social networks 3.0
A social graph such as Facebook graphs the real world into Internet.
This mapping includes the rich and complex relationships in the real
world, including hierarchies and contexts. This takes the web closer to
Web 3.0.
What is Web 3.0? One definition: Web 3.0 is the Web with
contextual embedded
information. At the start, it should have a model of words/concepts and
their
basic relationships. For example, the word 'house' and the word 'door'
has one
basic relationship 'has' - house has doors. If there is project to
start Web
3.0 according to this definition, it might take a few years for all
words and
their relationships be encoded depending on how many encoders will be
doing
this work in parallel.
What is Social Networks 3.0? Using the Web 3.0 definition above, social
networks 3.0 will also have search by contexts. But being more specific
and
more contained, social networks 3.0 is ready to be implemented now.
From a usefulness point of view, the next generation social networks
needs to
provide more benefits as the novelties of first generation social
networks
begin to wear off. MySpace is filled with email Spam and advertisements
that
every measure has to be taken to protect privacy. In contrast,
Facebook's rise
in social networks is in part due to its validating members
with their
affiliated school or work email address. Facebook's open API enables
third
party Jaxtr.com application to provides members the option to contact
each
others' by phone without giving out their phone number - This is a
example of
Web 2.0. But is Facebook's an example of a big leap forward to Social
Networking 3.0? Not yet, not until it can provide contextual search,
search by
associations, and agents looking for what members want from classified,
and
from new and changed information from various parts of the site
including
members' new info, etc. In other words, a system that is capable of
reasoning
about its members and their relationships according to set rules or
self modifying/self
adapting rules. Google and Yahoo have begun to merge search engines
with social
media (http://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-medias-direct-influence-on-search-engine-ranking/5576/
)
Tribe.net
has a built in
feature where members can see how they are related to other members.
LinkedIn
also has a similar network relationship. However, a simple
connection to
another member doesn't provide deeper information about the connection,
i.e.
how do they meet or what they have in common. Facebook allows member to
specify
how they meet, but it doesn't allow member to show this information
yet, nor to
create personal agents, etc. These are glimpses of the future, although
they
are limited.
Dating networks are a special class
of social networks. They
contain much more personal information. Adultfriendfinder.com is among
the top
50 on Alexa. But are they providing better opportunity for meeting a
date? This
is debatable. Meeting people in live venues such as dance clubs,
sporting
events, or social functions are more likely to bring about real dates.
Most
online profiles are created to fulfill quick fantasies or mind games.
Next
generation dating networks have to reflect reality more closely. For
example,
people's physical appearances and their personality have to be more
apparent. Stickam.com, a community of video bloggers, takes
this to the
next step. Even so, different video equipments can render people
differently.
Skinny people might appear more heavy and vice versa. Meeting through
technology is still inadequate in comparison to the availability of
information
through live interactions.
Are online platforms more conducive to interpersonal
interactions? Online
learning systems tried to push this direction and have
discovered that
they cannot replace the live classrooms in a majority of
learning subjects.
For most subjects, online systems are best used as supplementary
systems to
connect students with each other and with the teacher. In a similar
online/offline line of thought, some online social/dating networks have
created
real events to supplement online interactions. For example,
Downelink.com
has monthly dance events for its members in some cities.
Most online social networks and dating networks have not incorporated
proven
real-life interactions. For example, few dating networks have a staff
of
relationship counselors, nor self assessment tests. Here the next step
is to
incorporate a personality testing service to assess communication
style, i.e.
Keirsey temperament test or Implicit Association test for true
preference.
Further, only a small percentage of people are aware if they have
adopted, as
part of their bringing up, the logical, romantic, or best friend model
of
relationship.
From the data modeling point of view, ontology can be used to model
people and
their relationships. For example, Tribe.net or Friendfinder.com can
model
members' networking, i.e. when they become friends, using semantic
networks (http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/semantic_technologies/
). These new database structures are designed to store relationships
and thus
are more efficient than relational databases (one to two orders of
magnitude). Relational
SQL queries joining tables with more than a million records can be
computing
intensive in addition to being inefficient for known-in-advance
relationships.
The next generation social networking/ dating networking sites will
bring a host of IT performance and search challenges which will
necessarily
bring about a convergence of grid computing, ontology, database
redesigns, and
psychology assessments technologies. Unlike the clear IT and computing
technology maturity models, social interactions with its
psychology
component do not have clear maturity models. Speaking very
broadly, social
networking and to some extend dating networking sites do reflect the
larger
society no matter how off-beat or playful they may be.
|
