Talk:Social networking service/Archives/2013

Section "4.1 Social networks and science" should be removed
The source to this content refers simply to social networks and not to the social networking services technology. If not deleted, this section should be merged with the Social network article.ZerMetKi (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible ref
Seems like this could be a useful reference if used more succinctly than this --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge of Professional network service
Professional network service is currently a very weak failed article. Although LinkedIn at el are a notable topic, it would work better as part of this overall article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Although Social networking service is already plenty long enough, there's so little content at that IMO it wouldn't be a huge problem if it were to be merged in. Maybe it could be included under #Emerging trends. -- Trevj (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - LinkedIn isn't the only professional network. Also Edmodo, Branchout. If these articles have enough content to be stand-alone, there isn't any reason we can't find enough to populate the overarching article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - That Professional network service is current a very weak article  is no argument for inherently mixing together articles on network services that serve entirely separate facets of a lot of peoples existence -  their 'professional selves/lives'  and their 'personal/social  selves/lives'  ;   As much as the larger social networks of the world (de facto - facebook)  may like to be 'all inclusive' on this topic ; their initial design purpose was to facilitate social, non work, interaction -  and that's how the majority of their users like it.  Keep the 'social' and 'professional' rightfully separate.  Just make Professional network service a better page!
 * Support - While there is a distinction between social and professional networks, I think it is sometimes difficult to label some networks as one or the other. Many sites these days branch both categories - particularly small and work based networks that allow both professional and social networking within an organisation.  LeeFallin (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing internal links
Just as it mentioned in the first paragraph, online community services can be considered as a social network service. It is a important concept to understand SNS. However, in the 1st content "History" and 4.2.1 content "Professional uses within education", there is no link to "online communities". If people only want to read content of these particular parts of the concept, they maybe get confused about the meaning of "online communities". Yaxian (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, if people firstly read this wikipedia, they might be confused by the defination of "onling communities".

Richard lc (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What is more, as far as I'm concerned, there are 10 places of the article mentioned social network service. Even though they are very similar, they still a slight difference and I see some people talk about this issue in the talk page. So I recommend make a inner link of "social network service" to "social networking service". Since some of them are mentioned in the same content, they only need to be added for 2 times in all. Richard lc (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing internal links
Just as it mentioned in the first paragraph, online community services can be considered as a social network service. It is a important concept to understand SNS. However, in the 1st content "History" and 4.2.1 content "Professional uses within education", there is no link to "online communities". If people only want to read content of these particular parts of the concept, they maybe get confused about the meaning of "online communities". Yaxian (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, if people firstly read this wikipedia, they might be confused by the defination of "onling communities".

Richard lc (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What is more, as far as I'm concerned, there are 10 places of the article mentioned social network service. Even though they are very similar, they still a slight difference and I see some people talk about this issue in the talk page. So I recommend make a inner link of "social network service" to "social networking service". Since some of them are mentioned in the same content, they only need to be added for 2 times in all. Richard lc (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Developping the social impact section
Social impact section should have many subsections because there is many types of social impact: The impact of social network in the family, in couples relationship, in work, between friends. And how the time spent on the online interaction affects the relations in the offline social interaction? --Lama-Chamas-TPT (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)