group? It's not clear, and the source requires subscription. MickO'Bants 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, anyone know what the TOC was set to be 80% of the regular font size? EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a link repository. The article (before this posting) had 31 links under the "External links" heading. That's WAY too much; most of those are just random news stories that really need to be reincorporated into the article as sources; if not, they need to stay gone.
Anyway, here are the links from the article; this is just a straight copy/paste from the article, as I've removed them entirely from the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you go to this poll, you can see that most Facebook-users clearly dislike the new layout. Is it unreasonable to mention a change Facebook made that nearly 60% of the users disliked? - Hmwith 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's called a statistical population, which, in this case, is based on a pretty random sample of Facebook users. It would be impossible to poll every user out there, so you use a sample. - Hmwith 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"The name of the site refers to the paper facebooks that colleges and prepatory schools give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community."
There is no source for this. I fact tagged it and that was removed with the explanation that "it's obvious." If it's that obvious it shouldn't require saying. However, without a source, this constitutes original research and should be removed. " Look at the disambiguation page" is not a source. A perfect example of how Wikipedia can sometimes create and perpetuate truisms. Savidan 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The section on the Virginia shootings is not cited. I think it should be removed unless anyone can find a reference to back it up. 70.51.247.126 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to know what the most popular group (i.e. group with the most members) is on Facebook, but I can't seem to get hold of this information. If someone could help that would be most appreciatted. 80.229.225.16 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I found a great profile on Mark Zuckerberg that I think should be added on to the external links section, but someone took it down. It clearly added value and was relevant to the topic. When people come on here to read about facebook, it is logical to expect there to be information present about the founder and CEO.
Thoughts?
(
Babar54Babar
Babar54)
In 2007, Facebook played a number of pranks on its users during the course of April Fools' Day. Making light of the site's 'poke' function, Facebook offered to dispatch a live person to poke any friend that the reader chooses. Jokes were also made about the basketball tournament competition, Harry Potter, Grey's Anatomy and The Oregon Trail. Also in the footer about the copyright information, the name "Mark Zuckerberg" was replaced by random other names, including those of Facebook software engineers and the user's own name. [1]
I deleted the April Fools section since it has nothing to do with responses to Facebook (the heading it was under) and is nothing but a list of insignificant self-deprecation already listed in other April Fools articles. In the long run, the above is hardly notable. Gdo01 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(undent) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good reason. Anyway, three things have to be addressed:
I agree that the section needs to be removed. While it is marginally interesting and I agree with the assertion that it says something about the playfulness of those who own and operate the website, that strikes me as original research and thus inadmissible. Further, the source offered for the section is absolutely unacceptable. Finally, Martin Hinks assertion that the info should only be included if it occurs more than once has some merit. -- ElKevbo 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Added new marketplace entry and placed it with gifts under a new section entitled additional features to break it from the Responses section Boston2austin 13:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey folks. I made the time line into prose, but wasn't logged in when I did it. Anybody know a way I can revert it and put it under my name? I'd like to have it in my edit history, because I worked pretty hard on it. I'll try to write a lead-in later. Benuneko 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is no longer out of date and, as usual, I don't have time to fix it. Could someone, perhaps? The problem is that the quotes from Facebook's privacy policy are out of date. 132.162.240.52 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's encylopedic or not, but recently Facebook has been closing down quite a few accounts (taking part in a radio contest for The Edge), on the grounds of 'spamming other members'.
One such account that was closed happened to be a charity trying to earn money to donate towards 'Sick Children's Hospital' in Toronto.
Again, not sure if it's encylopedic or not, but Facebook seems to care more about their users than they do about helping out dying children. JimmmyThePiep 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Article states: "The following month, Facebook threatened to seek costs of up to $100,000 from Quizsender.com for copyright infringement for allegedly copying the "look and feel" of Facebook" but according to the soure (13) it was the domain that was the issue facebookquizzes.com or something. Someone please correct (a quick look over archive.org here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.quizsender.com/ shows that the design has never been similar to facebooks) 82.163.36.55 07:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it would seem that this site has many skins and one of them really did look like Facebook's.
Take a look:
http://www.oxfordstudent.com/tt2006wk6/News/facebook_sends_out_its_lawyers
Northern 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This article should have some information on how facebook is coded (it is pretty advanced, with a lot of dynamic stuff going on), as well as facebook developer stuff, and how developers can create applications that integrate with the facebook data. it's a somewhat open-content project. i don't know enough about it though. Bonus Onus 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See this in the bottom: "^ Doug Beaver (2007). Facebook Photos "*Jesal + Hongjin*" Infrastructure (html). Facebook Weblog. Facebook. Retrieved on 2007-05-30." I never learned how to fix the codes at the bottom - the J/L part needs to be removed.
Can someone put the actual function of the website somewhere, preferrably in the intro? It's not actually in the article anywhere. If it is, it's hard to find. Voretus 20:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to explain for Rrjanbiah why both Pomte and I reverted his inclusions.
First:
Aside from the grammatical errors, this claim needs to be verified, and the text should not have been included where it was — namely, in a previous reference. Provide a notable reference for your claim and it should be added.
Secondly, I'm not sure that a couple of remarks by Digg users is worthwhile mentioning. You may disagree with me here, but I think it'd need to be a more notable and larger article to merit inclusion here. I agree with Pomte that the Harvard comments may be a personal attack, and indeed Facebook does already use PHP.
Hope this helps. — cBuckley ( Talk • Contribs) 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the deal with the platform? The programming language? Where is it going? I read a very interesting article about Zuckerberg's expectations of the platform and its future and the potential business to be done if one were to program with the platform. Fortune questioned whether it was a delusion of grandeur, but I am doubtful. Does anyone know anything about this? Kitra101 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the primary investors of thefacebook.com has ties to the CIA. Google searching the references will give you multiple verifiable sources for the information.
http://digg.com/security/Facebook_s_CIA_ties?offset=51
An interesting point about how Facebook is really a site for data mining and spying:
by danielson on 12/13/2005 code error? I was on facebook one time and I clicked on one of my friends link and it for some reason it came up with a bunch of the php source code. One thing that kind of caught my attention was this part of it(I took a screenshot because I can't post code here.): http://www.danieljanderson.com/images/source.jpg
"That's only a part of the code...."
Original link gone, but available now at: http://web.archive.org/web/20060110032336/http://www.danieljanderson.com/images/source.jpg
I just gave facebook a shot for the first time, and was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED when part of the application asked for the password to my EMAIL ACCOUNT! Sure, it was optional, but that's completely unacceptable. That, my friends, is a gigantic red flag. Facebook is not to be trusted. I mean.. think about it. Have you ever seen a legitimate website ask for such information? Of course you haven't. Facebook is shady. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.146.216 ( talk) 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've got an issue with the opening sentence: "Facebook is the second most visited social networking website on the World Wide Web with over 28 million members. It is surpassed only by MySpace." According to Alexa and each site's own given statistics (don't know if that's a valid source), Orkut is a more popular site. I didn't see any justification in any of the talk archives. This really needs to be justified by someone or changed. Maybe second most popular in the North America? Or the USA? Keammo1 04:50, 02 July 2007 (UTC)
Not even close. Myspace has 67 million visitors a month, whereas Facebook only has 20. Use your common sense, why would someone join a site where they can't really look at anyone's profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.114.173 ( talk)
Please don't tell me to 'use [my] common sense', since you it doesn't even sound like you read my post...I'm saying it's the 3rd most popular at best, NOT that it is more popular than Myspace. I'm comparing it with Orkut, and Orkut is more popular than Facebook. In any case, someone has fixed the problem by just removing the sentence. My first post could've been clearer, but it's still not too hard to comprehend. Keammo1 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
what is facebooks policy abut handing over ip addresses to cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordugihauser ( talk • contribs)
I looked up pro wrestlers like Rey Mysterio, Mr.Kennedy, Triple H, The Undertaker, John Cena and it showed them on the website. Are they real? J.C. 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Under the section of the article that briefly talks about the poke feature it is said that the poke is used as a sexual advance. The source is from a college newspaper and -- at least to me -- is an obviously satirical article. It is quite a funny read, but I don't think it is appropriate for a source. It is footnote 103, here is the article link: http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/04/03/Features/Facebook.poke.Leads.To.Awkward.OneNighter-1777165.shtml?sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com Redtemplar 14:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)RedTemplar
I stress that a semi-protection is placed on the article. It's getting vandalized every minute. Koolgiy 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is this site (Facebook) so popular? I visited the site and I just don't get it. Thanks. 70.48.97.37 11:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If you search for drawball, it leads you to this article. Any idea why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.47.38 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 August 2007
Hi everybody,
Great job you are doing with this page. I was wondering, why does facebook install so many cookies whose descriptions are of an ad nature? like ad-manager...? Is this worth looking into? (unsigned)
This article should mention that facebook has been blocked by many big banks and other companies, not because of the themes mentioned in the article but because of concerns of time wasting, abusing company computer facilities as well as being used to slag of the company (many users have set up groups like "my company directors are bunch of w***ers" etc.). Surely many universities woukld criticise such use of faceboo, and other similar sites as it deprives people with legitimate reasons, like for university work, access to computers. I believe these points should be raised in the article.
I also believe thatthe article should mention more about facebook in other countries for example the United Kingdom.
Franny-K 18:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Who tagged the page with the Globalize tag? That makes no sense. Facebook is based in Palo Alto in the U.S. and caters to a U.S. audience so it makes no sense to discuss a worldwide view that doesn't really exist. That would be like trying to write an article on koalas from an worldwide view (which also makes no sense as they are indigenous to Australia). -- Coolcaesar 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure who tagged it but it is sensible to write articles from a world-wide perspective if the subject is world-wide. Certainly the company's head office is in the US and the company clearly started by targetting US colleges, but Facebook is now a world-wide phenomenon (at least in English speaking countries).
205.200.224.254Davidmross —The preceding
signed but undated comment was added at 22:17, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
How come this article mentions nothing of the new Facebook Video application? [14]. You can find out more about it on their video FAQ [15]. This information is very relevant to this article. The application has over 7 million users. You fail to mention this fact, but yet you focus extensively on trivial features like poke. You are doing a disservice to your viewers not to even talk about it once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzlemctwizzle ( talk • contribs) 01:27, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Alright I made my addition to the article [16]. Could you please check it for me to make sure I didn't do anything dumb? That would be great. Thanks a lot. Sizzlemctwizzle 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The citation about the competition with Myspace comes from the article I cited earlier. [17] Sizzlemctwizzle 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
In the article it says that by the end of 2005 Facebook had over 11 million users. This is misleading - if you check the source, the data states that 11.1 million was the number of visitors to the site for that year, which is not the same thing.
According to Trendcatching [18] it only just reached 7.5 million users by July 2007, and 25 million as of now. I don't want to mess with the page but if someone wants to find the correct statistics for 2005 they should change it.
-Leo 124.170.182.66 11:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
7.5 million was July 2006, Trendcatching has a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.172.6 ( talk) 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As of now, the "Applications" sections lists the most popular apps, such as iLike, Graffiti, etc. I would argue that the "Honesty Box" application is as large as any of these and deserves mention. -- BeastKing89 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned at all. I think that only Facebook Applications in general should be mentioned. That way there wouldn't be a long list of apps. Sizzlemctwizzle 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The Honesty Box is very unique and popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.230.145 ( talk) 21:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone seen this: Facebook campaign forces HSBC U-turn? I reckon it's interesting enough for inclusion - it shows the clout that the Facebook community delivers. Against a massive corporation, no less. Seegoon 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html?hp
We need to update to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.petrille ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if a personal e--mail can be counted as a reference even in full citation, but my account was permanently disabled today, apparently for adding too many friends to quickly. That should be a warning to others until and unless Facebook offers me another explanation for what I did wrong. That a person can have their account disabled for engaging in a major raison d'être of the site is most definitely notable, but difficult to verify. -- Scottandrewhutchins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottandrewhutchins ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the message I got:
Hi Scott,
After reviewing your situation, we have determined you violated our Terms of Use. Please note, nudity, drug use, or other obscene content is not allowed on the website. Additionally, we do not allow users to send threatening, obscene, and harassing messages. Unsolicited messages and friend requests will also not be tolerated. We will not be able to reactivate your account for any reason. This decision is final.
Thanks for understanding,
Theodore Customer Support Representative Facebook
[scottandrewhutchins@yahoo.com - Thu Aug 30 10:19:31 2007]:
Ever since the first time I was temporarily blocked for adding new friends, I have been blocked subsequent times without any warning. I just tried to add a friend a few minutes ago, and it said I was temporarily blocked. I got no warning to slow down preceding it. I am a real person here and I think denying me that warning is real overkill.
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6
I did not post any nudity, drug use, or other obscene content, nor did I send threatening, obscene, and harassing messages. That leave unsolicited friend requests. Silly me, I thought meeting friends of friends was what a social networking site was for! The only friends I'd added recently were on the friends lists of people who had added me recently and whom I know in real life! The only other thing I can think of is that they are policing private messages, some of which, with certain friends, may have pushed the envelope of what they find acceptable, though it didn't seem to with the recipients in their responses to me. -- Scottandrewhutchins 17:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Supposedly if you get ten refusals in a day ,you get permanently blocked. Unfortunately, real people can be treated as if they are bots, and I was one who got burned. there ought to be something about that on the entry. Unfortunately, my edit got reverted by an anonymous user saying that we can't use Wikipedia talk pages as references. How do I reference an e-mail? --
Scottandrewhutchins 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And none of this can be added to the article because it's original research. Maybe if it was published in an independent reliable source. -- William Graham talk 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I haven't read the entire privacy policy nor the entire privacy policy section on Wikipedia (skimmed through it). I didn't see any bit of the rumour of a costumer's information being kept long after or even permanently after they have their account deleted. I've heard this from a lot of unrelated sources. Is there any truth to this and does anyone think it'd be prudent to create a section about this? As far as i am concerned this is a major reason for people not creating an account. And if it is true, it should be in the privacy policy section. Knippschild 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It says that this article is 'low' on the importance scale. Is this entirely accurate now that Facebook is the most visited site in the world besides google? It is very possible that i misunderstand the purpose of this scale. Bbqturtle 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody add the corresponding links in other wikipedia languages. I tried to add vkontakte, the russian clone, but the wikipedia url is very long: it's something like this: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This picture, even though titled on the image page, is not a description of facebook, rather a description of the domain of linkedin social networking site. you can view this by clicking the image and scrolling down to the description... Should the description be fixed or the image removed? Bbqturtle 14:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The part "Origins and expansion", says the following: "The following month, Zuckerberg, McCollum and Moskovitz moved to Palo Alto, Russia, to continue work on Facebook's development...".
Isn't Palo Alto in CALIFORNIA? Or am I just stupid? Nasht 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I see now that this happened here: Revision as of 13:47, 26 September 2007. I'm guessing this was some kind of joke. I don't know what are the proper ways to handle that, but I'll fix it for now.
Nasht 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There should be listed only sites that focus in some way on students, otherwise there could be listed pretty many site. Studentsn.com increased it´s userbase only through blogmarketing, by that it may be a social network in some way but more an online community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.9.210 ( talk) 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I know little about Facebook, but I came across the following list of leading Facebook apps:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/08/facebook-apps-ruled-by-the-few/
I went to lookup "Top Friends" in Wikipedia, and it redirects to MySpace (?). I eventually found my way to this page. Guanxi 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This section seems to border on original research and encyclopedic, but I'd like to get more opinions on this. 69.12.143.197 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
quite funny to see people believe that facebook will close. Bit more information would be needed on this section on the updates of the lawsuit. Under this article [1] that ConnectU propose that Facebook merge with them but not sure if this is relevant.-- 88.105.39.88 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a source citing court documents through the proceedings provided by this blog. KyuuA4 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
From a glance at the relative size of the various topics, the page's description of Facebook dwarfs in comparison to the criticism of facebook. While I think the criticisms themselves are valid, I feel like they should be moved to a second page on facebook criticisms simply due tot he size. Any thoughts? 152.3.85.176 03:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
IT'S NOT TRUE. It's can be more visited websited specific on college-focused webpages or such but not just say "the second more visited website".
Anyways many statisticals are representatives to US states (plus UK) and not for the rest of the world. If you say that google, yahoo and such are widely popular then you can be right mainly because they are localized to many countries but if you say that Facebook... oh my!, is popular but in China, Japan and the rest of the world..
-- Magallanes 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Why Americans always seem to be totally oblivious of the world around them, I haven't a clue, but from my experience, that attitude doesn't go down well on an international community like Wikipedia. I removed "Scotland" from immediately after "Uni of St Andrews", because there is no reason to annouce the location of it simply because it isn't in the US! If that weren't the case, we should be announcing the location of all universities, regardless of country.u want to know where it is, click on the link. martianlostinspace 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what happened to "Pulse"? Both the public and logged in versions are redirecting me to home.php although the "Election Pulse" remains. Does Facebook plan to sell this data to marketing research companies or is this a temporary 404? -- LEKI ( talk) 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions that Facebook is now open to all Internet users, and describes the validation techniques now in place. However, it doesn't exactly state what restrictions were in place before it became an "open" site, so I have no idea of the significance of this move.
I assume that the site was restricted to members of particular institutions (hence the references to certain colleges "having" or "not having" Facebook), but how was this membership validated? Was it purely by e-mail address, or were there other methods in place? Presumably undergrads could retain their Facebook membership after graduation, but was it possible for alumni of that institution to gain Facebook membership? 217.155.20.163 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Facebook's use in investigations shouldn't be forked from this article. I recommend merging it back into this one. --- RockMFR 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Per Spudtheimpaler, ElKevbo, Timclare, and myself I have moved the subarticle to Use of social network websites in investigations. Feel free to expand it there with incidents regarding MySpace and the rest as well. -- LEKI ( talk) 07:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Where do Facebook get their money from? It's a free service and I don't see any advertisements... -- Josteinaj 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think someone should add in something about peopleradar.com. I'm not sure what date facebook started it, but it is sure to become a controversial issue pretty soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.105.169 ( talk • contribs)
I think some mention needs to be made of the latest Facebook feature. It was introduced as a temporary thing and for charity, but the charity aspect of it seems now to have disappeared without any notice. *smb 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone just made an addition to the gift section, stating that today (April 6th), Facebook added a new gift, the nail. They say that this is interesting because today is Good Friday, the day that Jesus was nailed to the cross according to the Christian faith. While I do agree that this is interesting, should we really be adding things like this to this section? I'm just afraid that, if we do, it could soon become a huge list of every gift facebook has released. Should this information be removed, or does it need it's own subsection, perhaps even it's own article (if the list does actually grow)? -- Mears man 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The addition of Andrew McCollum as Co-founder to the Key People sidebar was deleted a couple of weeks ago. Is there a rationale for that edit someone could offer? When Mark wrote Facebook during his sophomore year at Harvard, Andrew was a key contributor, especially to the graphics. He solved various problems that arose and generally supported Mark throughout the development of the site. It was Andrew's summer internship at EA that prompted Mark to go out to Palo Alto with him in June of 2004, and Chris and Dustin to go along to help out. Within a few weeks, Mark persuaded Andrew to leave the EA internship to work full-time on developing Wirehog, an idea he and Mark had come up with that spring. The potential for legal problems with Wirehog being a file-sharing site led them to create it as an entity independent from Facebook, but Andrew was always present at the house and, later, in the Thefacebook office, helping with any programming problems that came up that no one else could solve. That's why his name stayed on Thefacebook site's own list of "About" people ("General Rockstar") for so long, despite not being a regular employee of the company, per se, and why he is recognized as one of the original founders of the business. I'm not sure, then, why he shouldn't be recognized as one of the Co-founders in the sidebar. The same could be said of Sean Parker, whom they joined up with in Palo Alto in June 2004 and who contributed invaluable business expertise to the project at just the right time and place. -- Salspsyche 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Key People (Variable: key_people) - Which three people closely associated with the business organization are most popular and efficacious? *Use: no more than three names unless reasonably appropriate. *Use: popular names instead of formal names, if available. *Note: The executive branch of a business organization is not necessarily the key people.
"Another problem is that Facebook users may be under the impression that deleting something from one's Mini-Feed deletes it from the News Feed as well. It does not."
So why does the dialog that comes up when you click the 'x' to delete a story in your feed say "Hiding will remove the story from your Mini-Feed and prevent anyone from seeing it."? 87.112.83.155 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
How come the Mini-Feed and News Feed aren't detailed in the Features section of this page? Seems like they're important features. sociate 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"On 2 March 2007, a survey was conducted by eMarketer.com that discovered Facebook was the most viewed site by females in the United States (69%) ages 17 - 25 in 2007 and also the most viewed website by males (56%).[78]"
By "males" does it mean all males or only those in the mentioned age group? It's not clear, and the source requires subscription. MickO'Bants 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, anyone know what the TOC was set to be 80% of the regular font size? EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a link repository. The article (before this posting) had 31 links under the "External links" heading. That's WAY too much; most of those are just random news stories that really need to be reincorporated into the article as sources; if not, they need to stay gone.
Anyway, here are the links from the article; this is just a straight copy/paste from the article, as I've removed them entirely from the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you go to this poll, you can see that most Facebook-users clearly dislike the new layout. Is it unreasonable to mention a change Facebook made that nearly 60% of the users disliked? - Hmwith 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's called a statistical population, which, in this case, is based on a pretty random sample of Facebook users. It would be impossible to poll every user out there, so you use a sample. - Hmwith 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"The name of the site refers to the paper facebooks that colleges and prepatory schools give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community."
There is no source for this. I fact tagged it and that was removed with the explanation that "it's obvious." If it's that obvious it shouldn't require saying. However, without a source, this constitutes original research and should be removed. " Look at the disambiguation page" is not a source. A perfect example of how Wikipedia can sometimes create and perpetuate truisms. Savidan 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The section on the Virginia shootings is not cited. I think it should be removed unless anyone can find a reference to back it up. 70.51.247.126 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to know what the most popular group (i.e. group with the most members) is on Facebook, but I can't seem to get hold of this information. If someone could help that would be most appreciatted. 80.229.225.16 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I found a great profile on Mark Zuckerberg that I think should be added on to the external links section, but someone took it down. It clearly added value and was relevant to the topic. When people come on here to read about facebook, it is logical to expect there to be information present about the founder and CEO.
Thoughts?
(
Babar54Babar
Babar54)
In 2007, Facebook played a number of pranks on its users during the course of April Fools' Day. Making light of the site's 'poke' function, Facebook offered to dispatch a live person to poke any friend that the reader chooses. Jokes were also made about the basketball tournament competition, Harry Potter, Grey's Anatomy and The Oregon Trail. Also in the footer about the copyright information, the name "Mark Zuckerberg" was replaced by random other names, including those of Facebook software engineers and the user's own name. [1]
I deleted the April Fools section since it has nothing to do with responses to Facebook (the heading it was under) and is nothing but a list of insignificant self-deprecation already listed in other April Fools articles. In the long run, the above is hardly notable. Gdo01 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(undent) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good reason. Anyway, three things have to be addressed:
I agree that the section needs to be removed. While it is marginally interesting and I agree with the assertion that it says something about the playfulness of those who own and operate the website, that strikes me as original research and thus inadmissible. Further, the source offered for the section is absolutely unacceptable. Finally, Martin Hinks assertion that the info should only be included if it occurs more than once has some merit. -- ElKevbo 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Added new marketplace entry and placed it with gifts under a new section entitled additional features to break it from the Responses section Boston2austin 13:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey folks. I made the time line into prose, but wasn't logged in when I did it. Anybody know a way I can revert it and put it under my name? I'd like to have it in my edit history, because I worked pretty hard on it. I'll try to write a lead-in later. Benuneko 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is no longer out of date and, as usual, I don't have time to fix it. Could someone, perhaps? The problem is that the quotes from Facebook's privacy policy are out of date. 132.162.240.52 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's encylopedic or not, but recently Facebook has been closing down quite a few accounts (taking part in a radio contest for The Edge), on the grounds of 'spamming other members'.
One such account that was closed happened to be a charity trying to earn money to donate towards 'Sick Children's Hospital' in Toronto.
Again, not sure if it's encylopedic or not, but Facebook seems to care more about their users than they do about helping out dying children. JimmmyThePiep 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Article states: "The following month, Facebook threatened to seek costs of up to $100,000 from Quizsender.com for copyright infringement for allegedly copying the "look and feel" of Facebook" but according to the soure (13) it was the domain that was the issue facebookquizzes.com or something. Someone please correct (a quick look over archive.org here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.quizsender.com/ shows that the design has never been similar to facebooks) 82.163.36.55 07:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it would seem that this site has many skins and one of them really did look like Facebook's.
Take a look:
http://www.oxfordstudent.com/tt2006wk6/News/facebook_sends_out_its_lawyers
Northern 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This article should have some information on how facebook is coded (it is pretty advanced, with a lot of dynamic stuff going on), as well as facebook developer stuff, and how developers can create applications that integrate with the facebook data. it's a somewhat open-content project. i don't know enough about it though. Bonus Onus 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See this in the bottom: "^ Doug Beaver (2007). Facebook Photos "*Jesal + Hongjin*" Infrastructure (html). Facebook Weblog. Facebook. Retrieved on 2007-05-30." I never learned how to fix the codes at the bottom - the J/L part needs to be removed.
Can someone put the actual function of the website somewhere, preferrably in the intro? It's not actually in the article anywhere. If it is, it's hard to find. Voretus 20:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to explain for Rrjanbiah why both Pomte and I reverted his inclusions.
First:
Aside from the grammatical errors, this claim needs to be verified, and the text should not have been included where it was — namely, in a previous reference. Provide a notable reference for your claim and it should be added.
Secondly, I'm not sure that a couple of remarks by Digg users is worthwhile mentioning. You may disagree with me here, but I think it'd need to be a more notable and larger article to merit inclusion here. I agree with Pomte that the Harvard comments may be a personal attack, and indeed Facebook does already use PHP.
Hope this helps. — cBuckley ( Talk • Contribs) 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the deal with the platform? The programming language? Where is it going? I read a very interesting article about Zuckerberg's expectations of the platform and its future and the potential business to be done if one were to program with the platform. Fortune questioned whether it was a delusion of grandeur, but I am doubtful. Does anyone know anything about this? Kitra101 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the primary investors of thefacebook.com has ties to the CIA. Google searching the references will give you multiple verifiable sources for the information.
http://digg.com/security/Facebook_s_CIA_ties?offset=51
An interesting point about how Facebook is really a site for data mining and spying:
by danielson on 12/13/2005 code error? I was on facebook one time and I clicked on one of my friends link and it for some reason it came up with a bunch of the php source code. One thing that kind of caught my attention was this part of it(I took a screenshot because I can't post code here.): http://www.danieljanderson.com/images/source.jpg
"That's only a part of the code...."
Original link gone, but available now at: http://web.archive.org/web/20060110032336/http://www.danieljanderson.com/images/source.jpg
I just gave facebook a shot for the first time, and was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED when part of the application asked for the password to my EMAIL ACCOUNT! Sure, it was optional, but that's completely unacceptable. That, my friends, is a gigantic red flag. Facebook is not to be trusted. I mean.. think about it. Have you ever seen a legitimate website ask for such information? Of course you haven't. Facebook is shady. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.146.216 ( talk) 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've got an issue with the opening sentence: "Facebook is the second most visited social networking website on the World Wide Web with over 28 million members. It is surpassed only by MySpace." According to Alexa and each site's own given statistics (don't know if that's a valid source), Orkut is a more popular site. I didn't see any justification in any of the talk archives. This really needs to be justified by someone or changed. Maybe second most popular in the North America? Or the USA? Keammo1 04:50, 02 July 2007 (UTC)
Not even close. Myspace has 67 million visitors a month, whereas Facebook only has 20. Use your common sense, why would someone join a site where they can't really look at anyone's profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.114.173 ( talk)
Please don't tell me to 'use [my] common sense', since you it doesn't even sound like you read my post...I'm saying it's the 3rd most popular at best, NOT that it is more popular than Myspace. I'm comparing it with Orkut, and Orkut is more popular than Facebook. In any case, someone has fixed the problem by just removing the sentence. My first post could've been clearer, but it's still not too hard to comprehend. Keammo1 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
what is facebooks policy abut handing over ip addresses to cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordugihauser ( talk • contribs)
I looked up pro wrestlers like Rey Mysterio, Mr.Kennedy, Triple H, The Undertaker, John Cena and it showed them on the website. Are they real? J.C. 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Under the section of the article that briefly talks about the poke feature it is said that the poke is used as a sexual advance. The source is from a college newspaper and -- at least to me -- is an obviously satirical article. It is quite a funny read, but I don't think it is appropriate for a source. It is footnote 103, here is the article link: http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/04/03/Features/Facebook.poke.Leads.To.Awkward.OneNighter-1777165.shtml?sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com Redtemplar 14:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)RedTemplar
I stress that a semi-protection is placed on the article. It's getting vandalized every minute. Koolgiy 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is this site (Facebook) so popular? I visited the site and I just don't get it. Thanks. 70.48.97.37 11:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If you search for drawball, it leads you to this article. Any idea why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.47.38 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 August 2007
Hi everybody,
Great job you are doing with this page. I was wondering, why does facebook install so many cookies whose descriptions are of an ad nature? like ad-manager...? Is this worth looking into? (unsigned)
This article should mention that facebook has been blocked by many big banks and other companies, not because of the themes mentioned in the article but because of concerns of time wasting, abusing company computer facilities as well as being used to slag of the company (many users have set up groups like "my company directors are bunch of w***ers" etc.). Surely many universities woukld criticise such use of faceboo, and other similar sites as it deprives people with legitimate reasons, like for university work, access to computers. I believe these points should be raised in the article.
I also believe thatthe article should mention more about facebook in other countries for example the United Kingdom.
Franny-K 18:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Who tagged the page with the Globalize tag? That makes no sense. Facebook is based in Palo Alto in the U.S. and caters to a U.S. audience so it makes no sense to discuss a worldwide view that doesn't really exist. That would be like trying to write an article on koalas from an worldwide view (which also makes no sense as they are indigenous to Australia). -- Coolcaesar 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure who tagged it but it is sensible to write articles from a world-wide perspective if the subject is world-wide. Certainly the company's head office is in the US and the company clearly started by targetting US colleges, but Facebook is now a world-wide phenomenon (at least in English speaking countries).
205.200.224.254Davidmross —The preceding
signed but undated comment was added at 22:17, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
How come this article mentions nothing of the new Facebook Video application? [14]. You can find out more about it on their video FAQ [15]. This information is very relevant to this article. The application has over 7 million users. You fail to mention this fact, but yet you focus extensively on trivial features like poke. You are doing a disservice to your viewers not to even talk about it once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzlemctwizzle ( talk • contribs) 01:27, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Alright I made my addition to the article [16]. Could you please check it for me to make sure I didn't do anything dumb? That would be great. Thanks a lot. Sizzlemctwizzle 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The citation about the competition with Myspace comes from the article I cited earlier. [17] Sizzlemctwizzle 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
In the article it says that by the end of 2005 Facebook had over 11 million users. This is misleading - if you check the source, the data states that 11.1 million was the number of visitors to the site for that year, which is not the same thing.
According to Trendcatching [18] it only just reached 7.5 million users by July 2007, and 25 million as of now. I don't want to mess with the page but if someone wants to find the correct statistics for 2005 they should change it.
-Leo 124.170.182.66 11:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
7.5 million was July 2006, Trendcatching has a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.172.6 ( talk) 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As of now, the "Applications" sections lists the most popular apps, such as iLike, Graffiti, etc. I would argue that the "Honesty Box" application is as large as any of these and deserves mention. -- BeastKing89 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned at all. I think that only Facebook Applications in general should be mentioned. That way there wouldn't be a long list of apps. Sizzlemctwizzle 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The Honesty Box is very unique and popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.230.145 ( talk) 21:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone seen this: Facebook campaign forces HSBC U-turn? I reckon it's interesting enough for inclusion - it shows the clout that the Facebook community delivers. Against a massive corporation, no less. Seegoon 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html?hp
We need to update to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.petrille ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if a personal e--mail can be counted as a reference even in full citation, but my account was permanently disabled today, apparently for adding too many friends to quickly. That should be a warning to others until and unless Facebook offers me another explanation for what I did wrong. That a person can have their account disabled for engaging in a major raison d'être of the site is most definitely notable, but difficult to verify. -- Scottandrewhutchins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottandrewhutchins ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the message I got:
Hi Scott,
After reviewing your situation, we have determined you violated our Terms of Use. Please note, nudity, drug use, or other obscene content is not allowed on the website. Additionally, we do not allow users to send threatening, obscene, and harassing messages. Unsolicited messages and friend requests will also not be tolerated. We will not be able to reactivate your account for any reason. This decision is final.
Thanks for understanding,
Theodore Customer Support Representative Facebook
[scottandrewhutchins@yahoo.com - Thu Aug 30 10:19:31 2007]:
Ever since the first time I was temporarily blocked for adding new friends, I have been blocked subsequent times without any warning. I just tried to add a friend a few minutes ago, and it said I was temporarily blocked. I got no warning to slow down preceding it. I am a real person here and I think denying me that warning is real overkill.
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6
I did not post any nudity, drug use, or other obscene content, nor did I send threatening, obscene, and harassing messages. That leave unsolicited friend requests. Silly me, I thought meeting friends of friends was what a social networking site was for! The only friends I'd added recently were on the friends lists of people who had added me recently and whom I know in real life! The only other thing I can think of is that they are policing private messages, some of which, with certain friends, may have pushed the envelope of what they find acceptable, though it didn't seem to with the recipients in their responses to me. -- Scottandrewhutchins 17:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Supposedly if you get ten refusals in a day ,you get permanently blocked. Unfortunately, real people can be treated as if they are bots, and I was one who got burned. there ought to be something about that on the entry. Unfortunately, my edit got reverted by an anonymous user saying that we can't use Wikipedia talk pages as references. How do I reference an e-mail? --
Scottandrewhutchins 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And none of this can be added to the article because it's original research. Maybe if it was published in an independent reliable source. -- William Graham talk 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I haven't read the entire privacy policy nor the entire privacy policy section on Wikipedia (skimmed through it). I didn't see any bit of the rumour of a costumer's information being kept long after or even permanently after they have their account deleted. I've heard this from a lot of unrelated sources. Is there any truth to this and does anyone think it'd be prudent to create a section about this? As far as i am concerned this is a major reason for people not creating an account. And if it is true, it should be in the privacy policy section. Knippschild 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It says that this article is 'low' on the importance scale. Is this entirely accurate now that Facebook is the most visited site in the world besides google? It is very possible that i misunderstand the purpose of this scale. Bbqturtle 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody add the corresponding links in other wikipedia languages. I tried to add vkontakte, the russian clone, but the wikipedia url is very long: it's something like this: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This picture, even though titled on the image page, is not a description of facebook, rather a description of the domain of linkedin social networking site. you can view this by clicking the image and scrolling down to the description... Should the description be fixed or the image removed? Bbqturtle 14:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The part "Origins and expansion", says the following: "The following month, Zuckerberg, McCollum and Moskovitz moved to Palo Alto, Russia, to continue work on Facebook's development...".
Isn't Palo Alto in CALIFORNIA? Or am I just stupid? Nasht 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I see now that this happened here: Revision as of 13:47, 26 September 2007. I'm guessing this was some kind of joke. I don't know what are the proper ways to handle that, but I'll fix it for now.
Nasht 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There should be listed only sites that focus in some way on students, otherwise there could be listed pretty many site. Studentsn.com increased it´s userbase only through blogmarketing, by that it may be a social network in some way but more an online community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.9.210 ( talk) 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I know little about Facebook, but I came across the following list of leading Facebook apps:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/08/facebook-apps-ruled-by-the-few/
I went to lookup "Top Friends" in Wikipedia, and it redirects to MySpace (?). I eventually found my way to this page. Guanxi 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This section seems to border on original research and encyclopedic, but I'd like to get more opinions on this. 69.12.143.197 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)