Clay Shirky
( Archive | Home )

Liz Lawley
( Archive | Home )

Ross Mayfield
( Archive | Home )

Sébastien Paquet
( Archive | Home )

David Weinberger
( Archive | Home )

danah boyd
( Archive | Home )

Guest Authors
Recent Comments

pet rescue saga cheats level 42 on My book. Let me show you it.

Affenspiele on My book. Let me show you it.

Affenspiele on My book. Let me Amazon show you it.

Donte on My book. Let me show you it.

telecharger subway surfers on My book. Let me show you it.

Ask Fm Anonymous Finder on My book. Let me show you it.

Site Search
Monthly Archives
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline


« social network site history | Main | Social Facts, Expertise, Citizendium, and Carr »

November 12, 2006

social network sites: my definition

Email This Entry

Posted by danah boyd

I would like to offer my working definition of “social network sites” per confusion over my request for a timeline.

A “social network site” is a category of websites with profiles, semi-persistent public commentary on the profile, and a traversable publicly articulated social network displayed in relation to the profile.

To clarify:

  1. Profile. A profile includes an identifiable handle (either the person’s name or nick), information about that person (e.g. age, sex, location, interests, etc.). Most profiles also include a photograph and information about last login. Profiles have unique URLs that can be visited directly.
  2. Traversable, publicly articulated social network. Participants have the ability to list other profiles as “friends” or “contacts” or some equivalent. This generates a social network graph which may be directed (“attention network” type of social network where friendship does not have to be confirmed) or undirected (where the other person must accept friendship). This articulated social network is displayed on an individual’s profile for all other users to view. Each node contains a link to the profile of the other person so that individuals can traverse the network through friends of friends of friends….
  3. Semi-persistent public comments. Participants can leave comments (or testimonials, guestbook messages, etc.) on others’ profiles for everyone to see. These comments are semi-persistent in that they are not ephemeral but they may disappear over some period of time or upon removal. These comments are typically reverse-chronological in display. Because of these comments, profiles are a combination of an individuals’ self-expression and what others say about that individual.

This definition includes all of the obvious sites that i talk about as social network sites: MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, Cyworld, Mixi, Orkut, etc. Some of the obvious players like LinkedIn are barely social network sites because of their efforts to privatize the articulated social network but, given that it’s possible, I count them (just like i count MySpace even when the users turn their profiles private).

There are sites that primarily fit into other categories but contain all of the features of social network sites. This is particularly common with sites that were once a different type of community site but have added new features. BlackPlanet, AsianAvenue, MiGente, QQ, and Xanga all fit into this bucket. I typically include LiveJournal as a social network site but it is sorta an edge-cases because they do not allow you to comment on people’s profiles. They do however allow you to publicly comment on the blog entries. For this reason, Dodgeball is also a problem - there are no comments whatsoever. In many ways, i do not consider Dodgeball a social network site, but i do consider it a mobile social network tool which is why i often lump it into this cluster of things.

Of course, things are getting trickier every day. I’m half-inclined to qualify the definition to say that the profile and articulated social network are the centralizing feature of these sites because there are tons of sites that have profiles and social network site features as a peripheral components of their service but where the primary focus is elsewhere. Examples of this include: YouTube, Flickr, Last.FM, 43Things, Meetup, Vox, Crushspot, etc. (Dating sites are probably the most tricky because they are very profile-centric but the social network is peripheral.) But, on the other hand, most of these sites grew out of this phenomenon. So, for the sake of argument, i leave room to include them but also consider them edge cases.

At the same time, it’s critical to point out what social network sites are most definitely NOT. They are NOT the same as all sites that support social networks or all sites that allow people to engage in social networking. Your mobile phone, your email, your instant message client… these all support the articulation of social networks (addressbooks) but they do not let you publicly display them in relation to a profile for others to traverse. MUDs/MOOs, BBSes, chatrooms, bulletin boards, mailing lists, MMORPGS… these all allow you to meet new people and make friends but they are not social network sites.

This is part of why i get really antsy when people talk about this category as “social networks” or “social networking” or “social networking sites.” I think that this is leading to all sorts of confusion about what is and what is not in the category. These alternative categories are far far far too broad and all too often i hear people talking about everything that allows you to talk to anyone in any way as one of these sites (this is the mistake that DOPA makes for example).

While it’s great to talk about all of these things as part of a broader “social software” or “social media” phenomenon, there are also good reasons to have a label to address a subset of these sites that are permitting very particular practices. This allows academics, politicians, technologists, educators, and others discuss how structural shifts are prompting different kinds of behaviors. (What happens when people publicly articulate their relationships? How do these systems change the rules of virality because the network is visible? Etc.) Because of this, i don’t want the slippage to be too great because people are using terrible terms or because people want their site to fit into the category of what’s currently cool.

Of course, like most categories, there are huge issues around the edges and there’s never a clean way to construct boundaries. (To understand the challenges, read Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things.) Just think of the category “game” and try to come up with a comfortable definition and boundary for that. Still, there are things that are most definitely not games. An apple is not a game. Sure, it can be used in a game but it is not inherently a game. Not all sites that allow people to engage in social activity are social network sites and it is ridiculous to try to shove them all there simply because there’s a lot of marketing money to be made (yet i realize that this is often the reason why people do try). For this reason, i really want to stake out “social network sites” as a category that has meaningful properties even if the edges are a little fuzzy. There is still meaningful family resemblance and more central prototypes than others. I really want to focus on making sense of what’s happening with this category by focusing primarily on the prototypes and less on the edge cases.

Anyhow, this is a work in progress but i wanted to write some of this down since i seem to be getting into lots of fights via email about this.

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software


1. Brian O' Hanlon on November 26, 2006 8:45 AM writes...

Finished listening to Danah Boyd's lecture at Vienna conference. Just thought this link to my account of Architect Glenn Murcutt's lecture in Dublin here:

Might provide some interesting extensions to the ideas expressed about myspace, flickr, blogspace etc.

Brian O' Hanlon.

Permalink to Comment

2. Brian O' Hanlon on November 26, 2006 8:48 AM writes...

Finished listening to Danah Boyd's lecture at Vienna conference. Just thought this link to my account of Architect Glenn Murcutt's lecture in Dublin here:

Might provide some interesting extensions to the ideas expressed about myspace, flickr, blogspace etc.

Brian O' Hanlon.

Permalink to Comment

3. Raquel on December 2, 2006 5:41 AM writes...

I think I agree with most of your text. My only point is that sometimes a "profile" is not something the system was designed to show, as in orkut, or MySpace. For example, fotologs (or weblogs) are not profiles by nature but people make them profiles when they personalize their fotolog page with their data, their pictures and their links to show who they are. Also, interaction within comments is perceived by the users as a way to show their social network (so people comment many times a week just to make an "I'm here and I'm your friend" statement). Users are very good in perceiving social networks through comments (and in Orkut, through scraps) more than through the social network part (such as "friends" in orkut or "friends" in fotolog). That's why many users from orkut decide to erase all their scraps after they answer them - to prevent stalkers to know who their "real" friends really are. So, I think social interaction is a key word to think about social network sites, among with profile. And also, I think that sometimes the "social network" part of the site doesn't need to be obvious- users can perceive a social network through comments, for example (although weblogs and fotologs usually do have a "who my friends are" part).

I don't know, just thoughts on your text. :)

Permalink to Comment

4. GramBorder on March 19, 2007 10:18 PM writes...


I want to all of you know, World is mine, and yoursite good


Permalink to Comment

5. Madlen on March 21, 2007 5:24 PM writes...

I agree with your article. Here is another noteworthy site you did not take into account: - the world's largest academic community

Permalink to Comment

6. php on March 27, 2007 1:11 AM writes...

php technology

Permalink to Comment

7. Jed Kantos on July 16, 2007 4:34 AM writes...

Another one to add to your collection is the newly released Zude social networking service (

I signed up to Zude just at the end of the beta program in June 2007. Now I am migrating my "web presence" from MySpace to Zude because I am so impressed with it.

Aside from the regular social networking features of, (as Danah Boyd says), a profile, a traversable, publicly articulated social network, and semi-persistent public comments, it also features full drag-and-drop design of your profile pages, and supports a wide variety of content on the profile page, including music, videos, Flash and Javascript widgets, documents, links, and even whole webpages from other websites can be embedded on the profile and "rolled up" so you can have a website within a website. The layout of the profile pages (collectively called your "Zudescape") is completely freeform: you can put anything anywhere. It doesn't have to go into predefined boxes or categories. The layout of your page can be entirely customized to suite your own tastes. The properties of each object are exposed to the user, such that positioning, color, layering, transparency, and a huge selection of other properties of each object can be fully customized. You can also add tags to each object in your Zudescape to aid in searching. One of the best features of Zude, that I have seen, is that you can also customize the HEAD block of each page, allowing a wider range of Javascript apps to be supported.

I think this is really going to be one to watch.

Permalink to Comment

TrackBack URL:


Remember Me?


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

It's Live! New JCMC on Social Network Sites
Race/ethnicity and parent education differences in usage of Facebook and MySpace
User-generated neologism: "Indigenous content"
history of social network sites (a work-in-progress)
New Freedom Destroys Old Culture: A response to Nick Carr
responding to critiques of my essay on class
Tagmashes from LibraryThing
Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters