http://lolly.disqus.com/A cocktail of advertising, social media, and technologyenFri, 14 Sep 2007 13:10:55 -0000http://www.laurenceborel.com/2007/09/06/334/#comment-10979015<p>I have a love/hate thing with facebook. I like being in control of my social life and like to meet friends in a personal way not over an ethereal environment.</p>navcityFri, 14 Sep 2007 13:10:55 -0000http://www.laurenceborel.com/2007/09/06/334/#comment-10979016<p>Facebook is going to replace ID cards!</p>LollyWed, 12 Sep 2007 07:08:58 -0000http://www.laurenceborel.com/2007/09/06/334/#comment-10979017<p>facebook is really becoming the new white pages. by opening up their walled garden to search, they may be taking the first step towards a broader opening of their platform to other sites. This is something many are saying is necessary to stay relevant.</p><p>I've posted my facebook wish list on my blog - <a href="http://www.burningthebacon.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.burningthebacon.com">burningthebacon.com</a></p>Phil BarrettTue, 11 Sep 2007 13:19:43 -0000http://www.laurenceborel.com/2007/09/06/334/#comment-10979019<p>wow..i don't know whats more interesting, the 64+ or the 3 million? the latter is not surprising. It makes sense though, but I bet 18-24 is prolly pretty strong too since facebook is realy taking root in colleges and universities.</p><p>I think Myspace is bloated but it really opened things up for niche based social networking sites. I have a great idea for a music based social networking sites that actually is about ...lo and behold...music. Which ironically, as we all know, is how Myspace was supposed to be. Now however, it's evolved or morphed into this monolithic thing, that I don't even recognize anymore.</p>emersondirectFri, 07 Sep 2007 12:38:19 -0000http://www.laurenceborel.com/2007/09/06/334/#comment-10979021<p>Facebook is maturing, right?<br>- 3 million age 25-34<br>- 380,000 age 35-44<br>- 310,000 age 45-63<br>- 100,000 users age 64+</p><p>Same thing with myspace...</p><p>Check this: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/500hats/sets/72157594550002847/detail/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.flickr.com/photos/500hats/sets/72157594550002847/detail/">http://www.flickr.com/photo...</a></p>LollyFri, 07 Sep 2007 12:22:24 -0000http://www.laurenceborel.com/2007/09/06/334/#comment-10979020<p>So here's another question then: Lets categorize the demographic for each social network of any value.. Starting with Facebook and Myspace and working out from there. Go.</p>emersondirectFri, 07 Sep 2007 11:19:21 -0000http://www.laurenceborel.com/2007/09/06/334/#comment-10979022<p>This is a customer relations issue in my mind. Facebook should have made an effort to notify all its users of the searchable profile and public/private setting issue. I guess it's proof that not everything they're doing this year is pure genius.</p><p>Thanks for bringing it up, though. I'm going to have to go tinker myself.</p>Jason FallsFri, 07 Sep 2007 08:51:07 -0000http://www.laurenceborel.com/2007/09/06/334/#comment-10979018<p>I agree! The question is, can you resist the temptation of not being on Facebook?</p>LollyFri, 07 Sep 2007 05:09:28 -0000http://www.laurenceborel.com/2007/09/06/334/#comment-10979023<p>Funny you should ask, but my 80 year old aunt, who seems to be somewhat technologically hip cautioned me on serachable personal info. But here's my take on it. Couldn't someone just grab a phone book and Google names that way? I agree, why make it any easier than it already is to find out personal info of someone. I suppose that if Monster's dbase can be hacked, not much is safe.</p><p>The smartest thing to do is a) don't create a profile or b) the only thing in the profile is your name and not much else.</p>emersondirectThu, 06 Sep 2007 13:29:52 -0000