![]() | 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 9 |
Neowin added friends, member profiles, profile comments and other social networking features when they upgraded their forum software (December 30, 2006). Does this mean they are now considered a social networking website? According to their forum index they have 162,380 registered members and a total of 6,472,463 posts (as of January 3, 2007). Esptoronto 18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate Allpoetry.com, a poetry SNS site I administer. 170k users, People add others to their "Favorites" list, so a digraph form, but I think it's still worth of the SNS title. Built in messaging and chat. Inspire22 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Bragoff.com. I think we should add Bragoff.com to a list of social websites.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bragoff ( talk • contribs).
Chainofthoughts.com is a recent start up with emphasis on stream-of-consciousness and/or tagging. Users can basically write anything they want (30 characters at a time) and only the main page gets edited. It is a loose social gathering place where people from different organizations or groups can associate themselves. Here the concept of registration is outmoded, users need only create a tag unique enough to identify themselves. I have no idea how many unique visitors there are as the site looks fairly new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.34.3 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, January 10, 2007
I think Neatvibe (www.neatvibe.com) should be added. I don't know how much, but there's a whole lot of people there, I use to be active there before it got invaded by philippinos.. now everywhere you go the threads are in tagalog... but anyway, it should be here! Infinito 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I should have looked at this Talk Page earlier. I have perhaps jumped the gun in adding Friends Reunited without reference to here. I was not aware that submissions were being filtered through Talk.
However, I am firmly of the opinion that this site, with a .com domain as an entry page (making it truly international), and a claimed membership of between 10 and 15 million (depending on whichever page you visit in which country) built up over 7 years of existence, should be acceptable to all; however, if consensus deems otherwise, please remove it entirely. Refsworldlee 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The 49 previous discussions have been archived here on 18 Jan. 2007. The previous two archives have 18 and 17 discussions each... if the third archive is too long, it can be split into multiple parts. -- Czj 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Its the only gaming social network that I know of, I don't see why it wouldn't be noted here along with the others. Does anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCitizen ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
I know this was discussed in the archives, but I wanted to state my opinion. (Sorry of consensus was already reached!) There is no online dating service list article (the online dating service article links here). And there are far fewer "online dating services" than non-dating "social networking websites." Moreover, the difference between the two isn't so clear--ie, when compared to Facebook, orkut has quite a few "online dating service" aspects. So, why not just add a few (to the 60 here) in (ie, Yahoo! Personals, Match.com, American Singles, eHarmony)? -- gwc 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone just added Blogger. Does it count as a social networking site? I'd say no, but it's close as Blogger adds more LiveJournal-like features. Argyriou (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added Yelp, which is an important up and coming social networking site. I couldn't find a reference for the # of users. Also removed (commented out in case anyone wants to add it back) Amie Street because I couldn't find any indication that it's a social networking site, just a music upload and download site. If I'm wrong or overstepped, sorry! Wikidemo 11:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying I don't know if registered users get a contact facility once they've signed up (I don't intend to test this theory either), but it's not advertised on the outside. My opinion is that some people's concept of social networking is different to that defined in Wikipedia - the 'community' aspect alluded to by me above in Amie Street and here for example. In all the comments found, the word "I" is repeated many times, whereas the word "we" is not to be found. I firmly believe that the basis of this site is music download for self, not networking amongst many. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So in your opinion, why isn't Amie Street a social network? Sure, the site exists to sell music, but the idea is to find friends who have similar musical taste so you can find good music through their RECs. It seems like trying to connect with other users is a main goal of the site. The idea is to make enough friends that when you do REC a song enough people buy it so you can get free music. An easy way to connect directly to bands and other fans of the band is a great way to meet new friends. Isn't that how MySpace really got popular? Connecting bands to fans? Just because there is a store mixed in with that how would that change the fact that you can connect with people through the service? What is your definition of a "Social Network"? How do Ruckus, MOG, and Last.fm fit? How are they different/better than Amie Street to merit their inclusion on the list? (Although I will admit that is a bad way to argue for Amie Street's inclusion.) I'm going to revert and then comment out the Amie Street entry until this gets hashed out a bit more... Paul C/ T + 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
To me, this would definitely constitute a social network, and that has certainly been our intent, but, of course, I defer to what the community feels on this one. 24.184.0.45 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Elias (co-founder, Amie Street)
Okay, I was hoping I wouldn't have to quote directly from the archive, but if you are going to continue to bring it up as a reason why Amie Street shouldn't be on the list I'm going to have to address it directly:
That is Satori Son's first take on why Blue Dot should be kept. I should point out the examples used above are still on this list with the exception of Amie Street and AIM. Although again I should say that I realize that isn't a good reason to argue why Amie Street should be kept, I'm just pointing it out for sake of discussion... but why WAS AIM scrapped? Quite frankly they are a social network, one of the first really-what do you think a buddy list is?-just a listing of your friends and an easy way to get in contact with them. Just because they dropped the ball on the implementation for discovery of new friends and didn't advertise themselves as a "social network" doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed here. The discussion continues:
Okay so now it is defined as the "primary purpose of the website is sharing content with friends". Now as far as I know, Amie Street intends to be all about that. In fact, a big part of the recent redesign was an additional way to share songs with friends directly through email or Facebook and according to Elias above "they intend to be a social network". But I will admit that content does seem to be geared toward "the general public". The problem I have with that is the fact that you still need to sign up to make any significant use of that content (actually purchase and download songs) and once you sign up you have a vested interest in becoming part of the community and start to communicate and share content with friends. Plus, just by the nature of music, people usually want to share it with friends (witness P2P file-sharing and Napster back in 2000.) Again, this was refined further:
That is the end of the discussion (and why I think it should be "unarchived" and discussed further, considering that the last post directly contradicts Blue Dot's current inclusion on the list). What this all boils down to is the fact that there are no clear guidelines for what does and doesn't belong on this list. Where do you put sites that facilitate social networking but not as its primary purpose? I think what was being discussed was that this should be categorized further into genres on separate pages, but no real effort has been made on this front. I think it is premature to start to remove sites from the list when the current focus of this page still seems to be in flux. (Or is it "the primary purpose of the website is sharing content with friends"?) At this point I'm not going to continue to argue for Amie Street's inclusion unless another editor chimes in, but I do believe we should attempt to start to break down this list into more refined categories. Obviously social networking is a very broad field and can be used in many different contexts, trying to shoehorn "pure" social networking sites with sites that try do social networking around a specific genre seems to be causing some controversy here. Paul C/ T + 03:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
For this one there isnt article on wikipedia, but is growing quickly. i havent been able to find how many people are in tagged.com-- ometzit<col> 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I added Tagged to the list of social networking websites and it got removed and I got a warning, Now I have made Tagged its own page on Wikipedia please check it out Tagged and contribute thanks! User:Spikeyhairedsam
I think the new table layout is unnecessary. The biggest problem is that this sort of layout sorts numbers alphabetically and not by actual size. It'd be a good function otherwise, but as it stands, this layout really does nothing new except add confusion and taunt users by offering options which don't work how they should in these cases. Also, some things are just pointless, such as putting the descriptions in alphabetical order. Opinions? -- Czj 10:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to nominate: www.iGolf.to, to the social networking list. This is a golf community site for anyone who plays golf. iGolf.to provides a platform for golfers to: add friends, blog their games, create golf communities, create golfing events and network members.
The site is in pre-vc stages ( http://www.igolf.to/news_page.php?cat_id=5) and currently has 417 confirmed members (members displayed on home page).
Personally niche social networking sites could become a phenomina on the net with far greater advertising value per unit.
20:12, 7 February 2007 (GMT)
I wish to nominate Ticket4one.com as a social networking website with over 15,000 members this makes them the largest singles events website in the world.
Surely the largest website in the world of any type is worthy to be included in wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky4885 ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
Sorry i read the beginning of allpoetry and golf social networking and they both started by nominating. My error i will read the guidlines on article submission and try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky4885 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi. The user count for MySpace has recently been increased to 154,000,000. The editor concerned has pointed this to the same linked source as previously for the same date as previously, merely adding "Feb 2007". Where is the verifiability for the new figure quoted? I have searched the internet for a reliable updated membership figure, but every source I access comes up with a 'ball-park'.
If no concensus or fresh information on this, I will revert the user count, or 'Unknown' it. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
At first glance this looks very much the same in principle as the 'limboed' Amie Street - review-based, income-generating, and social contact strictly reserved for the signed-up member. Or can anyone tell us how it's different and therefore worthy of staying out of limbo? I have not removed it, let's get a little consensus. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The number used is not the user count but the traffic. Do you think it should be changed ? 84.102.230.123 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
BusinessPartnerships.ca, Trade-Pals.com? 74.98.241.198 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Danica
The feature that sorts by "User count" sorts alphanumerically rather than by the actual number. As a result, 100 would show before 500,000, which would show before 70.
Can this be fixed? -- SandManMattSH 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This entry, when referring to Usercount, states "too soon to say". Would this not then compromise its notability under present guidelines - someone is admitting that this is a 'fledgling' organisation, and perhaps not ready to be listed? I have repeated this line of approach on its Talk page. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
So far this has been legitimately de-tagged as far as speedy deletion is concerned. I for one have no intention of removing the listing from the list at present, as it seems to meet the criteria looked for. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Just reporting two more websites: CherryTap and Shuzak. CherryTap is an social "crush" site, and Shuzak is for "geeks". -- Andrex 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I am not doing this appropriately, please feel free to let me know. I went through the list of social networking sites and I did not see Hi5 (www.hi5.com). The site is popular among people from Florida (within the US), the Caribbean, and Latin America. In the corporate portion of the site it states that they have 50 million users. It is similar to the other social networking sites where you create a page, have friends, join groups, etc etc. 64.194.208.5 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)XOHottie
I updated the number of "users" on Bebo (to 31,500,000). I can vouch for this as I am an employee and looked at the stats just a minute ago. This refers to registered users - not active. I think this list would be much more useful with registered users vs. active users. MySpace reports 160 million registered users but it is widely known that they have a much lower number of active users. Jozecuervo 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Geni.com would like to be added. How can we prove we are a legit social networking site? We have over 100,000 users, an article in the wall street journal and hundreds of blog postings about our site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.30.105 ( talk • contribs)
Here is the Wall Street Journal Story and our normal company page. We launched Jan 16, 2007. So is taking down the word "beta" from our logo required before we can be listed? Thanks. Andrewfromgeni 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Over the weekend I created and added a good, to the point entry on ComicsSpace. Then I edited the list of social netowrking sites to reflect this. My change to the list was rolled-back due to the link not being to a Wikipedia page. Why did this happen? I checked the Wikipedia ComicSpace page before I added the link to the social networking list, knowing the rule to adding entries to the list. Now it appears the ComicSpace page is gone - and doesn't even appear in "My Contributions" any more. I've read the instructions on editing, and wrote a proper encyclopedic description. I've received nothing on the ComicSpace entry I added, though it appears to have been deleted. Admittedly, I am new to Wikipedia editing and may be overlooking some subtle parameter (though eager snarksters should note: I joined a long time ago and waited, lurking and learning, until I made any additions or serious edits). Regardless of my own plight, ComicSpace is a major social networking site, is referenced numerous times throughout Wikipedia, yet there is no main entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calgodot ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
As regards the dreaded statistics, this subject does not Google well, nor does it appear particularly busy according to Alexa. Although that's not the be-all or end-all, it nevertheless appears that this is not a notable enough website to justify an article here. That's only my opinion of course. I note that this has been removed from the article prior to possible deletion. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't tagged very similar to facebook? Nadyes 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Social network for foodies: FoodCandy. It has 1200+ members now and mentions in various press. If people find it interesting, please add a page. It's my project, so adding it myself isn't kosher. Dblockdotorg 05:19, 26 March 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 9 |
Neowin added friends, member profiles, profile comments and other social networking features when they upgraded their forum software (December 30, 2006). Does this mean they are now considered a social networking website? According to their forum index they have 162,380 registered members and a total of 6,472,463 posts (as of January 3, 2007). Esptoronto 18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate Allpoetry.com, a poetry SNS site I administer. 170k users, People add others to their "Favorites" list, so a digraph form, but I think it's still worth of the SNS title. Built in messaging and chat. Inspire22 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Bragoff.com. I think we should add Bragoff.com to a list of social websites.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bragoff ( talk • contribs).
Chainofthoughts.com is a recent start up with emphasis on stream-of-consciousness and/or tagging. Users can basically write anything they want (30 characters at a time) and only the main page gets edited. It is a loose social gathering place where people from different organizations or groups can associate themselves. Here the concept of registration is outmoded, users need only create a tag unique enough to identify themselves. I have no idea how many unique visitors there are as the site looks fairly new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.34.3 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, January 10, 2007
I think Neatvibe (www.neatvibe.com) should be added. I don't know how much, but there's a whole lot of people there, I use to be active there before it got invaded by philippinos.. now everywhere you go the threads are in tagalog... but anyway, it should be here! Infinito 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I should have looked at this Talk Page earlier. I have perhaps jumped the gun in adding Friends Reunited without reference to here. I was not aware that submissions were being filtered through Talk.
However, I am firmly of the opinion that this site, with a .com domain as an entry page (making it truly international), and a claimed membership of between 10 and 15 million (depending on whichever page you visit in which country) built up over 7 years of existence, should be acceptable to all; however, if consensus deems otherwise, please remove it entirely. Refsworldlee 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The 49 previous discussions have been archived here on 18 Jan. 2007. The previous two archives have 18 and 17 discussions each... if the third archive is too long, it can be split into multiple parts. -- Czj 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Its the only gaming social network that I know of, I don't see why it wouldn't be noted here along with the others. Does anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCitizen ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
I know this was discussed in the archives, but I wanted to state my opinion. (Sorry of consensus was already reached!) There is no online dating service list article (the online dating service article links here). And there are far fewer "online dating services" than non-dating "social networking websites." Moreover, the difference between the two isn't so clear--ie, when compared to Facebook, orkut has quite a few "online dating service" aspects. So, why not just add a few (to the 60 here) in (ie, Yahoo! Personals, Match.com, American Singles, eHarmony)? -- gwc 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone just added Blogger. Does it count as a social networking site? I'd say no, but it's close as Blogger adds more LiveJournal-like features. Argyriou (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added Yelp, which is an important up and coming social networking site. I couldn't find a reference for the # of users. Also removed (commented out in case anyone wants to add it back) Amie Street because I couldn't find any indication that it's a social networking site, just a music upload and download site. If I'm wrong or overstepped, sorry! Wikidemo 11:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying I don't know if registered users get a contact facility once they've signed up (I don't intend to test this theory either), but it's not advertised on the outside. My opinion is that some people's concept of social networking is different to that defined in Wikipedia - the 'community' aspect alluded to by me above in Amie Street and here for example. In all the comments found, the word "I" is repeated many times, whereas the word "we" is not to be found. I firmly believe that the basis of this site is music download for self, not networking amongst many. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So in your opinion, why isn't Amie Street a social network? Sure, the site exists to sell music, but the idea is to find friends who have similar musical taste so you can find good music through their RECs. It seems like trying to connect with other users is a main goal of the site. The idea is to make enough friends that when you do REC a song enough people buy it so you can get free music. An easy way to connect directly to bands and other fans of the band is a great way to meet new friends. Isn't that how MySpace really got popular? Connecting bands to fans? Just because there is a store mixed in with that how would that change the fact that you can connect with people through the service? What is your definition of a "Social Network"? How do Ruckus, MOG, and Last.fm fit? How are they different/better than Amie Street to merit their inclusion on the list? (Although I will admit that is a bad way to argue for Amie Street's inclusion.) I'm going to revert and then comment out the Amie Street entry until this gets hashed out a bit more... Paul C/ T + 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
To me, this would definitely constitute a social network, and that has certainly been our intent, but, of course, I defer to what the community feels on this one. 24.184.0.45 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Elias (co-founder, Amie Street)
Okay, I was hoping I wouldn't have to quote directly from the archive, but if you are going to continue to bring it up as a reason why Amie Street shouldn't be on the list I'm going to have to address it directly:
That is Satori Son's first take on why Blue Dot should be kept. I should point out the examples used above are still on this list with the exception of Amie Street and AIM. Although again I should say that I realize that isn't a good reason to argue why Amie Street should be kept, I'm just pointing it out for sake of discussion... but why WAS AIM scrapped? Quite frankly they are a social network, one of the first really-what do you think a buddy list is?-just a listing of your friends and an easy way to get in contact with them. Just because they dropped the ball on the implementation for discovery of new friends and didn't advertise themselves as a "social network" doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed here. The discussion continues:
Okay so now it is defined as the "primary purpose of the website is sharing content with friends". Now as far as I know, Amie Street intends to be all about that. In fact, a big part of the recent redesign was an additional way to share songs with friends directly through email or Facebook and according to Elias above "they intend to be a social network". But I will admit that content does seem to be geared toward "the general public". The problem I have with that is the fact that you still need to sign up to make any significant use of that content (actually purchase and download songs) and once you sign up you have a vested interest in becoming part of the community and start to communicate and share content with friends. Plus, just by the nature of music, people usually want to share it with friends (witness P2P file-sharing and Napster back in 2000.) Again, this was refined further:
That is the end of the discussion (and why I think it should be "unarchived" and discussed further, considering that the last post directly contradicts Blue Dot's current inclusion on the list). What this all boils down to is the fact that there are no clear guidelines for what does and doesn't belong on this list. Where do you put sites that facilitate social networking but not as its primary purpose? I think what was being discussed was that this should be categorized further into genres on separate pages, but no real effort has been made on this front. I think it is premature to start to remove sites from the list when the current focus of this page still seems to be in flux. (Or is it "the primary purpose of the website is sharing content with friends"?) At this point I'm not going to continue to argue for Amie Street's inclusion unless another editor chimes in, but I do believe we should attempt to start to break down this list into more refined categories. Obviously social networking is a very broad field and can be used in many different contexts, trying to shoehorn "pure" social networking sites with sites that try do social networking around a specific genre seems to be causing some controversy here. Paul C/ T + 03:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
For this one there isnt article on wikipedia, but is growing quickly. i havent been able to find how many people are in tagged.com-- ometzit<col> 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I added Tagged to the list of social networking websites and it got removed and I got a warning, Now I have made Tagged its own page on Wikipedia please check it out Tagged and contribute thanks! User:Spikeyhairedsam
I think the new table layout is unnecessary. The biggest problem is that this sort of layout sorts numbers alphabetically and not by actual size. It'd be a good function otherwise, but as it stands, this layout really does nothing new except add confusion and taunt users by offering options which don't work how they should in these cases. Also, some things are just pointless, such as putting the descriptions in alphabetical order. Opinions? -- Czj 10:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to nominate: www.iGolf.to, to the social networking list. This is a golf community site for anyone who plays golf. iGolf.to provides a platform for golfers to: add friends, blog their games, create golf communities, create golfing events and network members.
The site is in pre-vc stages ( http://www.igolf.to/news_page.php?cat_id=5) and currently has 417 confirmed members (members displayed on home page).
Personally niche social networking sites could become a phenomina on the net with far greater advertising value per unit.
20:12, 7 February 2007 (GMT)
I wish to nominate Ticket4one.com as a social networking website with over 15,000 members this makes them the largest singles events website in the world.
Surely the largest website in the world of any type is worthy to be included in wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky4885 ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
Sorry i read the beginning of allpoetry and golf social networking and they both started by nominating. My error i will read the guidlines on article submission and try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky4885 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi. The user count for MySpace has recently been increased to 154,000,000. The editor concerned has pointed this to the same linked source as previously for the same date as previously, merely adding "Feb 2007". Where is the verifiability for the new figure quoted? I have searched the internet for a reliable updated membership figure, but every source I access comes up with a 'ball-park'.
If no concensus or fresh information on this, I will revert the user count, or 'Unknown' it. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
At first glance this looks very much the same in principle as the 'limboed' Amie Street - review-based, income-generating, and social contact strictly reserved for the signed-up member. Or can anyone tell us how it's different and therefore worthy of staying out of limbo? I have not removed it, let's get a little consensus. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The number used is not the user count but the traffic. Do you think it should be changed ? 84.102.230.123 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
BusinessPartnerships.ca, Trade-Pals.com? 74.98.241.198 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Danica
The feature that sorts by "User count" sorts alphanumerically rather than by the actual number. As a result, 100 would show before 500,000, which would show before 70.
Can this be fixed? -- SandManMattSH 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This entry, when referring to Usercount, states "too soon to say". Would this not then compromise its notability under present guidelines - someone is admitting that this is a 'fledgling' organisation, and perhaps not ready to be listed? I have repeated this line of approach on its Talk page. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
So far this has been legitimately de-tagged as far as speedy deletion is concerned. I for one have no intention of removing the listing from the list at present, as it seems to meet the criteria looked for. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Just reporting two more websites: CherryTap and Shuzak. CherryTap is an social "crush" site, and Shuzak is for "geeks". -- Andrex 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I am not doing this appropriately, please feel free to let me know. I went through the list of social networking sites and I did not see Hi5 (www.hi5.com). The site is popular among people from Florida (within the US), the Caribbean, and Latin America. In the corporate portion of the site it states that they have 50 million users. It is similar to the other social networking sites where you create a page, have friends, join groups, etc etc. 64.194.208.5 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)XOHottie
I updated the number of "users" on Bebo (to 31,500,000). I can vouch for this as I am an employee and looked at the stats just a minute ago. This refers to registered users - not active. I think this list would be much more useful with registered users vs. active users. MySpace reports 160 million registered users but it is widely known that they have a much lower number of active users. Jozecuervo 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Geni.com would like to be added. How can we prove we are a legit social networking site? We have over 100,000 users, an article in the wall street journal and hundreds of blog postings about our site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.30.105 ( talk • contribs)
Here is the Wall Street Journal Story and our normal company page. We launched Jan 16, 2007. So is taking down the word "beta" from our logo required before we can be listed? Thanks. Andrewfromgeni 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Over the weekend I created and added a good, to the point entry on ComicsSpace. Then I edited the list of social netowrking sites to reflect this. My change to the list was rolled-back due to the link not being to a Wikipedia page. Why did this happen? I checked the Wikipedia ComicSpace page before I added the link to the social networking list, knowing the rule to adding entries to the list. Now it appears the ComicSpace page is gone - and doesn't even appear in "My Contributions" any more. I've read the instructions on editing, and wrote a proper encyclopedic description. I've received nothing on the ComicSpace entry I added, though it appears to have been deleted. Admittedly, I am new to Wikipedia editing and may be overlooking some subtle parameter (though eager snarksters should note: I joined a long time ago and waited, lurking and learning, until I made any additions or serious edits). Regardless of my own plight, ComicSpace is a major social networking site, is referenced numerous times throughout Wikipedia, yet there is no main entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calgodot ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
As regards the dreaded statistics, this subject does not Google well, nor does it appear particularly busy according to Alexa. Although that's not the be-all or end-all, it nevertheless appears that this is not a notable enough website to justify an article here. That's only my opinion of course. I note that this has been removed from the article prior to possible deletion. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't tagged very similar to facebook? Nadyes 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Social network for foodies: FoodCandy. It has 1200+ members now and mentions in various press. If people find it interesting, please add a page. It's my project, so adding it myself isn't kosher. Dblockdotorg 05:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)