Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses Social Networks The Internet

How Social Networks May Kill Search as We Know It 209

Posted by Zonk
from the we're-here-not-to-mourn-search-but-to-honor-him dept.
mattnyc99 writes "Recently we discussed a startup that's blending social networking with traditional Web search. But now high geek Glenn Derene takes it one step further, pronouncing that our increasingly traceable online footprints will transform Google's dominant algorithm and open up the world of Web search for the 21st century. Speaking to a tuned-in VC guy and scoring a rare interview with Google's VP of search, Derene may have some meat behind his newly-coined term: 'faceboogle.' From the article: 'As we each carve out our individual niche on the Web, the logic of search may well flip inside out. Since we are essentially meta-tagging ourselves through our social networking memberships, shopping habits and surfing addictions, it's conceivable that the information could attempt to find us — the old concept of push media, but in a far more refined way.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Social Networks May Kill Search as We Know It

Comments Filter:
  • oh god (Score:5, Insightful)

    by liquidpele (663430) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:15PM (#23094362) Journal
    If anyone says "faceboogle" to me, I swear I'll knock them out...
    • Re:oh god (Score:5, Funny)

      by BMonger (68213) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:18PM (#23094406)
      faceboogle!

      But seriously I think most of us are thinking the same sentiment.
    • Knock them out??? If anyone says it to me they will never find the teeny tiny body parts scattered all over the country.
    • Re:oh god (Score:5, Funny)

      by antifoidulus (807088) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @04:01PM (#23094956) Homepage Journal
      Sounds like a term used in porn to me....
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by BGrif (1190941)
      Faceboogle is bad but the alternates are even worse. What if people used Goofaced? Think of how mad you would be if you found out someone Goofaced you.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Faceboogle is bad but the alternates are even worse. What if people used Goofaced? Think of how mad you would be if you found out someone Goofaced you.

        facebooger, gooface, it still sounds like someone sneezed w/o a kleenex handy.

    • Re:oh god (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bombula (670389) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @04:54PM (#23095582)
      Facebook alone is enough to put me in a rage. But I guess I must grudgingly accept the fact that I am apparently one of only four computer-literate people left in the English speaking world who doesn't live and die by their facebook page. Ridiculous. My unborn children will hate me for sure.
      • by Torvaun (1040898)
        I have no Facebook. I'm not sure we can continue to consider the Facebook community part of the English speaking world, either.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by timotten (5411)
      "Faceboogle" is a classic example of the phenomenon I call "world wide web portmanteau." That name is a bit long; for short, I've coined a new term, "wwwortmanteau."

      Thank you, thank you. I'll be here again Thursday night.
  • by Raineer (1002750) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:16PM (#23094372)

    Not sure how google will outlive the threat from human-tagged information, both from social networks and Wiki's.

    Ever notice Wiki is in the top three hits to EVERY SEARCH in Google?

    • I've noticed that a lot, and I actually think Google inflates their ranking since they are usually a great resource, but I doubt they would ever admit it... Maybe I'm wrong though.
      • by Grishnakh (216268)
        It's frequently in my search results, because I frequently search for "wiki [terms]" specifically so I can find the Wikipedia page about it. Wikipedia is such a useful resource about things that I'd rather check there first before trying to find something else.
        • by AuMatar (183847)
          Why not just add site:wikipedia.org to the search terms?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by thanatos_x (1086171)
          If you have firefox or opera, you can add wikipedia as a search engine.

          In opera I believe it is enabled by default. Typing "w [searchterm]" will load that page result, usually the direct wikipedia page.

          In firefox 3b5 you can right click on any field and set it to be a search engine. Just go to wikipedia.org and use that one, or click the icon next to the search bar.

          Regardless it's hard to beat f6 w searchterm for speed.
      • by twistedsymphony (956982) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @04:33PM (#23095356) Homepage

        I've noticed that a lot, and I actually think Google inflates their ranking since they are usually a great resource, but I doubt they would ever admit it... Maybe I'm wrong though.
        Google is setup to naturally favor sites like wikipedia. Wikipedia has a high page rank because it's full of useful information and links to lots of other useful sites as well as well rooted self linking and tagging (which Google loves) and it doesn't produce any kind of spam.

        In addition to that, lots of people link to wikipedia with appropriate terms boosting wikipedia's page rank even higher... it just happens to cover broad enough topics that it seems to come up all the time.

        I find that searching for movie related information usually gets imdb in the top results... it's just that these sites happen to be the most referenced on the web and Google caters to well referenced sites.
    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @04:09PM (#23095060)
      Not sure how google will outlive the threat from human-tagged information, both from social networks and Wiki's.

      Ever notice Wiki is in the top three hits to EVERY SEARCH in Google?


      Did you ever notice you are on Google, and not the Wiki search page, when you make that observation?

      Obviously there's a reason. Wiki's (esp. Wkipedia which I'm sure is what you were really referring to) are great resources but are certainly not the only link I look at in search results - even if they are the top hits in many searches.

  • Push Media (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael (180766) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:17PM (#23094394) Journal
    "the old concept of push media, but in a far more refined way.'"

    You push it! You push it real good!

    All joking aside, I have serious doubts that push media could account for my eclectic tastes. My friends can't even figure me out, how is a stupid computer going to?
    • Re:Push Media (Score:4, Insightful)

      by evanbd (210358) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:24PM (#23094482)
      By finding people with similar tastes, and showing you things they liked (well, more complex than that, but you get the idea). After all, if you have one in a million tastes, that means there are a couple thousand people online with similar tastes -- and several hundred of those even speak English. If the algorithms work well, then the computers have the potential advantage over humans of having *lots* of data to work with.
      • by Eli Gottlieb (917758) <eligottlieb@COFF ... m minus caffeine> on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:27PM (#23094508) Homepage Journal
        Well sure, but what if I belong to multiple social groups with differing interests? For instance, what if I belong to a Cthulhu fan group (just since we're having a con over here this weekend) and a fitness group. Will the algorithm try to tell me how to get fit with Cthulhu, or will it send me ads for both tentacle porn and diet supplements?
        • by evanbd (210358)

          That would be the part where intelligent algorithms are needed. Hopefully it would observe that the content correlated poorly with love for things Man Was Not Meant to Know, and not bother using your Cthulhu fan club contacts to decide whether to recommend it for you.

          Obviously, for this to be interesting, you need both good algorithms and (lots of) good data. Without either, the other doesn't help much.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I can assure you, that my tastes are fairly unique. I doubt that there are ten people that have my tastes and interests.

        That being said, Slashdot is one of my favorite places, not necessarily for Tech news, but rather for the wild assortment of people that visit here. I have a little in common with most people here. But I also have very little in common with most, individually.

        How does a computer rate such things?
        • by evanbd (210358)
          Off the top of my head, break the problem into pieces. If it's trying to figure out what type of TV show you'll like, your political tastes are probably only peripherally relevant. Unique as you might be in total, I highly doubt that every piece of your tastes are unique. So maybe you correlate with group A for TV shows, B for techie news sites, C for... That just means that it needs to figure out what category the item in question belongs to before deciding whether or not you're likely to like it. And
      • by STrinity (723872)

        By finding people with similar tastes, and showing you things they liked
        Since I'm paranoid enough to have the Google cookie disabled, how is this system going to find that information on me? Or will everyone with cookies disabled be fed conspiracy related search results?
        • by evanbd (210358)
          Well, yeah, if you keep yourself out of the database then it won't have much info on you. Generally I do the same thing, privacy reasons and all that, but I'm aware there are (at least potentially) benefits I'm missing out on. So far, though, I'd rather have my privacy.
    • Facebooble? If that's not the right name for you, it is for someone. And given all the spam, er, push media, I think it exists.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by *weasel (174362)

      I have serious doubts that push media could account for my eclectic tastes. My friends can't even figure me out, how is a stupid computer going to?

      Easy. They'll simply send you everything and then let you turn off whatever you find annoying.
      "the old concept of push media, but in a far spammier way"

      Frankly, the idea is laughable. Never in the history of these half-baked schemes has a significant quantity of content honestly identified itself. So long as every incentive exists to game the system, and none

  • "Faceboogle"?!?!? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Otter (3800) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:18PM (#23094408) Journal
    Derene may have some meat behind his newly-coined term: 'faceboogle.'

    I literally spit out a mouthful of Diet Coke upon reading that. "Faceboogle" replaces "blogmarklet" as The Worst New Word Ever. (Although it's still less annoying than "__? Not so much.)

    How does one get to become "high geek", anyway?

    • by eln (21727) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:21PM (#23094438) Homepage

      How does one get to become "high geek", anyway?
      Easy, you smoke dope until you think "faceboogle" is a neat word.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by snarkh (118018)

        You will need at least LSD.
      • by e2d2 (115622)
        Easy, you smoke dope until you think "faceboogle" is a neat word.

        I will try later tonight and post my results.

        In this day and age he's probably high on pills anyway..

        I think "futurist" is becoming actually becoming a viable career path now. You don't even have to implement anything, you just spike a small barely working prototype, create a new word and bam, you're a fucking genius.

    • by Hatta (162192)
      Smoke pot while writing shell scripts.
    • by Chyeld (713439)

      "__?

      Pirate smilie with a hook caught in their bad eye?
    • "Meat" and "Faceboogle" brought to mind the final scene of "Boogie Nights."
    • How does one get to be high geek?

      Koon-ut-kal-if-fee.
    • by jamie (78724) * Works for Slashdot

      "Faceboogle" replaces "blogmarklet" as The Worst New Word Ever.

      I used to work for a company that was convinced the next big thing was going to be vertical web portals -- Vortals.

      But I think you may be right.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by nEoN nOoDlE (27594)
      I literally spit out a mouthful of Diet Coke upon reading that.

      Pics or it didn't happen.
  • Wrong assumption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ColoradoAuthor (682295) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:20PM (#23094430) Homepage

    The Faceboogle concept assumes that I want to search just for those things which already match my existing online footprint.

    When I search, however, it's usually because I want to find information on something NEW.

    Can it possibly be true that most searching is just for the same old topics--teenagers looking for the latest gossip on their favorite celebrity? Perhaps. But that sure doesn't describe how I--and most of the folks I know--use search.

    • by vux984 (928602) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:49PM (#23094792)
      The Faceboogle concept assumes that I want to search just for those things which already match my existing online footprint.

      Not only that, it seems to me that its assuming you only search for products (to buy). I can see how a review about a recently announced video card might get 'pushed' to me...

      But if I'm looking for information about how to barbeque chicken, or how to treat a burn wound caused by hot barbequed chicken, or how to remove barbeque sauce stains from a white carpet, or how to install a new white carpet... really is that going to 'push itself' to me?

      I spend a big chunk of my time searching for technical articles on very specific subjects. For example "how to bind an asp.net 2.0 gridview to a linq to sql datasource via an objectdatasource and support 2 way databinding, paging, sorting, using only poco objects outside of the data access layer, where the generated sql queries are clean and efficient (no loading 100,000 records when I only want 10, etc).

      Or how to get dual monitors working 'just so' in ubuntu on an nvidia 8800GTS.

      I don't have the slightest bit of interest regarding a 'how to' article on how to bind an asp.net 2.0 gridview to a data reader... I'm not interested in an NHibernate article, I'm not interested in how it might be done in Ruby, I'm not interested in how it was done during the beta,... etc, etc.

      As for the ubutu search - I'm not interested in how its done with an ATI card, or with two PCI cards...etc.

      And once I have my answer, I'm not generally really interested in more discussion on the subject.

      I can't imagine how a 'push' model would do anything remotely relevant in a LOT of cases.

    • The Faceboogle concept assumes that I want to search just for those things which already match my existing online footprint.

      When I search, however, it's usually because I want to find information on something NEW.

      New to you, sure; but that doesn't necessarily mean that its something that people who have an otherwise-similar online footprint to you aren't also interested in. So its conceivable that "Faceboogle" might have some utility.

      Then again, I doubt the correlation between different users online footpr

    • The Faceboogle concept assumes that I want to search just for those things which already match my existing online footprint.

      Not at all. The idea here is that you pick friends based on what you have in common with them. In which case, it stands to reason that what they think as relevant is a reasonable determinant for what you think is relevant. Think of it this way, how many times have you searched for something because a friend of yours was telling you about it? I have blogged [blogspot.com] on this.

  • Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Robert1 (513674) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:20PM (#23094432) Homepage
    This will never happen. For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know. Whether that information be used for personal enjoyment - learning something new for the sake of learning something new - or for personal research, like say looking up probable diseases you may have based on symptoms. For anything like this, social networking information will never provide you with what you need.

    The only realm where such a thing were to exist is in adolescents. Your friend discovered an new Naruto website with awesome backgrounds and your interest in Naruto, which is listed in your profile, allows the network to make the connection.
    • Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MLCT (1148749) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:37PM (#23094652)

      For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know. Whether that information be used for personal enjoyment - learning something new for the sake of learning something new - or for personal research
      Then you are not using the internet correctly. Don't you see? You aren't meant to want to "learn" anything new - all you should be using the internet for is buying things, passing meaningless chatter with "friends" to enable advertisers to better target you - and then look at those adverts. If you are using it for anything else then you are a p2p criminal who funds terrorists and you should be banned by your ISP.

      The internet isn't a knowledge tool (at least as far as the global corporates are concerned), it is one giant shop where "consumers" go to buy things or be influenced to buy things. If "Facebook" genuinely cared about their users then Beacon would have been abhorent to them - instead they insipidly conceived and silently implemented it without their users consent. I am amazed anybody gives characters like that a single piece of information, they are absolute sharks.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by mini me (132455)

      or for personal research, like say looking up probable diseases you may have based on symptoms

      I don't know about that. When you update your status message to say: "Robert hurts when he pees." Faceboogle will automatically provide the probable diseases in your news feed.
    • by Stalyn (662)
      This will never happen. For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know.

      The internet is for learning about new things? Dude.. that's so Web 1.0.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know

      True. But one way to find out about those things is to be told about them by a group of your peers with similar interests. Even /. operates like that. But, "all your friends enjoy reading about X, would you like to know about X as well" seems like a really good* way to learn about new topics you might enjoy.

      *Good meaning effective. O

    • by STrinity (723872)

      For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with
      Dude, you're posting to Slashdot, the cerebral cortex of the geek hivemind.
    • Context is important (Score:3, Interesting)

      by roystgnr (4015) *
      And even though you're rarely searching for something you've seen before, it's possible that knowledge of what you have seen before might still be used to put your searches into a better context.

      If you're a parent planning to remodel your daughter's bathroom, for example: even though this may be the first time you've ever searched for fixtures with gender-specific decorations for children, a search engine that knows a bit about your demographics could probably give MUCH better results when you type in "tub
  • by davecrusoe (861547) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:23PM (#23094460) Homepage

    Let's refine this a bit. *Perhaps* there is a use for boolg'ling web search content toward consumer taste. But it's likely that not many of my friends are researching topics similar to my own.

    So, social tags would be relevant only for - let's pretend, here, c'mon - consumer taste. Everything else - like scholarly research, etc - I'm afraid has to be done the hard, old way - by knowing how and where to search.

    --Dave

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cream wobbly (1102689)
      Wrong. This is Berners-Lee's "semantic Web" at play. I'd love to see it put to work. Once researchers get used to tagging their output, this will become a reality. And it won't be through Facebook. It also won't be through meaningless drivel like "we're-here-not-to-mourn-search-but-to-honor-him", or, for that matter, "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense".

      Here, I installed Semantic MediaWiki, and it works like a charm. You can have Lists of Things that don't require a mob-monkey to update, or vandalise, or both. If
  • If Google, or any other search engine, hammers home the idea that they keep track of your IP address and past searches it could cause an outcry and a demand for privacy. Connecting ad content to past searches is exactly such a hammer. A significant number of internet searches involve sex. If a user starts getting ads for duct tape because they previously did searches for "hamster duct tape sex" they might suddenly get behind regulations that would control the way Google used information.

    For the humor

    • by homer_ca (144738)
      Not even your IP. If you don't clear cookies like 99.9% of surfers, any search engine has a complete search history. If you ever logged in to any Google/Yahoo/MSN account it's now correlated to your personal identity. Google's cookie used to expire in the 2030's. Don't know what the default it now since I block them except when I'm logging in to a throwaway gmail account and allow a session cookie.
  • Imagine this: Peter Doofus writes a blog and subscribes to slashdot under the name DooferXOXO and visits a few political blogs as Bliftipper. DooferXOXO is a nice enough schmoe - a reasonable persona. But Bliftipper allows him to speak in a very different voice, where he can test reactions, and Bliftipper is known as a bit of troll. At one point he responds on his own blog as Bliftipper.

    Suddenly Peter Doofus is linked to his own content, and, well, things pretty much unzip from there. I have a lot of misg

  • Hey! Whatever happened to searching for good ol' ordinary information? The Faceboogle concept is a desperate attempt to create a new viral word, but seems too "people-specific" and, moreover, sounds like something that happens suddenly in a p0rn clip. Frankly, searching for people-oriented things is fairly small fraction of what I use search engines for (I know this is a fallacy to project this onto others, but I can't be alone in this). In fairness, Facebook has been pretty good at people-finding for
  • Certainly this is every advertizer's wet-dream - to stop their advertisements from being parasatized by filthy content.

    What if everyone just say down at their computers and allowed themselves to be passively inundated with whatever they were told to like. Wouldn't that be wondrous?

    I don't doubt that such targeted advertizing is going to increase dramatically in both power and sophistication over the coming years - and that the percentage of ads I see which are for things that I might actual
  • by E1v!$ (267945) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @03:59PM (#23094934) Homepage
    Anyone interested in changing themselves for the better, anyone wanna make a happier life?

    Remember how every time you tried something new in H.S. or somewhere your peer group push you back into the mold of you they thought was 'the real you'? Ever have that happen in life? With parents? With all your long-term relationships?

    Now the web will do the same thing

    HELLO TO THE STATIC PERSONALITY. We don't change, nope never happens. You just refine your search algorithm and help us figure out who we are by marketing 'content' at us. Yeah.

    IMO, Phucked.
    • by AlpineR (32307)
      With all of the different avenues for expression, most of us are leaving vast imprints of ourselves on the web. For me, I have comments, photos, and relationships expressed on: Slashdot, TheDailyWTF, Digg, Amazon, Facebook, Friendster, Flickr, YouTube, Yahoo Answers, Blogger, Match, Usenet boards, Battlenet, my personal web pages, and much more. Some of those are current but many are old and not an accurate reflection of my current self.

      For now most of those facets of my personality are separate. Someone
    • by jafac (1449)
      Well yeah. In a way.

      The person trying to quit smoking will keep getting cigarrette ads jammed down his throat.
  • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @04:00PM (#23094946) Homepage

    The use of "social networking" data for search has been discussed before in the search technology community, where it's not well thought of. "Inertia" in search, where your search history affects your later results, turns out to be a pain. Search becomes nonrepeatable, both for the individual and for others. This adds more hassle than the gain provided by "inertia".

    Reading both the article and the interview with the Google VP, it's clear that the article exaggerates Google's interest in this area.

    Social networking data is taken seriously on the advertising side, where using social networking data for ad selection is already being done by Myspace and their ilk. Amazon and Netflix already have rather good systems for deciding what to recommend to their customers. That's where this really works, where the seller has a big product selection and the user is already prepped to buy something. Myspace isn't doing as well, but then, as we've pointed out before, their advertisers are mostly bottom feeders. [sitetruth.net] Ad rates on Myspace are very low [nytimes.com], and it shows.

    A key question is who controls the use of the social networking data for ad selection. Not the user, of course; the disagreement is between the social networking sites and the search engines. Look for a battle in that area, perhaps followed by mergers.

  • Am I the only one left who doesn't get it and certainly won't benefit from such a contorted way of searching for information?

    I have mailing lists for discussing particular activities or fields of knowledge, good, 'ol full-text search aided with a bix of context for searching on the web and a group of actual friends for socialising, not a list of other peoples' accounts that someone labeled "friends" for no good reason when making the UI.

    Is there actually anything this all "social networking" is good for?
    • by STrinity (723872)

      Am I the only one left who doesn't get it and certainly won't benefit from such a contorted way of searching for information?
      No, I haven't managed to get laid through a social network either.
  • Do not want (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mopower70 (250015)
    I don't use Facebook, MySpace, or any of those social sites precisely because of the quality of the content there and the caliber of the people who use them. There's nothing on those sites that I look for, and I routinely ignore search results with social networking site results because of my experience with the crappy quality of information there: think Nextag and product searches.

    Quotes like "Search has always been about people" show a fundamental ignorance of how most people over the age of 25 use searc
  • maybe they won't. I sure know that most of the searches I do have little to do with my profile.
  • Will not work (Score:2, Insightful)

    by v(*_*)vvvv (233078)
    Because,

    1) Desire for privacy will win out.

    2) The data will totally get spammed.

    3) Push has *never* succeeded online and never will.

    There are more, but 3 is enough.

    The internet is the ultimate pull media, and those who push stuff hate that about it, mainly because they can't get in our way.

    Even the first ever push medium, the classic banner ad, has never gotten any traction. They get ignored. Newsletters are also overrated. Most mail that comes from sources that we opt-in and subscribe to get glanced and de
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Grishnakh (216268)
      I don't agree, though I wish I could.

      The desire for privacy is fading fast. Those of us over the age of 25 still care about it for the most part, but the youngest generation doesn't. This can be clearly seen in their wholehearted adoption of myspace and facebook, putting all the intimate details of their personal lives on the web for anyone to see. I predict that, within 30 years, the whole notion of "privacy" as a right will be completely forgotten, simply because the younger generations aren't interest
      • When you're young everyone wants to get famous, and the new generation has used the latest and greatest. Of course you cannot become famous while remaining anonymous. However, if they had a choice would they want ad agencies using their profiles to put a target on their heads? No. If they were given a choice, they would click "deny". And if the ability to deny is value, it will emerge, and get adopted.

        In the future more information will be online, but also with greater control. The campaigns that succeed wi
  • by IronChef (164482) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @04:57PM (#23095616) Homepage
    Since we are essentially meta-tagging ourselves through our social networking memberships...

    Speak for yourself, writer person. I don't use "social networking." I don't care what my friends had for lunch, and I don't want my ex to know who my next ex is going to be by virtually sitting them down next to each other. That's bananas.

    I really should write a form letter to politely decline Plaxo, LinkedIn, Orkut, Facebook, Myspace, etc. invitations that well intentioned people keep sending me.

    I even avoid IM, because hey, why do I want to let 20 people know I am at the computer RIGHT NOW? SOMEONE always wants to talk. And if I spend most of my time pretending to be away or invisible, then IM has become a burden and not a help to me.

    Old fashioned methods of communication like email still work great for me. I do not want to be transparent. If you do, you mystify me.
    • by Grishnakh (216268)
      Exactly right. These social networking sites are a complete waste of time, and serve no useful purpose.

      I remember trying out ICQ, the first IM program, when it was brand-new and I was in college. I didn't like it then, and despite several attempts to get along with my friends by using the dominant IM protocols over the next several years, I never could see the reason for it or the usefulness of it, when email was so much superior. I haven't used IM in many years now.
  • What's REALLY annoying, is "blog". Did weblog really need to be abbreviated?
    • Agreed that "blog" is really annoying. But as for "faceboogle": yes, it really is that bad.
  • by johnny cashed (590023) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @06:19PM (#23096536) Homepage
    This guy is obviously high.
  • Ever hear of lijit [lijit.com]? Sounds like the same thing. It basically creates a private search engine based on many social networking accounts (including facebook, delicious, myspace, blogs, etc). If you have friends, it spiders out to their results too. The company is based on the founder's thesis from 2004... so how is faceboogle a new idea?
  • I see this type of development as a preliminary step towards creating virtual artificial intelligence representations of ourselves. As we observe the way the user parses information on their computer, the decisions they make, the type of sources they prefer, we build up a sort of virtual image of their thought patterns. Over time, this will evolve into fairly sophisticated AI reflections of ourselves, for the purpose of acting like personal agents to scour the internet for us and find the information we mig
  • If you don't like the word faceboogle, jam it into regular speech by using it as a metasyntactic! That's totally faceboogle! foo + bar = faceboogle
  • Seriously, enough with this bullshit about the social networking sites being the holy grail, and how they're changing the face of society, usurping Google, etc.

    This is an extreme case of assuming that your peer group represents the rest of the world. Not uncommon on Slashdot, but still.... Get over yourselves.
  • For me, the "social" "push" technology that did the trick was RSS filtered aggregation. Not just web rss aggregators like Google Reader, which lets you review many feeds in a single interface, but intelligent artificial selection of the best posts from the subscribed feeds.

    This allows me to create a single RSS feed where all my hundreds of subscriptions are thrown in, and the filtering provides the desired volume of good posts from those sources. The opt-in nature of RSS, combined with the machine-learning

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...