openswitch

OK, I get that people like social web applications. By that I mean I’m at least cognizant of the fact that these applications are big business right now. I understand the draw of apps like LinkedIn or Twitter too. Both of these apps provide a very specific, quantifiable service, and they provide it very well. But apps like Facebook, for example, seem just plain goofy to me. Here’s why:

I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with it.

It’s just kinda “there”. For some reason the phrase ‘Large and in charge’ comes to mind. It seems some people use it to stay connected with old friends and this, interestingly, was how I was first introduced to Facebook.

But most people, as it appears to me, use it to play games like “Who’s in your ninja army?” and “Let’s have an online pillow fight!” I’ll pass on the ninja pillow fight. Unless, of course, it’s a real pillow fight with real ninjas and I can really whack you in the head with something.

But perhaps more importantly, how is Facebook different from any other broad-based social network? It’s not.

What’s up with this whole “Wall” thing?

I mean, seriously, what’s it for? As far as I can tell its sole purpose is to allow you the opportunity to go to your friends’ Facebook and write something really friendly and sophisticated on their Wall like, “yo, let’s have a ninja pillow fight.”

OK, OK, I know it’s real purpose. It allows you to ask questions like, “Hey, what’s up? Long time no see.” And then, to reply, your friend can go to your wall and write “Hey, what’s up? Long time no see.” Of course, that’s not a real answer to their question. But then again, it wasn’t really a question.

It’s like when a guy is walking down the street and sees another guy and says, “What’s up?” This, my friends, is not meant to be answered with anything other than another question or possibly an expression like, “Yo” or “Hey”. If someone says “What’s up” to you and you answer “Nothing much, how ‘bout you?” You’ll come across as a socially stunted goofus.

It’s the same thing with the Wall on Facebook. It’s not meant to be used to have a conversation. It’s purpose is to say “What’s up?” to your friends. To which they should respond, on your Wall, “What’s up?” Any attempt to have a conversation via yours or anyone else’s Wall will make you look like a socially stunted goofus.

Conversations are for private messages, a.k.a. “Facebook Email Service”. They’re emails folks. That’s all private messages are.

15 billion people all saying “What’s up?” to each other; over and over and over again. That’s what the Wall is. I’ll pass.

So far we’ve got an online social app that lets you email people and say “What’s up?” Wow, this application is looking better and better. Oh, wait, I forgot about the ninja pillow fights … sigh

3. Why is Facebook valued at $15 billion?

What’s more, this breaks down to each user being worth $300! Of course, we should keep in mind here that at least one reason there are so many “users” is because it’s impossible to actually delete a Facebook account. Once you create one it can only be put in a “standby” state until it’s “reactivated.” I would bet my shirt that there are millions of people who have a Facebook account just to have one; and more that have one who don’t want to have one and just can’t delete it. You’re stuck with an account … forever.

So if you take into account that much of the user-base for Facebook are not actually users the numbers would probably look more like $1,000 per user valuation. Is each active user of Facebook really worth $1,000? No. The answer is a resounding no. The price is in the hype. Facebook simply isn’t worth that much money. And sooner or later the hype bubble will burst.

I’m not saying that I think all social applications are a waste of server space. I’m not even necessarily saying that Facebook is a waste of server space. All I’m saying is that as far as I can see Facebook is no different from any other broadly based social network and it’s usefullness is squelched by it’s desire to “be all things to all people.” Social networks are best when they’re focused, direct and ninja-pillow-fight free.

The Web 2.0 World is Skunk Drunk on Its Own Kool-Aid. Too right.

Now that the smoke is clearing from the latest Google PR juggling act it looks like Google is not, in fact, penalizing text ads and/or sponsored themes. While some folks insist this is the case — PhotoMatt being the most notable — , many data seem to indicate otherwise. For instance, up until the scare, openswitch was regularly running Text Link Ads, yet my PR was not affected (I now have a higher PR than 9rules. Odd.) Yet other sites such as Engadget were adversely affected.

All this and more is pointed out very well in an article at Tech Soapbox. But the fact remains that we shouldn’t be so obsessed with Page Rank, even if we rely on our sites for some income. The “brass tax” factor is how much traffic you get. If your traffic is unaffected after your PR drops, then your PR doesn’t matter one iota. After all, it’s just a number.

Stop Dressing Your Six Year Old Like a Skank. I’ve got to read this book. Working with teens and children I agree with the author’s premise that children should not dress as revealingly as many of them do.

Top 87 Bad Predictions about the Future. Some commonly quoted predictions but many many new ones I’ve never heard before.

Bad Injury. Lelia Thomas always finds the funniest videos. Hers is a blog worth subscribing to.

10 Manliest Firearms. Looong article but definitely worth a read. The writing is phenomenal. You’ll know you’ve reached my favorite section when you read the phrase “… big enough to toss a dog through.”

The new gay sterrotype: middle-aged, conservative, married, “family values.”

How long have I said this? How many times have I written about the very issue of mainstream Christian churches not producing disciples, only increasing numbers? I tell ya. I should write a book on this stuff. Turns out that Willow Creek, arguably one of the most influential churches in the world, has “repented” and admitted that adding more programs and getting more participants does not lead to spiritual maturity. What it does result in is more participants, higher numbers (both in terms of more people and more money.)

Greg Hawkins, the executive pastor at Willow Creek, has admitted that increased participation is how the church (not just Willow Creek, but other churches too) measure success:

“Participation is a big deal. We believe the more people participating in these sets of activities, with higher levels of frequency, it will produce disciples of Christ … I know it might sound crazy but that

Bill Cosby’s rant holds a lot of truth for blacks. It should also be applied to a large segment of whites too.