Posted by: sein
Facebook Group - 31/03/2007 08:04
I joined the crowds of teenagers on Facebook and found some cool people there too 
Created an Empeg group.
Created an Empeg group.
Facebook Group
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Facebook Group - 02/04/2007 18:20
So... is Facebook the new MySpace? What Friendster was trying to be?
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Facebook Group - 03/04/2007 23:26
Yeah, pretty much. It used to just be for college students but they just recently opened it up to everyone.
It can't be any worse of a site than MySpace. Ugh.
It can't be any worse of a site than MySpace. Ugh.
Posted by: webroach
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 00:03
Posted by: drakino
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 00:08
I stopped following the social sites around after Orkut. I'm sure in another few months Facebook will stop being cool, and another site will be the next big thing. Maybe someone should start up a new site that just auto moves your profile to the new trendy places as they pop up :-)
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 00:18
Even better, it would be great if someone created a site where you can have friends from all the other sites.
Oh, and not have 50 ads on one page. That would be great.
Oh, and not have 50 ads on one page. That would be great.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 00:29
You really need to install AdBlock.
Posted by: FireFox31
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 02:49
Or a carefully crafted HOST file (on Windows at least). I rarely see ads on MySpace (or maybe because I rarely log on).
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 09:36
Quote:
You really need to install AdBlock.
Granted. And all I'd have to do is block True.com. But will AdBlock make MySpace load faster? Will it make the interface better? Will it prevent people from sending me spam messages? Will it keep guys from hitting on my fiancee?
MySpace is horrible. I'm waiting for Google to create a competitor that will blow the others away.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 12:03
No argument about MySpace. (Although Adblock might actually make it load faster if it's bogged down with ads, since it doesn't download those ads.) It's just that this is the latest in a line of your posts complaining about ads.
Posted by: drakino
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 12:12
Quote:
MySpace is horrible. I'm waiting for Google to create a competitor that will blow the others away.
Google already has Orkut, and it was around before MySpace became popular. I'm not expecting them to do another social network anytime soon.
Posted by: sein
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 12:40
Thats pretty interesting, I hadn't heard of Orkut until you mentioned it a few posts back. I've stayed away from Myspace, Hi5, Friendster et al so far, so can't really compare what Facebook is like to them, but I have found an extraordinary number of my friends there. Its been fun messaging people from school 5 years ago who disappeared off my radar.
Like its been said, it'll go out of fashion, and I'm sure we'll all move to Orkut if Facebook make a mistake or Google bring out a killer feature.
Like its been said, it'll go out of fashion, and I'm sure we'll all move to Orkut if Facebook make a mistake or Google bring out a killer feature.
Posted by: julf
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 13:41
Quote:
I'm sure we'll all move to Orkut if Facebook make a mistake or Google bring out a killer feature.
Oh, so lots of young Brazilian ladies posting pictures of themselves in various states of undress isn't a killer feature?
Posted by: tman
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 14:38
Quote:
MySpace is horrible. I'm waiting for Google to create a competitor that will blow the others away.
Is there actually any content on MySpace?? All I've ever found on there is severe damage to the eyes and ears from the nasty HTML/colour combos along with random bits of music set to loop. Even the comments part is kinda random since it mainly consists of spam...
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 15:20
I think the content consists largely of getting as many people as possible to be your "friend" and those lists of friends.
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 17:25
Quote:
I think the content consists largely of getting as many people as possible to be your "friend" and those lists of friends.
It depends on how you use it. All these sites could be what you describe. I only add people I know, and I've only talked to people I know. That's past tense, because I've pretty much given up on the site. I don't think that avoiding ads will improve it. It still has a terrible interface.
I've signed up for Orkut. First impressions are that the initial things holding back this site are the name (it's doesn't exactly roll off the tongue) and the look. It appears that you can't change the look of your page. This is both a good and a bad thing. On the one hand you won't see any of those "eye-bleeding" pages. On the other hand, you have to constantly stare at that ugly blue-ish, purple-ish color. And I'm sure the name will change soon, once they start making a bigger deal out of the site. They'll probably make it something extremely clever...like Google Communities.
Posted by: stuartm555
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 18:52
Quote:
Even better, it would be great if someone created a site where you can have friends from all the other sites.
http://www.spokeo.com/public/home?intro=1 ?
I haven't tried it but it sounds like what you're looking for.
What I'd really like is an open standard, so that you only have to create an account with one site and then you can add contacts from other sites. But that's not going to happen is it!
Posted by: tman
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 19:00
Quote:
And I'm sure the name will change soon, once they start making a bigger deal out of the site. They'll probably make it something extremely clever...like Google Communities.
Orkut has been out for years now. The initial excitement has pretty much gone away and its only big in Brazil for some random reason.
Posted by: tman
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 19:01
Quote:
I think the content consists largely of getting as many people as possible to be your "friend" and those lists of friends.
Ah yes. Same sort of thing as Orkut then.
Posted by: frog51
Re: Facebook Group - 04/04/2007 21:01
Just a couple of comments - seriously stay away from MySpace if you want to have some degree of security (or do as I do when I have to visit it - disable everything, use Firefox, and browse it on a machine on a DMZ)
For any of MySPace's functionality you need javascript or worse enabled, and allowing user content to be incorporated into pages that way is just bad!
And in terms of networking sites - I only use LinkedIn, and then mainly as a tool for keeping in touch with colleagues as they move companies. It is very unintrusive, which is nice. Dunno how many empeggers are on it - at least 2:) but feel free to look me up - Rory Alsop.
For any of MySPace's functionality you need javascript or worse enabled, and allowing user content to be incorporated into pages that way is just bad!
And in terms of networking sites - I only use LinkedIn, and then mainly as a tool for keeping in touch with colleagues as they move companies. It is very unintrusive, which is nice. Dunno how many empeggers are on it - at least 2:) but feel free to look me up - Rory Alsop.
Posted by: FireFox31
Re: Facebook Group - 08/04/2007 18:16
I'm curious what's insecure about MySpace. Are there exploits which could attack as you browse? Or is the content of the user's page insecure to tampering and thieft?
I recently started using MySpace after years of refusing. I only communicate with people I know in person. I never ever search because I've seen the Javascript tricks that spammers will put on there.
It is largely pointless though, since reading the comments on someone's page is like hearing one side of a hundred different POINTLESS conversations at the same time. I have fun with MySpace by adding/changing content on my page and hoping people comment on it. That's Web 2.0, man. People trying to get attention by posting CRAP on the Internet.
I recently started using MySpace after years of refusing. I only communicate with people I know in person. I never ever search because I've seen the Javascript tricks that spammers will put on there.
It is largely pointless though, since reading the comments on someone's page is like hearing one side of a hundred different POINTLESS conversations at the same time. I have fun with MySpace by adding/changing content on my page and hoping people comment on it. That's Web 2.0, man. People trying to get attention by posting CRAP on the Internet.
Posted by: g_attrill
Re: Facebook Group - 08/04/2007 23:55
Quote:
That's Web 2.0, man. People trying to get attention by posting CRAP on the Internet.
Um, I happen to think Charlie the Unicorn is pretty cool
Posted by: drakino
Re: Facebook Group - 09/04/2007 03:19
Quote:
That's Web 2.0, man.
I generally think of Web 2.0 stuff having a better design sense. MySpace reminds me of Geocities with the horrible looking mess that it is. All it needs is tons of blink and marquee tags to make it complete.
Posted by: frog51
Re: Facebook Group - 09/04/2007 20:16
Just quickly browsing before bed after a long easter weekend...
Yes, in general this type of poorly secured web 2.0 setup does lend itself well to js and other ajax based content redirection, snarfing etc.
Generally a bad thing!
Yes, in general this type of poorly secured web 2.0 setup does lend itself well to js and other ajax based content redirection, snarfing etc.
Generally a bad thing!
Posted by: FireFox31
Re: Facebook Group - 15/04/2007 01:15
Quote:
Um, I happen to think Charlie the Unicorn is pretty cool
You know what IS cool, all the "remakes" of that Candy Mountain thing (which I found by some random clicking). It's interesting to see kids filming and editing video, then uploading it on the web. It's home movies for the new millenium, but with DV downloading, editing, text scrollers with music overlay, and uploading to YouTube. That kind of blows my mind because kids can do that yet I don't know how to. Granted, I don't have the free time which I know they do, and in my youth I spent that time doing other creative things that young-adults around me wouldn't, etc. It's all relative, but interesting.
Posted by: peter
Re: Facebook Group - 15/04/2007 10:55
Quote:
It's interesting to see kids filming and editing video, then uploading it on the web. It's home movies for the new millenium, but with DV downloading, editing, text scrollers with music overlay, and uploading to YouTube. That kind of blows my mind because kids can do that yet I don't know how to. Granted, I don't have the free time which I know they do, and in my youth I spent that time doing other creative things that young-adults around me wouldn't, etc. It's all relative, but interesting.
Some friends of mine did manage this with 20th-century technology. They must have been about 10 or 12 (it was before I knew them), which puts it long-enough ago that home VCRs were relatively new, let alone camcorders. Their parents hired them a VHS camcorder for a few weeks over the summer holiday -- it was as big and about as unwieldy as a labrador retriever, and heaven knows what it must have cost, even just to rent. And, using only that and their home VCR as an editing suite, they put together a horror film. There were no special effects more advanced than a hosepipe for the "during a rainstorm" scene -- the central monster stayed off-screen -- but it was a genuine film with a script and a story and real cinematography and so on, all basically worked out from first principles by three kids in a few weeks. When, later in life, I eventually persuaded them to show me the video, they were terribly embarrassed by the rather mannered and un-Oscar-worthy acting, but I thought it was a fantastic achievement.
Today's kids would use their parents' hi-def H264 camcorder and a cheap computer editing package of a sophistication unavailable to Hollywood in my friends' era, but that's just taking out the spadework. The magic still comes from the kids' creativity, and there's no evidence that there's any less of that around than there was in 1982.
Peter