DISQUS

I honestly don't think that virtual worlds are a threat at all. Virtual worlds like There and Second Life have peacefully coexisted with Facebook and MySpace for a number of years. I don't think that they really need to feel threatened by social networking sites. If anything, this type of integration, I think, would just drive more people to look at them as they see apps like Facing There on their friends' profiles. The social networking sites, in turn, could probably see a number of people that are friending each other on the site due to a connection they made in a virtual world.

That's just my guess, that virtual worlds and social networking can be beneficial to each other, and neither needs to see the other as a threat.

As an aside, I was on There all the time during its beta days, and absolutely loved it.

I really don't see how Twitter could go to a pay model and continue with the same atmosphere. By excluding people that don't want to pay, you'd lose a lot of the chatter. Granted, a lot of that chatter is noise, but there's still a lot of good out there too. Most of the people I follow wouldn't be willing to pay, and I've picked up a lot from them that I'd miss in a pay system. Also, as soon as Twitter went to a pay model, I think people would just find another service, or another free one would come along. Part of Twitter's appeal is the ability for anyone and everyone to use it.

The first time that I see something appear in my stream that looks ad-like will get the person unfollowed pretty quickly.

I know that I'm in the minority here, but I would think that holding things people do when they're teenagers against them later isn't a bad thing. If it was standard practice to look at things you did as a teen, then maybe teens would act more responsible and have a greater sense of accountability. I understand what you're saying about being able to learn and experiment with new things, but should we really be teaching people that things they do when they're young won't affect them later in life? Shouldn't we be trying to instill a sense of maturity at a younger age?

That said, those that are trying to hold them accountable should do so with a bit looser standards than seems to be the case. Should someone be punished for posting pictures of them at a party and drinking? Probably not. There is a difference between acting a bit crazy and having a good time, and doing things that are illegal or just plain stupid. The latter should be taken into consideration, the former should just be seen as normal behavior.

In terms of social networks, it seems like "all your friends are doing it" is actually a good point. I mean, if no one you know is on the social network, why would you bother to sign up? You want to be where your friends are, so if all of your friends are going out to a club, you want to go too. If all of your friends are going to a social network, you want to go too.
At the same time, I can see where she's coming from on the time side. She already knows you people, and doesn't necessarily need to take more time out of her schedule to have yet another thing to check. I have a hard time convincing my friends to sign up for things like Facebook even though I have good reasons for doing so. For example, when my friends and I are out, we will make reference to pictures, events, or conversations that are happening online, and my one friend that isn't on Facebook doesn't know what we're talking about. We try to use this as a reason for them to join. "If you were on here too, you would know what we're talking about." But alas, it still doesn't do any good. Some people just don't see the need to join in the fun.
Oh, lastly, Scrabulous has helped me sign up about three people on Facebook.

I desperately want to use Twitter, but I just can't find a use. I don't know anyone from real life that uses it. I could get on there and keep up with people I follow online, but now FriendFeed fulfills that purpose. I don't know if I even have any friends that have heard of Twitter other than the ones that I told about it. How can I convince people that are never online for anything other than email or Facebook to actually use Twitter?

Developers all knew this was a possibility. Facebook hasn't really done anything to prevent third-parties from creating some nice applications, and clearly there are a lot of them. If a third-party developer can create a truly better chat service, then they can probably keep themselves alive. They don't have to have every member of Facebook using their service to succeed. While many people will simply opt to use Facebook's own chat, there will still be many that prefer to use the other ones. Also, like I said, they shouldn't be too upset because they knew this could happen. Facebook made it no secret that they might create their own apps that compete with third-party ones.

This is an excellent move, and long overdue. A constant complaint I heard from people was the clutter of all the requests coming in. There was an animosity building towards the entire platform simply because people were sick of being bombarded by these requests. If the requests aren't seen as such a nuisance anymore, it will help build more goodwill toward the platform...or so I think.

Apologies if this posts twice, as I typed it up once and hit submit, only to have it disapear.

Chris: The exact amount was 1.073% (I had said a bit under 2% before as I misremembered it as 1.7). But yes, there would be a big difference between 2 and .02. I have something of a writeup with the results at the link below. It was more for humor than actual research, but it's still there.
http://www.southboard.com/blogger/2007/10/exper...

As for looking at CTRs and CPCs, I can see your point, but I'm not sure how much weight it'd have. While I understand that it makes sense to look at the CPC in order to maximize the efficiency of your money, if no one is clicking on the ads, it doesn't really matter. You may only spend a few bucks onthe compaign, and have it seen by tens of thousands of people, but it doesn't do you any good if your ad sucks and no one is clicking on it. The CTR is a good indication of the effectiveness of the ad. If you have a horrible CTR, then the potential to have conversions from the campaign would be incredibly low. I'd much rather have fewer impressions and a higher CTR. That means that my ad is effective, and that the clicks are more likely to be converted.

Wow, those are some bad CTRs. I have a feeling that it is largely related to the type of ads those are. "Save money with..." and "Get paid to shop at..." sound like the type of ads that people find horribly annoying. I would think that those ads would have fairly bad CTRs regardless of where they advertise. Not to mention that I'd be willing to bet the demographic of Facebook is not the type to click on those types of ads anway.
As a sidenote, and somewhat of a plug, I just ran an experiment last week to test out the new targeting options they have for flyers. I ended with a CTR of a bit under 2%, which I thought was a bit high for my ad, but lower than I thought was the norm (which I was thinking was closer to 3-4%).

Just to chime in here, as elsewhere, these are by no means new. Many of us have been using these for quite some time. I really am wondering why it is that so many people in the blogging community seem to be so far behind about a lot of Facebook.