The concept is simple: register quickly (for free) and Postling provides you with a clean and simple interface for managing all of your various social media accounts under one roof so to speak. You can cross-post info from one network to another, monitor all of your feeds and update everything simultaneously. The whole concept is hardly radical, but it is executed very nicely indeed, particularly by way of a very attractive and functional user interface.

Now, for your average personal user, Postling is probably slightly unnecessary since it really requires you to be active on at least two or three fairly large networks to begin to represent a significant time-saver. However, for small business looking to utilise social media in order to run ad campaigns, build brand awareness, provide service updates or whatever else, Postling really comes into its own.

In essence it offers a great solution to one of the main problems of utilising social media for such purposes - namely that it can sometimes be a little bit confusing to track the impact and reach of what you're doing, as well as being tricky to achieve more comprehensive target audience reach and so on. Well, Postling is nice since it means you don't have to worry about wasting time repeating actions for each network (Facebook, twitter, wordpress, Flickr etc), plus you can view your campaign as a whole from a sort of HQ, making things easier to manage and to spot trends and test impact. Effectively, this removes the 'artificial' barriers which divided pockets of your market/audience into different networks - but essentially made it harder to co-ordinate a cohesive campaign. This indeed is a very laudable achievement, and surely a big step in advancing the specific toolset which makes social media such a valuable business tool.

For more detail, see the aforementioned TC blog, with results of their trial experiment of Places. The general gist however is that, unless you explicitly opt-out of Places, you are actually 'in' a little bit - just not anywhere near as much as if you have actually opted-in. It's probably a little less straightforward than most users would have liked, but it's only normal I suppose for a new feature to cause a few misunderstandings until people become clear on how it works (though it'd be easier if Facebook was a little clearer on these things, instead of Techcrunch having to work things out and actually tell it like it is).

The second point that I feel is worth discussing, even at this early stage of Places (day 2 since launch) is the actual positive potential of Places, which is not perhaps getting as much attention as the privacy and safety side of things. Nonetheless, some key commentators have been quick to recognise that Places is finally the feature that promises to make Facebook truly social - in the pre-web 2.0 sense of the word. In other words, it might actually be the feature that finally brings people together in a physical, face-to-face - social - sense. Surely that is, generally speaking, a good thing?

After all, if you're worried about unwittingly bumping into people, via Places, that you would otherwise not like to see, then maybe it's time to ask yourself: why am I friends with this person on Facebook? Maybe the potential intimacy and proximity of Places will prompt users to actually consider treating the word 'friend' on Facebook as having the same meaning as it does on 'real life' - i.e. being a bit more selective about how they build their friend networks. If we're honest, probably at least 50% of our Facebook friends are people we don't really communicate with that much - so what's wrong with Places, encouraging people to be a bit more selective in building genuine friend networks, rather than simply amassing hundreds of one-time acquaintances?

I personally quite like the idea of Facebook becoming a facilitator of physical social experience, rather than being just a virtual channel of communication. I like that the feature might alert me to when some of my friends are going to the same gig as me, or happen to be visiting my part of town - it means that, if we want to (but note: we don't HAVE to), we can meet up and hang out. Surely all the critics who bemoan social networks for eroding youngsters ability to communicate in person would recognise this potential of Places as having a positive aspect?

Anyway that's all for now - don't let the scaremongering security stories get the better of you, Facebook Places does need to be carefully implemented and users need to be fully informed of how it works and can be used, but essentially as long as common sense is present on both sides (FB and users) then Places has the capacity to be the first properly social (in the old-fashioned meaning of the word) feature of any social network out there.

(N.B. I know Foursquare has been doing something similar for a little while - but FB's size renders Places a slightly more significant - if partially derivative development).

In essence Ning offers a social network which focuses predominantly on a Facebook 'groups'-style feature, aiming to bring together users with similar interests and foster communication and discussion along those lines. So for example if you'd like to join a group for fans of the World Cup 2010, or meet other health activists, find someone to discuss the finer points of sea fishing, or discuss parenting issues; then Ning is the place for you, offering specialised networks dedicated to all of the above, and of course much, much more.

The added bonus to all this was that all of these services used to free - just like most other social networks out there. However, where Ning has gone one expects many others might follow, as user numbers swell considerably and services expand to such a point of advancement that these very same users might actually consider paying a small fee to continue to access the networks. There have been numerous debates recently about the monetization potential of Facebook, and endless speculation about how much the company is genuinely worth (including some on this very blog) and Ning's recent decision is certainly one relevant to these same debates about the (especially financial) maturation of social networking sites.

The problem for companies like Ning is that these days it is getting cheaper and easier to build your own social network so it is essential to keep justifying the pricing policy with features and service that consistently outperforms free rivals. Even if successful in such a task, it is unlikely that the more casual users of such networks will be prepared to whip out credit cards when confronted with payment screens - more likely we'll see some heavy network migration instead.

All of this really doesn't matter for the network if the paid system produces higher profit than the free model, although there is no question that the move represents an 'all eggs in the same basket' risk (you can't really go free again in a year if things don't work out) and that, in the days when bespoke social network building is offered by most even smaller web development firms, introducing a pricing policy represents not only a signal of confidence in, and maturity of, the product but also somewhat of a critical gamble.

Dejan Levi

The Swiss-based company is hoping that by bringing together leading figures from various sectors it can bridge the gaps that sometimes exist between those working in different areas of the same problems and goals - be it private industry, NGO's, governments, public initiatives, individuals, academics, charities or whatever. In other words, a true knowledge network with perspectives and expertise coming from all angles!

Registration for new users is open now, and the first flourishing network is based around the theme of water, bringing in professionals and experts from all around the world in one easily navigable network mosaic. Users can interact with and contribute to the knowledge base of the network in a number of ways, including asking and answering questions, and voting in surveys which aim to deliver meaningful analysis of expert opinion on key issues.

Click over to TallyFox.com to see the etondigital design for yourself, and to get involved in the discussion!

Dejan Levi

This is probably the most useful thing about the report itself, in that it offers quite a different sense of perspective on who actually is a major player in the industry sector, and who isn't. This is where Facebook comes in - or rather fails to come in, since it is nowhere to be found on the list.

Now many will point to the fact that Facebook's reluctance to structure itself as a business, in the same way that Google and Myspace are for example, is simply the technical quirk which accounts for its omission from the list - and that actually in relative terms, FB is just as significant and powerful as the extent of coverage it receives in the blogosphere, for example, would imply.

This is a sound argument and one I would certainly agree with - but nonetheless I think that the report's findings are not to be dismissed, for they do illustrate a key point: that many of the web's most prominent and exciting properties, of which Facebook is only the largest, are entirely absent from the business sphere as plc companies - despite the fact that by and large this is the status that most of them are ultimately aiming for.

Valued in the report at just (!) £3.5 bn, it seems Facebook has a long way to go before the business world is convinced that it offers viable revenue models, despite it being generally received wisdom among web commentators that the network is a financial juggernaut in-the-waiting - just as soon as Zuckerberg decides the time is right to go for it.

Regardless of the hype, this data ultimately comes as a timely reminder of Facebook's as yet unproven status as a business model - within the context of its colossal status as the world's most popular social network. However, perhaps it'd be best to keep in mind that even if FB is worth is as the report estimates, or closer to the £10bn which it is estimated to be worth by Secondmarket, it is, in any case, rather a lot of cash...

Dejan Levi

Yes the social network - that kind of isn't - at least in the sense that maybe we should stop classifying it with the other sites, with whom it has many superficial similarities (looks kinda similar for a start) but one fundamental difference - in the way it is used (i.e. it is actually not a 'social,' social network at all really, but instead something people use for work/networking etc). Hence in our 'lump-networks-together' type thinking for purposes of ranking them, we are perhaps often missing out on a key aspect of the online networking market - that of the individuality of the business social network.

If instead we take LinkedIn as by far and away the largest of the business social networks - we can see how signifcantly smaller it is (more than a factor of 10 by most counts) than the biggest player in the social networking pond. Now it is not that the business social networking 'pond' (i.e. market) is proportionatly smaller - but rather the fact that, as a market, it is fundamentally different from the one accessed (and dominated) by players such as MySpace and Facebook.

Even more importantly is the fact that it has hardly been developed or accessed anywhere near to the extent that is possible - in essence there is a pond right next to the increasingly crowded one occupied by the whales and sharks of Bebo, FB, Myspace etc - only this other pond is practically empty, with only the little goldfish of LinkedIn and a few tadpoles swimming round (networks like Ryze for example).

Ok, enough with the silly extended metaphors - it's not exactly rocket science after all. Ultimately we know social networking tools can be massively useful for work purposes (see this great post at bNet for more on this) - and we also know that many of us use social networks on a regular basis in our spare time for keeping in touch with friends etc. Yet, and here's the odd part, we hardly at all use any kind of business social network for work related matters even though there are plenty of us out there of working age and with jobs (teens after all only make up roughly 10% on average of social network users).

Yes, there will always be the fundamental point that many businesses will prefer to own their own business social network, rather than use one where information cannot be adequately controlled or protected. But in light of this I expect that the BSN pie will simply look a little different as it grows: not chopped into six or seven larger pieces like the usual SN graphics - but instead into many more smaller networks. Either way though it seems undeniable that next to the still-unsaturated, but certainly maturing, SN market, the potential of the BSN still has yet to be even fully imagined, let alone realised.

Dejan Levi

Think of it as a verbal time capsule of memories - ranging from testimonies of survivors of WWII POW camps to UK miners who recall the strikes of the 1980s, and hundreds of other equally momentous events. In design and layout, the site does indeed resemble Youtube and is thus very straightforward to use. Designed by EtonDigital, StoryVault has already been featured in online galleries such as CSS mania and continues to draw praise for its design.

As the database of videos grows, no doubt the site will start to resemble an extremely valuable resource for everyone from historians (both family and academic types) and those who are generally interested in the workings of memory and history. In this sense the site is doing a fantastic job of tying into current trends in fields of historiography and academia (as well as film-making) which are intensly debating concepts of individual memory and its relationships to history right now.

However, perhaps even more significant is that StoryVault offers users so much more than just this database of video content: like Youtube, it can be accessed without registering to be a member of the social network side of the site, but for those who do choose to quickly register (for free) then a whole new range of options opens up.

The most interesting of these is no doubt the family tree function which allows you to make detailed family trees online and share them with other users - and family members. In this way collaborative efforts to piece together expansive family trees can be initiated - with everyone adding details and info from wherever in the world they are.

So far i can see three very strong facilities that StoryVault provides, and consequently would be very surprised if it didn't go onto to become quite a success once it emerges from the beta testing stage. Firstly, the general resource of good quality (and exclusive) content on a range of historical material should prove a draw for a wide variety of users.

Secondly the interactive family tree creation facility looks like it could enable people to do something many of us consider - but often struggle to get around to due to the time investment required - which is to piece together a comprehensive family tree. StoryVault not only makes this easy - but it also enables collaboration from multiple family members, potentially across different continents.

Finally, StoryVault looks like it offers a valuable repository for the filmed testimonies of family members that might otherwise get lost on outdated video formats, in house-moving chaos or lie in dusty shoeboxes for decades. I for one will be keen to utilise all three - well done so far to both the StoryVault and EtonDigital teams working hard on this great project!

Dejan Levi

For a more in depth look at Social Media and Social Networks, check out Danah Boyd's latest analysis titled "Social Media is Here to Stay... Now What?"

On a more serious note however, all sorts of downright disturbing images have also been successfully removed, and truth be told it's hard to critique Facebook for being lax over image censorship (if anything they are perhaps at times slightly over-zealous, though i perfectly agree that it's better to err on the side of caution). It's precisely for this reason that I'm quite shocked that totally the opposite is true with some of the network's other content - starting with groups and fan sites...

In particular i'm referring to FB's failure to remove a number of actively racist hate groups which have been created by some FB users, ranging from generally horrible white supremacist stuff right through to holocaust denial groups. As Andre Oboler has clearly pointed out - if such things are illegal out in the open 'real' world, then why do the same laws not apply to FB?

After all, FB is well beyond its fledgling first steps when it could claim ignorance, or simply inadequate time to set up a system for dealing with such things. As one of the world's biggest social networks it is now imperative that the company takes the lead on this and sets a clear example for the whole online social world and stops facilitating such activities.

There is no doubt that the size of such networks, and their high user and activity levels will make the task tricky - but the challenge is one faced by all social networks, be it Myspace, Facebook or bebo and Orkut (hence some co-operation might be a good idea). Just as freedom of speech is enshrined in law (and respected by the networks) so too should be the unacceptability of promoting and spreading racial hatred. The whole question of losing a few users as a result (and therefore a few advertising dollars) shouldn't even be considered relevant - this issue transcends any kind of corporate financial considerations, and I for one would like to see Facebook tackle it sooner rather than later.

Dejan Levi

Which is why I'm delighted to read some fascinating posts over at Techcrunch about a new way of modelling the true value of social networks. The new system is based on a key principle - that users in countries with higher average online advertising spend are worth more (financially speaking) to social netoworks. Therefore, in terms of monetising networks, a UK user (1st in average online ad spend) is worth more to a network than a US user (4th).

Techcrunch first used this method over a year ago - but user numbers and distributions have changed drastically since then, so they've now delivered an updated version which is far different from that of one year ago. The new estimates value the total social networking market at $27.1 billion, with Facebook representing around $10bn of that figure. Obviously networks which have lots of users in countries with relatively low advertising spends - Orkut for example - rank far lower under this new method of valuation.

There is a danger in dismissing huge players in the social network game (like the aforementioned Orkut) with this new ranking system - simply because of their relative weakness in terms of immediate monetisation potential. However looking over how much the results have changed over the past year shows just how temporary these standings in fact are. Moreover results from China - a major market for social networks - are currently not included in this version of the league table.

Minor shortcomings aside though, this work from techcrunch represents a real breakthrough in terms of our ways of understanding the real market values of social networks, and provides a more complex system of generating data that directly represents the revenue-generating processes of the networks. It might also lead to a slight change of tactic for up and coming social networks - moving away from an 'as many users as possible' goal, and more to targeting already saturated markets (like the UK) knowing that even a handful of users here is worth more in a financial sense than a hundred elsewhere.

All in all though - fantastic work at Techcrunch, and good news for social networks all round in that the sector (and the 'pie' as it were) seems to be expanding each and every day.

Dejan Levi