When someone imports their email address book into Facebook to search for friends, they can invite those friends who aren’t already on Facebook to join. However, if one of your friends has multiple email addresses, and already has a Facebook account registered to a different email address than the one you’re ‘inviting’ them with, they get an email asking them to sign up (again) to be your Facebook friend. If they’re already signed in, they get redirected to their facebook homepage. I don’t understand why it wouldn’t just take you to the facebook profile of the person who invited you.

So, I get an invite to Facebook from ‘Tom Mackenzie’ to my personal email address.

My facebook is registered to my work email address. I even try adding my personal email address as an alternative email to my facebook account, but nothing new happens. I don’t have Tom Mackenzie’s email address. The only way I can find his Facebook profile is to do a search on his name. This brings up 3 pages of Tom Mackenzies, many of whom have no photo or their photo is too small to tell who they are. So I don’t know which of these are my friend!

That brings me to Facebook’s other annoying feature – you can’t see people’s full size photos, or personal details unless you are in their network. I don’t see any reason why someone in London’s network would want me to see their profile any less than someone in Brighton & Hove’s network!? Surely if I’m planning on a bit of e-harrassment, it’d be worse if I was local?

What even is the point in blocking regional networks that you’re not a part of? Or even of only letting you join one regional network at a time! I really don’t understand.

When someone imports their email address book into Facebook to search for friends, they can invite those friends who aren’t already on Facebook to join. However, if one of your friends has multiple email addresses, and already has a Facebook account registered to a different email address than the one you’re ‘inviting’ them with, they get an email asking them to sign up (again) to be your Facebook friend. If they’re already signed in, they get redirected to their facebook homepage. I don’t understand why it wouldn’t just take you to the facebook profile of the person who invited you.

So, I get an invite to Facebook from ‘Tom Mackenzie’ to my personal email address.

My facebook is registered to my work email address. I even try adding my personal email address as an alternative email to my facebook account, but nothing new happens. I don’t have Tom Mackenzie’s email address. The only way I can find his Facebook profile is to do a search on his name. This brings up 3 pages of Tom Mackenzies, many of whom have no photo or their photo is too small to tell who they are. So I don’t know which of these are my friend!

That brings me to Facebook’s other annoying feature – you can’t see people’s full size photos, or personal details unless you are in their network. I don’t see any reason why someone in London’s network would want me to see their profile any less than someone in Brighton & Hove’s network!? Surely if I’m planning on a bit of e-harrassment, it’d be worse if I was local?

What even is the point in blocking regional networks that you’re not a part of? Or even of only letting you join one regional network at a time! I really don’t understand.

The valorising of individuality in Western society, which is exaggerated in youth culture, has been described as ‘a cult of individualism’ (Atkinson, 2006: 75). Indicators of such traits may function as commodities in social settings, which in turn could earn social status, increasing social capital (Allik, 2004: 29). Resonating with capitalist notions of the individual as the center of importance, and perpetuating anti-communist abbhorrence of unification, individuality seems to be increasingly upheld in youth culture as virtuous (Traber, 2001: 30), to the extent that (within socially accepted boundaries and adherence to certain behavioural norms) perceived autonomy of an individual by others is related to the opportunities for social and community involvement they experience (Allik, 2004: 32).

The whole essay is available here: Individualism and social capital in an online social networking community: Myspace as an organising site for identity construction [PDF]

Since Rhinegold’s ‘The Virtual Community’ was printed in 1993, much has been written on the use of relatively new spaces for communion online, including focused studies on MUDs (Multi User Dungeons) (Cherny, 1999: 247-296), IRC (Internet Relay Chat) (Shaw in Jones 2002: 134-143) or, as in this case, forum based communities (Preece, 2001: 345-375).

I intend to use the term ‘online’ as an alternative to the term ‘virtual’ which is often used to describe the same concepts but has been criticised for its implication that online spaces are somehow less authentic than physical, offline ones (Cerulo in Rhinegold, 2000: 367).

Rather than looking at a new or established online community as many other studies have done, I am interested in the evolution and use of a new forum community, which has a physical counterpart that is already established. Related studies have looked at examples of towns and villages – geographical communities’ movements into and within an online realm (Wilmersdorf, 2003; Zook, 2002). There is still, however, currently a deficit in studies of the relationships between online and offline communities (Nip, 2004).

Using Sussex University LGBT group as a case study, I am interested in whether and how a flexible online community mirrors its physical counterpart and whether it reflects the physical environment of the community or alters its online environment to suit its needs. The developer of an online community should “work closely with members to understand their needs, to select appropriate software, and to develop good sociability and usability” (Preece, 2001: 346). As an active member of this local community, I was able to understand the dynamics and structure of the group and attempt to mirror these when initially building the online space, whilst also encouraging member co-operation and influence on the designs. Rather than creating a chat based system, a forum seemed more appropriate as it allows “community memory… some record of what was said or done in your absence” (Rhinegold 2000: 183).

Discussions with the group’s committee identified criticisms of the existing website for using too much Flash which future members could not edit and which did not work on all browsers. Ease of editing pages and forum administration for future members played a factor in the simplicity of the designs and choice of forum provider (see Fig 1). The existing LGBT website was also criticised for being ‘too gay’, i.e. too colourful. The importance of discretion was identified as a factor to take into account when designing the site, due to many users potentially viewing the site from public computers, libraries etc. and a number of users assumed to be sensitive about issues of sexuality.

The whole essay is available here: How does the creation of an online community relate to its physical counterpart? [PDF]