« you don't look like a librarian... | Main | How does the library save you $, let me count the ways »
May 24, 2007
Sarah's social network presences, and the dilution thereof
Over time, I have developed profiles on several different social networking sites. Not a lot, but the big ones (I think). Below are the links to my profiles on the various sites:
- Flickr!
- MySpace
- LiveJournal
- Ning
- SecondLife: nothing to link to, but my name is Sarah Montgomery (and guess what--I'm a tall blonde in all black; go figure)
I am starting to find it a rather time-consuming and, frankly, annoying process. I have to set up the darn profile, at least a little bit, on all these sites. And then I end up going through my friends' friends to find more friends. Then I feel guilty because I’m not sending updates on a regular basis about what’s going on (e.g. where I am for Facebook, what I’m doing for Twitter). And if I'm not on the site, it shows that I'm offline, so I'm not available for in-network chat (like in MySpace). So that's not good. I also feel guilty for not reading all the discussions in the communities—particularly on Ning. I also feel like I have to keep a window open all the time for each site just to be "available" and currently updating people. That is silly.
And then there are the new friend requests. A lot of these friend requests are from people I don’t know at all…but I have a sense of guilt that I would offend or upset someone if I didn’t say "Yes, I’m your friend now." So, I say yes to all of them (except bands, authors, etc. who are looking to advertise through me). As a result, my list of "friends" has become quite meaningless. There are people on the lists who really are my friends, others who I’ve perhaps shared one e-mail with, and others who I wouldn’t know from a hole in the ground—and they all have equal weight as my "friends."
It begs the question—what’s the point? Is it a status thing to have lots of friends? Or particular friends? Am I more important because Stephen Abram is my friend on these networks? Am I the only one feeling the weight and noticing the dilution of our social networks? Something tells me I'm not the only one.
May 24, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e5505215058833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sarah's social network presences, and the dilution thereof:
Comments
I had a very intersting conversation with a colleague about these social networking sites creating a society not unlike in the day of Henry James. We leave our 'calling cards' (aka friend requests) at the 'doors' of one another's crafted online personas (with just the right mix of the personal and the professional). The more things change the more the stay the same.
Posted by: denyse | June17, 2007
Hello Sarah:
By posting to all those social networking sites you have blazed a path for all of us who are in Web 1.8 libraries. You have done well and I thank you. Now your task is to decide form those many contacts who really cares about you and you about them.
Posted by: JohnVTL | May31, 2007
I recently had a case where a "friend" posted a horrible photo of me in a bar about 8 years ago (I wasn't drunk, but I sure look it) on a social networking site.
I was not amused, and worse, would hate people to see the photo in a professional context (yes, I do have my clothes on).
Despite the dillution, there is also the diffusion of online identity. Even if I don't set up a profile, people can still catalogue me in ways they deem appropriate (whether I like it or not).
Posted by: Ryan | May29, 2007
"and as people get older, have kids, settle in to jobs etc. we are going to enjoy online links less and be more concerned about 'real life' links more. In short, we may all just be growing up. :)"
Oh oh... I'm turning 50 and I just *added* Facebook and Twitter. Maybe it's senile dementia!
Seriously, getting older means being a little more judicious about my networking choices. I need more nap time. ;-)
Posted by: K.G. Schneider | May28, 2007
http://supercrazylibrarianguy.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/response-to-librarian-in-black-post/
I started writing a comment here, but it just kept getting longer and more rambly. But i liked it and i didn't want to erase it, so i put it on my own blog.
Posted by: Sam Wallin | May27, 2007
I've been feeling an overload/malaise from using social networking sites for a while... though I love using all of them. For me, it's made more complicated by the fact that on some of these systems I have two profiles - one for my personal life and one for my job. As an academic librarian I want to be available to the college students I work with, but I don't necessarily want my personal profile/email/IM/status to be the one they see on all of these tools. So, for example, I have a personal and a work Twitter account (though I don't use either very often yet), only a personal/anonymous LJ for connecting with my non-work friends, only a professional/work facebook, and both personal and work IM accounts in my meebo account.
I think that online identity management, especially for us public-services types, will be more and more important in the future.
Also, it would be nice to have one tool that could manage/update all these systems. Kind of like a reverse RSS that would tell each site what our current "status" is. Or maybe not, now that I think about it - perhaps that would consolidate too much personal info in one place. (By the way, I just noticed that Facebook now has "applications" you can add, one of which is Twitter.)
Posted by: Kristen | May27, 2007
I get asked a lot if I have a MySpace account, or a Yahoo/MSN/AIM IM, etc. by friends. I've learned to tell them the truth--I have a Yahoo account that I only log on to when I'm looking for my brother or one or two other people to ask/tell them something. I have a MySpace account with a picture of me that's marked as private and contains no other real information. Anyone who really wants to contact me will either e-mail me, call me, or log on to WoW.
When I'm at work, I switch computers a lot and don't want to keep signing into and out of services. When I'm at home, I want to concentrate on whatever I'm doing instead of getting a bunch of IMs. I tried the IM and social profiles thing a bit, and they just ate up my time. So while now I'm not always shown as instantly available, I actually have the time to answer the emails or calls I _do_ get, because they tend to be meaningful, and I get other stuff done. I love my friends, but no, I don't want to answer a bunch of "What's up?" IMs whenever they're bored.
And now I only tend to get contacted by the people who are really important to me, too, rather than the more distant friends of friends, who I'm not willing to give my phone number to. They can either pass a message or find me on WoW if they play.
As to keeping up a bunch of profiles... choose one and set the others to "See other profile"?
Posted by: Meg | May26, 2007
Aw, Ryan, I'm not cooler than _anybody_, you included. I was the dorky kid that everyone shunned in elementary school, beat up in middle school, and said mean things about in high school. Part of that kid still exists in me...and I'll always consider myself a big nerd, and not "cool" by any means. So there, there's my secret, it's out :)
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | May26, 2007
I've been reluctantly coming to the conclusion I can't do it all. I have heard all the gushing about twitter, but the vision of a non-stop stream-of-consciousness from hundreds of acquaintances just makes me nervous. I've barely looked at Ning in a month--though I like it when I have the time. I've decided to pick a few channels--mainly blogs, ning when I get the time, and good 'ol mailing lists--put my focus on those, and leave the rest to others. If that makes me a bad Librarian 2.0, than so be it. I'm trying not to get sucked into the pressure to do everything--which in my case means I don't do anything particularly well.
Posted by: Sarah | May25, 2007
I think "real" is getting hard to capture as well. For instance, when I say "real" friends, I don't necessarily mean "I have met them in person." I mean "genuine, connected [in my psyche] etc."
I realize I used the phrase "real life" above though. Poor judgement on my part; it's what I get for commenting on the fly. :)
So the blur is not between "real/physical life" and "digital," but "genuine" and "dubious." There are alot of "real life" friends that are not genuine.
As we begin to discuss Web 3.0 and the semantic web stuff, I think this will become extremely important. We have semantic connections among lots of people, but where are the genuine connections? The ones that mean something to us. . .
This ought to be a bigger problem for you than for me, because, well, you are cooler than I. :) In the end, there are at least two choices. One is to accept the dubiousness of the friends and the other is to go more private. And for those of us who have been doing the technology thing for a while, we may already be growing up more than those baby boomers. (who probably are not as worried about kids/spouses/etc. than those of us who are doing that train).
I have no idea if either of these is the right way to go or if there is a third, forth or fifth option, but I guess I'm saying that "genuineness" will be an issue. If author and reader are connected semantically on the web as "friends," what does that mean for real friendship? Can meaning (semantics) really mean anything anymore?
The other side of this is that I'm just getting blubbery as I prepare for the squalor that is new fatherhood. I hope nothing I said offended or sounded offended, because that's not what I'm trying to do. Commenting on the fly just makes ideas sound like brain farts sometimes. I am more than in debt to you virtually and honestly think we'd get along smashingly in "real" life too. :)
Posted by: Ryan | May25, 2007
I hear ya. I can't possibly be on all of these. I use MySpace, Facebook, and Ning (the library 2.0 and government web 2.0 networks). I used to be an avid LiveJournal user, but I just don't have time for it these days. I deleted my blog and I just browse the groups instead. I added you as a friend in MySpace and Facebook. Hope you don't mind. :-) I'm a fan of your blog and it keeps me up-to-date in this ever increasingly overwhelming info-tech world!
Posted by: Rebecca | May25, 2007
Regarding the need for multiple profiles:
I'm surprised that no one has created a web service,that is totally centered on profiles, in which you can enter your profile info once, and when you go to a new social networking site you can simply have it access your saved profile information.
I guess you'd need to get the major Social Network sites to agree on some info fields for the database, but it seems simple beyond that. Sort of a registry of SN profiles.
Anyone feeling industrious? Not me. I've got skateboarding to do.
Posted by: Bob Loftin | May25, 2007
I don't know Ryan--I'm pretty settled into life, have a job, a husband (will never have kids, but that's another story). But I don't see my online contacts decreasing because of that--I actually see them increasing. As my professional network grows, my baby boomer friends get with it and get online, my grandmothers email me, my niece gets a MySpace page.... All of that adds up to more online time, more time spent in these social network spaces. I also don't think that "real life" links are only in physical space. My "real life" is very much about the online space--and some of the people I know very well are people I've met perhaps once but spend an inordinate amount of time talking to online. That's reality for me, and I think, for a lot of other people too. Calling things "real" (real life, real space, real friends) is becoming (well, ok, IS) really a prejudicial term. We have, in my mind, two spaces: digital space and physical space. And I'm guessing that the lines between those two will be blurring soon too.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | May25, 2007
I guess the "friends" thing can be responded to in one of two ways.
The first is that "friends" are not, and never have been "friends." The goal is not to bring you access to the people you like, but to organize you as a concept. Thus, because we are both librarians we are linked that way, even though we could meet and have a severe aversion problem with each other. The good news is that, while you are not getting the benefit of easy access to "real" friends, you are being put into a context for historians to study later. :)
The second way to see this is that we got to get concerned about our privacy again and as people get older, have kids, settle in to jobs etc. we are going to enjoy online links less and be more concerned about "real life" links more. In short, we may all just be growing up. :)
Either way, if you feel the need to weed and I end up on the "not there" list, in no way hesitate to drop me. It's not as if I can't just send you an email if I have a LiB-specific question for you.
Posted by: Ryan | May25, 2007
No, I don't have different personal and professional profiles, but I know a lot of people who do. I'm me, and my work life blurs so much with my professional life (my husband is a librarian, for jeeber's sake) that it's a package deal.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | May25, 2007
You're not the only one. I tend to approve friend requests if I know where the request is coming from. Like on Ning, if it's not coming through one of my networks, I don't approve it. I try to only request to be "friended" if it's someone who I've known outside of the new network, if I plan on actually using the new network and they are too (like since you don't seem to use Twitter, I won't request your "friendship" at this point), or, well, I can't think of a third option. I'm picky about my "friendships" especially when I'm still trying to figure out the flavor of the new network.
Posted by: Katie Dunneback | May25, 2007
Such a status thing that fake "hot" MySpace friends will soon be available for sale.
Sigh. I feel guilty about my Ning, Twitter, Flickr, MySpace, and Facebook accts too--and often forget I have them until someone "friends" me and I hear about it through Gmail. [grin]
Posted by: Emily Lloyd | May25, 2007
Oh definitely - I can't bring myself to even try to commit to all of the social media options there are about. If I tried to maintain a social network within all of them, I'd never have time to get anything done! And I don't think my connections on them would be as meaningful if I was spread so thin across everything.
Posted by: Hypatia | May25, 2007
Honestly, I don't use them that much. Facebook and twitter can be fun... I've not even signed up for livejournal or ning.
I use them more because I think it's important to grasp the concept - not so much because my friends use them, and want to connect with me that way (because they don't).
Authors and bands - I always friend them (cause I think it's funny).
Posted by: david lee king | May25, 2007
That's why I have been promoting the 5/3/1 method: pick five technologies you believe are important, focus on three, implement one. I find that some technologies suit me and some don't. Twitter and IM work really well for me. (So does blogging, which is of course social software.) Second Life, not so; Ning, I avoid. I signed up for Facebook but let people connect with me, not vice-versa.
On the "friending" issue, I wrote about that with Orkut several years back (speaking of dead technologies). I don't like to be in a position to be asked if I'm someone's "friend." Flickr is good that way... the language is more neutral and is about pictures, not people. (I stopped dividing my Flickr users into friends/not-friends because the division was unimportant.)
I addressed judicious selection of technologies in a Techsource post last January. It was written from IT's point of view, but it could ring a bell. After all, if you find all these networks tedious, just imagine what it's like for the IT department running around opening ports, adding security, answering questions... only to find that they're just responding to a series of flash-in-the-pans. It's not a very focused approach to information technology.
Posted by: K.G. Schneider | May25, 2007
Another aspect of this came up recently in a post from one of my onluine friends on her LIveJournal. Another online friend had died, quite suddenly, and that led her to askquestions about how other people handled things like that. This was a person she had never met. She didn't know what the person looked like - when she thought of her, she thought of her default user icon. She had no idea about whether there was a memorial or not, and if there was, she woul dnot be invited. And yet, because this person had been an online friend (they had actually communicated a lot so it was not just the label chosen by LJ that made her use that term) she still felt the loss and the grief. She just didn't have any ways to deal with it, because the standard ways of handling these things necessitate some sort of physical world relationship/interaction.
I found that quite thought-provoking since it proves that our way of relating to one another is in fact changing in more ways than the one you brought up here.
Fascinating stuff.
Posted by: Rebekka Kinimond | May25, 2007
I think part of the problem is that because some people have a great deal of presence on the web now, through blogs or what have you, many people come to think that they know these people when in fact they don't.
There are a number of people in the biblioblogosphere (you, for instance) whom I don't know at all, but whom I start to feel are in some way a part of my community, or one of them. These people aren't my friends, but they are in some sense colleagues, or comrades, or members of a virtual karass--people I work with, albeit separately and at a distance--to make libraries and librarianship better. When I see one of these people on one of the few social networking sites I'm on (I, too, get tired of setting up profiles and adding updates), I often (though not always) do add them as a contact or a "friend" or whatever--and I always wish that there was a way to do so less intrusively.
I suppose there are people who are out to look better because of the people they're "friends" with, which is sad for a variety of reasons.
To me, social networking sites tend to be a way to build my community in the library world--very few of my friends are online much at all. I can see, though, that it would be deeply irksome to have a space originally intended for friends be overtaken by other people not quite in that category.
Whew--sorry this is such a long comment--I've just been thinking about this subject a lot--I probably ought to write a blog post of my own. :-)
Posted by: Laura | May24, 2007
It's an interesting problem for the information age. A related question is: do you have a public & private profile? I have some real friends on the various sites, some students, and some work colleagues. Do I want them all to know I'm at home tonight watching a Jets game from 2000? (*darn* that NFL Channel). Do I want to maintain / check a personal and professional facebook account?
I drew the line at Twitter; I don't think we have to be on all these places -- if that's at all useful.
Posted by: CogSciLibrarian | May24, 2007
Definitely not alone. If I can't at least place the requester in some context (i.e., we've chatted in SL), then I won't add you as a friend. Guilt is apparently not an issue for me.
Anyway, I'm having much more fun, enjoying more dynamic conversations and making much stronger social connections chatting in the LSW Meebo room than by using any of these other tools. Who'd have thunk that IRC 2.0 would be so useful?
Posted by: Greg | May24, 2007
Nope, you're not the only one. I'm glad some of them let me track what's going on via RSS. I don't visit the other ones much.
Posted by: Karin Dalziel | May24, 2007
