Updating easylum net knowprose com best dating sim games for girls

28-Jul-2015 15:02

There are several problems with the taxonomy and thus doability: Does it even make sense to have one taxonomy for relationships of many people? By the way, as an addendum, especially to what Felix already hints at: There are of course various possibilities to implicitly find out about the subtleties of relationships in the personal network.

And if you can't find a unified taxonomy, is it not better to have one simple type of relationship? That is much more of an area where Friendity sees possibilities in the mid-term and we're working on that.

[Update January 30th] apophenia: venting my contempt for orkut (via Joi Ito), Jeremy Zawodny: Why Google needs Orkut (thanks, Garvin) [Update January 31st] apophenia: orkut pissyness, round 2 [Update February 1st] Christopher Allen: Insecurity at Orkut [Update February 3rd] Arve Bersvendsen: Why you should read Terms of Services and Privacy Policies (via Haiko Hebig) Life With Alacrity: Confirmed Email Privacy Hole at Orkut with some more remarks on Orkut and Feedback to the service.

(thanks Anders) [March 8th] Orkut has introduced a feature a little bit like what I asked for. There is no explanation what the rating is good for.

(And if I say "no" I cannot even add an explanation to that. It would be so easy to gather this information and it would be so valuable.

A simple "have met in person"-flag or something like would do it and give so much more depth to the network. Why is Orkut not gathering more data about the relationships of its members?

[Update January 26th] See also Marc Canter's Comment on Many-to-Many.

[Update January 27th] And do follow the Track Back over to Lee Bryant.

updating easylum net knowprose com-54updating easylum net knowprose com-5updating easylum net knowprose com-58updating easylum net knowprose com-48

What about an idea, that might seem silly: Express the strength of the relationship in a number and take the avarage between the two numbers.i too believe it would be most valuable to be able to clearly delineate one's level of connection with each individual in these 'communities' - best friend, casual friend, acquaintance, business cohort, etc... "Knowledge", KM-Terminology () "Distributed KM" - Blog Talk-Proposal accepted.these services, in and of themselves - free floating, amorphous 'cartographers of connections in cyberspace' - do not necessarily add significant value to our 'social' lives without 'sticky,' easily adoptable and adaptable components that encourage us to a clearer focus on our purpose for gathering and for self-defining the levels of interaction in our groups or tribes or circles of friends, cohorts, and acquaintances. We have certainly been looking into this and will continue to do so, but so far, we have not come up with a way to classify relationships that fulfills the following criteria: (a) unified usage for all membrs, (b) non-overlapping (at least not too much), (c) complete (at least almost), and most importantly (d) understandable by the mainstream user as well as (e) not forcing the member to declare what he does not want to declare. I would like to see a "have met in person"-flag on networks such as Linked In or Open BC.We do understand the usefulness of such a feature, but we're not yet sure yet it can be done at all in a good way. There, you often have more than one possibility to connect from one person to another through the network.

What about an idea, that might seem silly: Express the strength of the relationship in a number and take the avarage between the two numbers.i too believe it would be most valuable to be able to clearly delineate one's level of connection with each individual in these 'communities' - best friend, casual friend, acquaintance, business cohort, etc... "Knowledge", KM-Terminology () "Distributed KM" - Blog Talk-Proposal accepted.these services, in and of themselves - free floating, amorphous 'cartographers of connections in cyberspace' - do not necessarily add significant value to our 'social' lives without 'sticky,' easily adoptable and adaptable components that encourage us to a clearer focus on our purpose for gathering and for self-defining the levels of interaction in our groups or tribes or circles of friends, cohorts, and acquaintances. We have certainly been looking into this and will continue to do so, but so far, we have not come up with a way to classify relationships that fulfills the following criteria: (a) unified usage for all membrs, (b) non-overlapping (at least not too much), (c) complete (at least almost), and most importantly (d) understandable by the mainstream user as well as (e) not forcing the member to declare what he does not want to declare. I would like to see a "have met in person"-flag on networks such as Linked In or Open BC.We do understand the usefulness of such a feature, but we're not yet sure yet it can be done at all in a good way. There, you often have more than one possibility to connect from one person to another through the network.Martin Roell reflects on the shortcomings of Orkut, and utters reservations I wholeheartedly agree with. In an attempt to do something with the suggestions Martin gives to Orkut, I have added a... Fortunately, I was invited several hours before it went offline. There are quite a lot comments on why Orkut was down.