Talk:List of social networking services/Archive 4

message: Neowin added friends, member profiles, profile comments and other social networking features when they upgraded their forum software (December 30, 2006). Does this mean they are now considered a social networking website? According 
to their forum index they have 162,380 registered members and a total of 6,472,463 posts (as of January 3, 2007). Esptoronto 18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.neowin.net 

message: I'd like to nominate Allpoetry.com, a poetry SNS site I administer.  170k users, People add others to their "Favorites" list, so a digraph form, but I think it's still worth of the SNS title. Built in messaging and chat. Inspire22 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it already has an article (at Allpoetry) and it does loosely fit the MySpace sort of layout I think it qualifies. Others might consider it simply a free webhost, though. Ashibaka (tock) 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it has a pretty strong social networking component, so I would support its addition here. (The article itself, though, really needs some reliable, third-party sources to establish sufficient notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web).) -- Satori Son 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  allpoetry 

message: Chainofthoughts.com is a recent start up with emphasis on stream-of-consciousness and/or tagging. Users can basically write anything they want (30 characters at a time) and only the main page gets edited. It is a loose social gathering place where people from different organizations or groups can associate themselves. Here the concept of registration is outmoded, users need only create a tag unique enough to identify themselves. I have no idea how many unique visitors there are as the site looks fairly new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.34.3 (talk • contribs)  15:47, January 10, 2007
:It looks like it does not yet have a Wikipedia article, so it would not yet be appropriate to add it to this list. But thank you for checking here first. -- Satori Son 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chainofthoughts.com 

message: I think Neatvibe (www.neatvibe.com) should be added. I don't know how much, but there's a whole lot of people there, I use to be active there before it got invaded by philippinos.. now everywhere you go the threads are in tagalog... but anyway, it should be here!
Infinito 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it does not yet have its own Wikipedia article yet, so it doesn't yet qualify for this list.  -- Satori Son 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neatvibe 

message: Oops!  I should have looked at this Talk Page earlier.  I have perhaps jumped the gun in adding Friends Reunited without reference to here.  I was not aware that submissions were being filtered through Talk.
However, I am firmly of the opinion that this site, with a .com domain as an entry page (making it truly international), and a claimed membership of between 10 and 15 million (depending on whichever page you visit in which country) built up over 7 years of existence, should be acceptable to all; however, if consensus deems otherwise, please remove it entirely. Refsworldlee 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the info in the Friends Reunited article, your addition of it here looks okay to me. -- Satori Son 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friends Reunited 

message: The 49 previous discussions have been archived here on 18 Jan. 2007.  The previous two archives have 18 and 17 discussions each... if the third archive is too long, it can be split into multiple parts. --Czj 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the last archive was a little too big, so I have unarchived the January discussion back to here. (Some of them were pretty recent anyway and might still be active.) The third archive is now from September 17 to December 31.  Still a little big, but I don't know if we need to break it down any further. -- Satori Son 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Its the only gaming social network that I know of, I don't see why it wouldn't be noted here along with the others. Does anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCitizen (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its on the chopping block for not asserting its notability. If the article is properly sourced and notability established and its not deleted then it can be re-added to the list. But as it is, Id on't see anything screaming notability . Other than results for the site itself, all the results seem to be links to people's profiles and forum postings, of which there are only 82 unique hits.--Crossmr 15:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Crossmr at this point.  If for some reason an admin denies the speedy request, then we can examine the issue again. (Also, see my comments here.) -- Satori Son 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As predicted, the article was speedy deleted under CSD A7.  -- Satori Son 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GamerBio.com 

message: I know this was discussed in the archives, but I wanted to state my opinion. (Sorry of consensus was already reached!) There is no online dating service list article (the online dating service article links here). And there are far fewer "online dating services" than non-dating "social networking websites." Moreover, the difference between the two isn't so clear--ie, when compared to Facebook, orkut has quite a few "online dating service" aspects. So, why not just add a few (to the 60 here) in (ie, Yahoo! Personals, Match.com, American Singles, eHarmony)? --gwc 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because they're really not the same. Social networking sites are for social networking of all kinds, while dating sites are just for dating, many dating sites don't allow for things like friends lists which is one of the key components of social networking.--Crossmr 15:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online dating services 

message: Someone just added Blogger. Does it count as a social networking site? I'd say no, but it's close as Blogger adds more LiveJournal-like features. Argyriou (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of a similar bent.  But there are many blog-specific sites already listed...to boot Blogger would mean booting those others too...simply out of fairness.--MonkeyTimeBoy 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm - looking at the above section on dating sites, I wonder if categorization of these sites would be worthwhile, or if there would be too many borderline cases to usefully decide. Argyriou (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: LiveJournal is a social networking site because both its software and its actual use reflect largely with who you have added as your friend, and whether the relationship is mutual. Its clones may or may not preserve that social aspect. Blogger has no social networking function. Ashibaka (tock) 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Blogger doesn't currently have a place on this list.--Crossmr 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been put into the list, if consensus says remove it, why hasn't it been? Speaking unboldly myself, unfortunately! Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogger? 

message: For this one there isnt article on wikipedia, but is growing quickly. i havent been able to find how many people are in tagged.com--ometzit<col> 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it has an article here, it doesn't belong on the list. If you can't find any people are on the site then its only opinion or marketing that claims its growing quickly.--Crossmr 14:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is his point, if it can't be added to the list due to its lack of an article?  And new posts belong at the bottom of the tree (corrected), with no unnecessary linking to external sites (corrected). I'd be interested to hear his expansion on this. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 14:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was probably added to this list when it did have an article.  According to the Deletion Log, it was deleted as a CSD due to lack of notability.  --real_decimic 04:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Must have been Speedy. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You are mistaken. Tagged is a redirect page to Tag. You must be referring to Tagged (website), which admins have speedy-deleted. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site claims millions of registered members and hundreds of millions of monthly page views.    If it's true, I would call that significant. Unfortunately, those numbers are due mostly to the fact that new users are actually asked for the password associated with their email account so that Tagged can, you guessed it, send invitations to everyone in their address book with their return address on them.  Several times. People click on the link, fill out the form, and Tagged has a new batch of addresses to spam. The site has been around since 2004, but their numbers have increased exponentially since the fall of 2006 because of this tactic. Anyway, they've developed enough notoriety (good and bad) in recent months that this may need to be revisited. Dyfsunctional 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No revisiting needed. Someone re-added the link Tagged very recently, you must have seen it in the list today. I've removed it again because it still leads to a disambig page and not an article about tagged.com. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I meant that we might want to reconsider whether tagged.com is notable or not, whether an article should be written about it, and whether it ought to be on this list. I would think that, based on their purported numbers, and based on the buzz created by their questionable M.O., it might be notable enough to have its own article. Maybe someone skilled in the ways of Alexa-Fu could confirm this. Dyfsunctional 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, misunderstood your context. I am quite happy for it to be tested for notability when it gains an article. The rest is conjecture at the moment. Observation: over two separate posts on this page, the tagged.com subject, although not an article and therefore not eligible, has taken up an inordinate amount of column inch space! Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: tagged.com

message: I think the new table layout is unnecessary.  The biggest problem is that this sort of layout sorts numbers alphabetically and not by actual size.  It'd be a good function otherwise, but as it stands, this layout really does nothing new except add confusion and taunt users by offering options which don't work how they should in these cases.  Also, some things are just pointless, such as putting the descriptions in alphabetical order.  Opinions? --Czj 10:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of miss the lines.--Crossmr 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not worried either way - a list's a list. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that MySpace appears in the middle of the list, sorted by population Asymmetric 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I just had a look at it again and sorting doesn't work properly. If that can't be fixed we might want to consider going back to the other design.--Crossmr 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I now agree. If usercount should sort to highest *claimed* figures, it certainly does not work. I nominate one of us to revert it. (?) Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't do a lot of table work, I can have a look shortly if no one else gets to it and see what was changed and if I can change it back.--Crossmr 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Apologies for making my 'sortable' change today, i wasn't aware of this talk.  When I made my change, I noticed that about 5 of the 100 entries were incorrectly sorted, but I considered the benefit of the change to outweigh that imperfection, an inaccuracy which would hardly inconvenience any user, especiallly since the inaccurate sort is not the default order.  Personally, I think it much more valuable for a reader to see a list organised by number of members than alphabetically.  As an example of the benefit, a non-Wikipedia-literate colleague spent considerable time taking the list into Excel for sorting.  Sortable would eliminate that work.   I can get the info I need by editing the page an temporarily adding 'sortable' but its still an minor inconvenience.  My two cents.  But, I defer to editors more familiar with the history of the page.--Rye1967 08:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table layout

message: I would like to nominate: www.iGolf.to, to the social networking list. This is a golf community site for anyone who plays golf. iGolf.to provides a platform for golfers to: add friends, blog their games, create golf communities, create golfing events and network members.
The site is in pre-vc stages (http://www.igolf.to/news_page.php?cat_id=5) and currently has 417 confirmed members (members displayed on home page).
Personally niche social networking sites could become a phenomina on the net with far greater advertising value per unit.
20:12, 7 February 2007 (GMT)
:Hi. To qualify for addition to List of social networking websites, your subject must have a Wikipedia article, and the title when listed must lead to the internal link for the subject article. Otherwise the entry will be reverted, as has happened. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. My appologies - read the terms and conditions thought it was okay to add - a number of the sites reference the actual sites, this was done for user count as its on the home page. Thanks for your help. b 22:07, 7 February 2007 (GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chateauxc (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: if it "could become" something, then it hasn't yet. If that is its claim to fame when it does become that then it will likely qualify for an article here and a link. There are some notability guidelines which are required to have an article with the hardest to meet criteria being that the website should be the subject of multiple non-trivial articles written by reliable sources.--Crossmr 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.igolf.to Golf Social Networking] Community 

message: I wish to nominate Ticket4one.com as a social networking website with over 15,000 members this makes them the largest singles events website in the world.
Surely the largest website in the world of any type is worthy to be included in wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky4885 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. There is no such thing as nomination of a website here. You are of course at liberty to create an article named Ticket4one.com; if successful this can then be added to a list as an internal link. However, please see WP:WEB for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, until such time as an article of that name exists, it cannot be added to the list for which this is the talk page. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: HI REFSWORLD.
Sorry i read the beginning of allpoetry and golf social networking and they both started by nominating. My error i will read the guidlines on article submission and try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky4885 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticket4one 

message: Hi. The user count for MySpace has recently been increased to 154,000,000. The editor concerned has pointed this to the same linked source as previously for the same date as previously, merely adding "Feb 2007". Where is the verifiability for the new figure quoted? I have searched the internet for a reliable updated membership figure, but every source I access comes up with a 'ball-park'.
If no concensus or fresh information on this, I will revert the user count, or 'Unknown' it. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet I know where this is from. When you log in, it gives you a total amount of users, it currently lists "154,490,765" in my network.--Crossmr 16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable user figures on MySpace 

message: At first glance this looks very much the same in principle as the 'limboed' Amie Street - review-based, income-generating, and social contact strictly reserved for the signed-up member. Or can anyone tell us how it's different and therefore worthy of staying out of limbo? I have not removed it, let's get a little consensus. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the page needs serious clean up and referencing. Given that it was just created it might need to be checked to ensure the site meets the requirements to even have an article here. There is some POV issues on it before I even want to look at what its core purpose is.--Crossmr 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[RateItAll]] 

message: BusinessPartnerships.ca, Trade-Pals.com? 74.98.241.198 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Canadians? 

message: The feature that sorts by "User count" sorts alphanumerically rather than by the actual number.  As a result, 100 would show before 500,000, which would show before 70.
Can this be fixed?
-- SandManMattSH 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See conversation on this subject here. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Count Sort Broken 

message: This entry, when referring to Usercount, states "too soon to say". Would this not then compromise its notability under present guidelines - someone is admitting that this is a 'fledgling' organisation, and perhaps not ready to be listed? I have repeated this line of approach on its Talk page. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I've tagged it as speedy as it seems to meet the criteria.--Crossmr 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ChangingThePresent]] 

message: So far this has been legitimately de-tagged as far as speedy deletion is concerned. I for one have no intention of removing the listing from the list at present, as it seems to meet the criteria looked for. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to state plain fact, this is now under AfD. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 14:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Flirtomatic]] 

message: Just reporting two more websites: CherryTap and Shuzak. CherryTap is an social "crush" site, and Shuzak is for "geeks". --Andrex 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they notable enough to receive a wikipedia article? If so, one can be created per the notability guidelines at WP:WEB. Once thats done they can be added to the article.--Crossmr 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CherryTap.com and Shuzak.com 

message: I apologize if I am not doing this appropriately, please feel free to let me know.  I went through the list of social networking sites and I did not see Hi5 (www.hi5.com).  The site is popular among people from Florida (within the US), the Caribbean, and Latin America.  In the corporate portion of the site it states that they have 50 million users.  It is similar to the other social networking sites where you create a page, have friends, join groups, etc etc.64.194.208.5 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the website meets notability guidelines WP:WEB its good. First it needs to have an appropriate article created on wikipedia then it can be added to the list.--Crossmr 20:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi5 already was on the list but someone deleted it. I think it should have its separate article as soon as possible, because it's one of the most popular of these sites. --Greg-si 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No single "someone" deletes pages in Wikipedia. A process is gone through, where notability is examined thoroughly, and an administrator will either 'speedy delete' the article if it is unarguably non-notable, or post it to 'Articles for Deletion' if there might be some merit to it. That's where the consensus of several editors will be sought, giving an opinion as to whether to (usually) Keep, Merge, or Delete. It is not a vote, but admins will look at all the opinions before deciding the outcome. Hope that helps you to understand how it works around here. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means this list. It was removed because it was red linked, not because hi5 isn't a notable social networking site. I'm sure if someone wanted to start the article, there are sources out there on which to establish notability and create it.--Crossmr 23:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beg pardon. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: though I should have googled before saying that. Hi5 indexes every profile. So a search for hi5.com results in thousands upon thousands of profile pages completely flooding the search.--Crossmr 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would you delete Hi5 when other entries like mugshot, blackplanet.com, migente, etc. have equally crappy written articles, should you not be removing those as well or did Hi5 eat your babies? 202.175.165.37 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out these sites.  None of them seem to meet Notability standards.  They have all been tagged or prodded.--MonkeyTimeBoy 14:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi5 

message: Geni.com would like to be added.  How can we prove we are a legit social networking site?
We have over 100,000 users, an article in the wall street journal and hundreds of blog postings about our site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.30.105 (talk • contribs) 
:The site's beta-test is only a month old, and the only references I see for it are PR releases copied into venture-capital blogs.  LastChanceToBe 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geni

message: As regards the dreaded statistics, this subject does not Google well, nor does it appear particularly busy according to Alexa. Although that's not the be-all or end-all, it nevertheless appears that this is not a notable enough website to justify an article here. That's only my opinion of course. I note that this has been removed from the article prior to possible deletion. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[4single]] 

message: Isn't tagged very similar to facebook? Nadyes 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and your point is? I assume you might be saying "Why do people keep removing it from the List"? As mentioned in my post to your talk page yesterday, any sites added to the List must have a Wikipedia article before anything else is considered regarding notability, etc. Tagged.com has not, so cannot be included in the List. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[tagged.com]] 

message: Social network for foodies: FoodCandy. It has 1200+ members now and mentions in various press. If people find it interesting, please add a page. It's my project, so adding it myself isn't kosher. Dblockdotorg 05:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the website meets the inclusion critieria of Wikipedia:Notability (web), you should put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. We cannot add it to this list here until it has its own article. Thanks, Satori Son 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[foodcandy.com]]