

What All Social Networks Got Wrong - sathishmanohar
http://atthy.com/what-all-social-networks-got-wrong/

======
glimcat
Recognizing levels of interaction is one step. But human relationships are not
so one-dimensional. Guy I work with, person from Bible group, AA sponsor, girl
I snogged once, sister I send cards to once a year but avoid otherwise because
we disagree strongly over politics, boss I trust implicitly but don't want to
show my off-hour shenanigans to, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Any system which adequately models real relationships will be too complex for
usability and any system which is simple enough to have decent usability will
only approximate real relationships.

------
nekgrim
Easy to implement, but

After reading <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2795966>, i highly doubt
that "normal" users want another level of complexity.

And, after all, it can easily be replaced with Circles/Lists :

\- Work

\- Family

\- Golf

\- Will Trust for life

\- Good friend

\- Acquaintances

If you really want to share something with acqaintance from the Golf Club,
maybe you just want to email them. Or make more circles/lists :

\- Golf : Will Trust for life

\- Golf : Good friend

\- Golf : Acquaintances

~~~
sathishmanohar
Well, your suggestion is true, But, Most people are not that organized, and to
do the different level of separation, they must know that there are different
level of trust, which most users won't know.

My suggestion was to bake it into product, not leaving it upto users to learn
a new things.

------
manuelflara
Well, I'm sure social networks like Facebook have already an internal "how
good a friend is this person to you?" index for each of your friends, based on
how much you interact with them (private messages, invites to events, wall
posts, likes, etc.) So adding an extra step to the friend organization process
is probably too much work for most people, specially considering people are
lazy to even put the context of a friend to begin with (remember that friend
lists have kind of failed in terms of user adoption).

