According to Danah Boyd and Nicole Ellison Social networking sites are commonly defined as web based service that allows people to 1) create a public profile 2) articualte a list of other users who share a connection 3) view and  navigate their list of connections within the system.  However Boyd and Ellison point out that “Networking” is not an accurate term for most sites, since most people use SNS not strictly  for making connections. Also the connections made are not always between strangers. 

David Beer points out the difficulty of  Boyd and Ellison use of the term Social network sites by saying it is too broad and stands for to many things. They are numerous activities that are limted to Networking interactions between friends.

I would have to agree with Beer in the point he made about SNS being in a large umbrella of media web 2.0. Social Networking is evolving rapidly with less emphasis on “networking” there are more functions of the sites then making new friends and its shouldnt be limited to the term social networking.

I can remember back in high school when I had my myspace and you could categorize your top friends. My sister would always get mad if she got moved to number two. It is crazy because she is my sister, who is also in my top “friends”. A term that can now be applied more broadly. On facebook you can now categorize your friends if they have a personal connection to you such as mother, sister, cousin..etc. Networks have been changing as peoples needs changes and depending on the site and the structure, then that will influence how we act and what we do on those sites.

Boyd and Ellison (2007) define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.

Beer (2008) states the difficulty that boyd and Ellison’s use of the term social network sites creates is that it becomes too broad, it stands in for too many things, it is intended to do too much of the analytical work, and therefore makes a differentiated typology of these various user-generated web applications more problematic.

I tend to agree more with Boyd and Ellison even though their definition is a little broad. Personally, Facebook is the best of both worlds for me because I do have those people that  I know and share a connection, that I built relationships with. However, I mostly go for the entertainment and to pass time, and also of course to keep up with family and friends. I think, that social networking sites differ in that you do not necessarily have to share a common interest with all your friends whereas an online community that has a specific interest or topic can bring people together.

          According to Boyd and Ellison, social network sites are web-based services that allow individuals to do many computer-related activities. These activities include: 1. constructing a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, 2. articulating lists of other uses with whom they share a connection, and 3. viewing and traversing their list of connections and those made by others within the system. Dr. Beer, however, defines social networking sites as having numerous capabilities other than those expected from readers of Boyd and Ellison’s article. He states that forming friendships is not the key objective of these sites, which causes them to be far different than sites categorized as online communities.

            The definitions of social networks told by these two articles both have accurate suggestions, but I have to admit that I agree more with Boyd and Ellison’s definition rather than that of Dr. Beer. They stated that these sites will allow them to see and compare statements made by other individuals about a particular topic. This description shows striking similarities to online communities, which also allow people to find common interests by talking about a similar topic. However, Dr. Beer states that members of social networks differ from those of online communities in that they usually talk solely about the topic and leave personal matters out of the chat. If that is truly the case, then I’ll take an online community over these strict topic chats any day.

Boyd & Ellison define social networking as, “We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”

I agree parts of Boyd & Ellison’s definition of social networking. In today’s social settings you cannot go anywhere without seeing someone using a technology source (cellphone, laptop, ipod, etc. ), these tools support Boyd & Ellison’s views of users creating a list of other users to be connected with. For instance on Facebook you have a list of “friends” and you can view the “friends” of your “friends” which can lead to different connections within a virtual system of connections.

Beers arguments were valid in that he views Boyd & Ellison’s definition as too broad. I like that Beer called out youtube. This site is not solely offering a “friend” or “network” but more that it is entertainment. Therefore lumping all social sites as “networking” is false. Users are not always seeking a true connection with their online interactions.

Social networking sites differ from an online community in that they are smaller and more targeted. The user is seeking a specific connection. Social networking is more branching out and exploring while staying connected to family and friends. On the flip side social networking and online communities are similar in that they are a way to connect through technology. A user may start out in the big field of social networking and find that they need more intimacy or support and join certain online communities for closer online relationships.

So how do social network sites and communities differ? Both often include synchronous chat features, profile pictures, and identities somewhat defined by not only your own content but also by your relationship to others within the site. Often communities are connecting strangers that share an interest other other common tie, whereas much of the scholarly research on social network sites shows that people predominately use the services to maintain larger networks of people they already know. Baym used the idea of space largely to define communities, whereas ties seem to be a key identifier in SNS.

Boyd & Ellison (2007) argue that we need to change our phrasing from “social networking sites” to “social network sites” as users are more often not networking at all. To network, you would need to be making new connections to people you do not already have an established relationship to, whereas most users are utilizing the sites to maintain their existing network. While that might sound as if is diminishing the role of SNS, its strength is its ability to lower the cost of maintenance on such a large network of relationships for each individual. Hargittai & Hsieh (2011) help to further define SNS by its types of users. They identify 4 types of users, Dabblers, Samplers, Devotees, and Omnivores, all separated by their usage and intensity habits. They also explore the differences in gender and demographic group usage.

Beer (2008) on the other hand, wants social network sites set apart from other types of user generated content sites such as YouTube or Wikipedia and suggests that we use Web 2.0 as a monkier to lump these types of sites together. Beer also wants us to considering the morphing nature of the term “friend” in light of the new dynamic that SNS presents. In SNS the term “friend” can be applied to a wide range of people from your mother to your boss to your actual “in real life” (to borrow a term from last week) friends. Finally, and perhaps most of all, Beer wants us to reconsider how we think of SNS. Many of us know that the sites are free for us to access, and take it at face value. We know there are ads in the sidebar that have been specially designed for us based on our demographic information and previous search history, but we all tend to blissfully ignore the ads in the sidebar and continue to scroll through our newsfeed. Beer argues that we should see SNS as commercial spaces designed in many ways to profit on us, the users. This brings up new concerns about privacy as we transition from users to customers.

boyd & Ellison (2007) defined social network sites “as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.” Most notably, these authors explained a difference in semantics between the terms social network and social networking. Users of social networks, according to boyd & Ellison, primarily communicate with people in their offline or extended network as a means of keeping in toch. Social networking sites, on the other hand, are aimed at people looking to initiate new relationships.

Beer’s issue with boyd & Ellison’s use of the term social network site is that it’s much too broad. boyd & Ellison are very specific with the way they identify social networking sites, but very open with their definition of social network sites. Thus, it seems that social network sites become broad buckets that anything which isn’t a social networking site is tossed into. Beer notes this is problematic because, for example, both YouTube and Facebook could be considered a social network site, even though they are very different applications.

Beer was also concerned the direction of future research on social network(ing) sites. He felt that boyd & Ellison focused too much on the user instead of looking at a broader picture that includes cultural and capitalism impacts on evolving media. At the end of his article, he stated that “So, when we ask about who are using SNS and for what purposes, we should not just think about those with profiles, we should also be thinking about…how SNS can be understood as archives of the everyday that represent vast and rich source of transactional data about a vast population of users.” Hargittai and Hsieh also have concerns with boyd & Ellison’s research on the grounds that it does not account for differences among individual users or groups of users.

Social network(ing) sites seem different than online communities because of the sense of individual over the group. Social networks are all about individuals building their networks or managing networks they already have. Communities, on the other hand, are about engaging in deeper relationships, often times with people you don’t know offline, to discuss shared interest topics and information.

Social networking has been such a huge part of my adolescence and college life. I created a Facebook profile right after the sophomore dance, and ever since then I have been finding people from when I was younger, and also connecting with people in my current life whom I don’t get to see very often. Therefore, it was very interesting to see how boyd and Ellison’s article disagreed with Beer’s article about the definition and usage of social media.

Ellison and boyd define social networking sites as “web-based services” that allow people to make a profile, make a list of other people who share a connection with them, and view that connection list and other people’s connections. Ellison and boyd chose not to use the word “networking” to describe social media because they view networking as a time when people approach others specifically to make relationships, instead of working with others whom they already know. Instead, the authors suggest that social media is merely used to reconnect with people who are already in their lives. On the other hand, Beer says that boyd and Ellison’s exclusion of networking in their social media definition is a “shame.” Unlike boyd and Ellison, Beer says that social media is often done with people whom they see all the time in real life (versus having people you only see in real life, or only see online). Beer says that boyd and Ellison’s definition is too broad, and that there needs to be smaller categories such as “mashups” and “wikis.”

I have to agree more with Beer’s article, because I use Facebook and other social media mostly for networking. There are so many “strangers” on my Facebook page who are wedding vendors in Memphis, and Facebook has helped me create many relationships with people who can be difficult to get a hold of. The other article is a little too closed-minded about how people use their social media profiles. I think social networking sites are similar to online communities, but that social networking relationships are not usually as close. In communities, people have a common interest, but on Facebook, I may have nothing in common with someone- we may have just met somewhere. Social networking allows people to meet up online, but I think that communities offer many more opportunities for bonding and close relationships.