Yahoo just bought Delicious:

Here it is live from the source:
Link: del.icio.us: y.ah.oo!.

And here's our take, on our blog.

Link: Google Transit.

If I were HopStop, I'd be worried...   

GYM...  eating web services in a city near you....

How many friends can you have and still be a good friend to anyone?

How does that number change when your career takes off?  When you move?  When you get into a relationship?  When you get married?

Do you actively manage these changes?  Has anyone dinged you lately with "where've you been?", for not returning a phonecall, or for the dreded "viewed" with no response on a party Evite?

For as long as I know, I've always held on and tried to keep in touch with just about anyone that I meet that I find interesting.  Social networking on Friendster and MySpace help keep a lot of otherwise drifting friendships alive... and so does IM.  My evites are huge and I often forget how I even met half the people that I know.  However, I've never really had that small, closeknit group of friends that's always around.  My network is truly an expression of "small pieces loosely joined."  However, its catching up with me.  I'm realizing that you can't treat everyone like small pieces and expect them to treat you as anything more.   I think this happens a lot to people who spend a lot of time online.  Your relationship bandwidth gets spread over the long tail.

Please note some of the realizations I've come to:

• Evites with 100 people and group e-mails do not constitute friendship.
• Reading someone's blog or expecting them to read yours is not the only way you should be building relationships with the people closest to you.
• IMing isn't friendship if it never gets past "Hey... what's up?"  "Nothin' much."
• Any testamonials you leave on a social networking site should be said in person.

When I was in college, I went on some retreats and we used to have an exercise that would help you take stock in the people around you and come to the realization of who you were closest to and where, perhaps, your relationships needed work.  You would list people in your life and make little notiations next to the people you could count on for various things, and who could count on you.  It was a real eyeopening exercise.  I think it made a lot of people realize they were coming up short, and also that they were probably a lot closer to their parents or family than they realized.

We used to start it off by listing the phone numbers of our friends, but that was all the way back in 1998/99 before college kids ever had cellphones, so now that doesn't work.

So, instead, I've put together a new version:

Introspective Friendship/Relationship Inventory 2.0

1. Get a blank sheet of paper, open up a new blog post, or a document in Writely.
2. Divide it in three columns.
3. Down the first column, list the following people.  Don't double list anyone and if you have overlap, just add the one or two incremental people that apply.  Feel free to actually consult web applications to complete the list, especially for #4.
   
   1. Who are the first five people you would invite to be your contacts in a new social networking application?
   2. Who are the last three people that you've actually met in person that you have IMed?
   3. Who are three offline friends who don't have a blog that you wish would start blogging?
   4. List your immediate family members... parents, syblings, spouse, kids.
   5. Which two offline contacts have commented on your blog the most?
   6. Which three personal, offline contacts have gained the special priviliege of being communicated with through your work account, which also means you respond to them through your Blackberry/Treo, etc.
   7. Name three people that you know offhand appear automatically in GMail or any other mail application with autocomplete with just one letter typed.
   8. Who are the first three people you can count on to respond to an Evite?
   9. Who are the three people least likely to get pissed if you just walk away from IM without a goodbye?
   10. Who is the one person amoung the people you spend time with who is glaringly absent from this list?  (Did you forget a kid?)
4. Ok, now that you've got your list of people, add the following icons to each column as they apply.  So, for anytime its something someone would do/has done for you, put an icon in the left column.  For anything you would do or have done for someone else, put it in the right column.  In fact, take a moment to label the columns "for:<insert del.icio.us screename here>" (or just "me" if you don't use del.icio.us) and for:them".
   1. Make a little :) face next to all of the people who you would go to individually (not blogging) to talk about an idea you're really excited about... that goes in the right.  A :) goes in the left for anyone that has come to you with news about something they're really excited about.
   2. Place a :* (or a heart) next to someone you'd go to with a relationship problem on the right, and vice versa on the left.
   3. Put a $ in the respective columns when it comes to anyone that you could borrow money from and who could come to you.  (via Paypal, of course)
   4. Put a + for anyone you could discuss a spiritual issue with, and vice versa.  (You have to actually know Evelyn Rodriguez to actually list her, btw...)
   5. A <:) for anyone you would invite to a birthday dinner and the same for people who would invite you.
   6. A :.. ( for anyone you could cry in front of or who could cry in front of you.  (Do I have to keep explaining the columns?)
   7. Put a ! for anyone who would put themselves out there to defend you (if they blogged) in a Web 2.0 blogging flame war and the other way around.
   8. But an & for anyone you appear in a group photo with on Flickr or somewhere else on the web.  (both columns)
   9. Put a # next to anyone who you always pick up the phone, IM, skype, etc. for and hardly ever screen.  (Guess on who screens you and seems inordinately difficult to reach)
   10. Put a @ next to anybody whose house and/or local coffee shop you've been to in the last month and the same for people you've invited into your home. and/or local coffee shop.
   11. Who would you go to for advice or to destress if the RIAA got to you because of your illegal music downloading?  Put an "i" for that.  (for iTunes)

Who got the most icons in each column?  Where is there an inbalance?  Any surprises?  Who got overrepresented or underreppresented because their relationship with you is stronger offline vs. online, or the other way around?  Should your online life be reflective of your offline world or should it be the result of who is most easily accessable online?

I'm interested in the comments of anyone who takes the time to complete this...

David's got this right...

Link: VentureBlog: Social Networks 3.0.

After a fair bit of excitement and energy around pure play social networks, it became clear that the building and management of a social network was not, in and of itself, a compelling consumer experience. In a nod back to the earliest instantiations of social networking, entrepreneurs have come to realize that social networks are enablers of other compelling consumer experiences. Thus, social networks are becoming an important ingredient of all sorts of consumer experiences.

Link: BuzzMachine � Blog Archive � Local ain’t easy.

Jeff has been talking about how efforts like Judy's Book and Riffs go about trying to get users to contribute content, and whether or not content from strangers is of value to anyone.  People are trying to go about solving such problems by essentially "paying" for content and "scoring" the content via ratings, trust measures, etc.

Seems very heavy to me.

How about something more lightweight, like this...

1. I query my network (my real network, not one I built on an online social network) for a recommendation:
   1. Queries never have to take place on the website, nor does anyone have to be a member to answer them.  I start out by uploading or just plugging in/pointing to some kind of address book of friends.  Then, I contact a single e-mail/sms number/IM bot preset to output my query to a certain group.  So, I could IM "askmyfriends" and AOL, and it knows that ceo21 is me and that it should hit my database of friends.   
   2. I ask it something simple like, "Does anyone know a cheap Thai restaurant near Union Square?"  It knows what "thai restaurant" is and it knows "cheap" from "good" or "fast".  As for Union Square, it might not be able to figure that one out, so it might just IM me back and say "Where is Union Square?"  Then, I'd have to tell it a street address and it would probably send me back something silly like, "Is this where Union Square is in New York for everyone?"  Yes...  but thanks for asking, because "my office" might mean something else to someone else.
   3. The question gets sent to all my friends via e-mail.  First timers also get a little note saying "This note was sent via "askmyfriends".  Do you want to be contacted differently the next time Charlie needs to ask his friends for a recommendation?  Do you want to check out some of the answers people have been giving on the site?  etc...   This way, they can sign up to get an IM themselves, or an SMS... or some ordered "presence" combo.  EDIT:  To counter spam (thanks for the feedback, Jeremy), two fixes: 1) Ten of my friends may, at first, get a note saying "Charlie has just joined a service to help him ask his friends for recommendations.  We want to make sure he's not spam.  Is he legit?" Once you get a certain about of yeses, then it allows the message to go through, to make sure I'm a real person.  A certain about of "this is a spammer" messages bounce me off the system.  2) My contact database may only be build through my e-mail inbox.  So, I can only add people who I've e-mailed at least twice and they've e-mailed me back twice in the last month. Other ideas are welcome.
   4. They can respond the way the got asked the question (not only through a site), and the service can try and enterpret the results given the criteria I put in.  When Fred texts back "lemn grs", given that I was asking for a thai restaurant near Union Square, the service could check back with him and ask, "Did you mean Lemon Grass?"   They could even ask for a rating (how cheap is this?), but that's it for the follow up questions. 
   5. This quick little back and forth generates a lot of metadata.  It connects me to me and Fred w/o even requiring either one of us to "add to friends" or requiring anyone to signup.  All I did was point my question to my contact list, and Fred responded.  What it also did was tack on a vote and perhaps even a specific rating to a local restaurant from someone I know and trust.  Because, at the end of the day, that's all I'm really looking for...  not a site that I need to play on all day.
   6. The website for this service would be an afterthought... a way to collect and present most importantly, my own stored queries and answers.  Because, like del.icio.us, you can go a long way by just solving a simple problem (in this case, storing and allowing me to easily retrieve recommendations) for one user.  The network affects come second.  You can then ask to seek out recommendations from friends of others, because if Fred gives me the Lemon Grass tip, and I liked it, I might also want to see recommendations from the people who are tipping him off, particularly in the same category.  In fact, maybe you don't even allow people to add their own content.  All you can do is get recommendations from others by asking a question.  (Sort of like not letting people self-tag.) 

There are key differences with this idea than from what's out there:

1. The service gets built not by getting people to contribute first, but by getting people to solicit the content from others for their own benefit.  Its not "join this site and list your favorite places" its "please answer my quick question right now."  That's microchunking.
2. Decentralization comes first.  A lot of people built a site and then work on SMS, IM, chat, e-mail plugins later or as an afterthought.  How about someone built these communication tools first and save the AJAX for desert?
3. Social networking is implicit.  We're connected because we've actually connected on a Q&A, not because I've added you as a contact, friend, stalker victim, etc.  This is a much more natural and passive way to build out a users real social network.
4. People join after using the site and contributing content.  After people have answered a few questions, you can remind them in the question e-mails, "Hey, thanks for all your great recommendations... if you ever need to go back and find all 4 of them, they're conveniently stored here.  If you want to ask your friends to help you out for once (since you've been so helpful to them), you can do it here as well."  Someone could participate heavily and never have to join anything, upload a photo, etc.

Business model?

Well, in addition to advertising, how about selling restaurants access to the best local critics and let it go blindly through to the users who recommend the most.

So, if I'm opening up a new Italian restaurant in Brooklyn near Gino's, I think it would be worth it for me to invite the top ten local Italian restaurant recommenders to my restaurant at half price, no?  From a raters perspective, I think I'd probably answer more questions if I thought some dinner coupons would come my way.

Multiply that for movies, music, bars, books x hundreds of cities.... you get the point.

Maybe you wouldn't even need advertisers... you could just "sell the right to offer free stuff to the sneezers."

In spite of my newfound popularity in the Phillipines (they were the only ones viewing my profile and e-mailing me) and the "19/f wanna chat, go to my profile on naughtyhighschlrs.com" crowd, I'm tired of Friendster.  I just killed my profile.

It was fun at first.  I even went on some Friendster dates that worked out pretty well, admittedly.  But now, its just a pain.

Its one thing to not provide any value...   I never get any new friend requests because the service is losing users, and not gaining any.  If that was the only issue, I would just leave my profile and let it drift.  But, I get spammed by fake hot girls trying to send me to porn sites elsewhere.  Why am I spending any time deleting those notification e-mails (which don't show me the message, requiring me to go to the site to check them out) if I don't get any value from the site?

So, it was fun while it lasted, Friendster, but well...   even above all this, the reality is, its not you, its me.  I'm not the kind of guy you're looking for.  You need someone more valuable.  Someone who clicks on all the ads, perhaps?  Someone who wants to list things for sale in the Friendster classifieds or start/join a Friendster group.  You want someone who wants to sign in and invite more friends to the service as soon as they enter before they even check their Friendster e-mail.  You want someone who wants to skin their Friendster profile, but not actually have full flexibility on the format.  You deserve better.  I'm sure you'll find better friends...   just look at the hundreds of people who aren't on Myspace and/or the Facebook.  I'm sure there are some of those people out there for you.  I'm just not that guy.

Has TV learned nothing from the music industry??

Link: NBC might sue TiVo over PSP and iPod support - Engadget - www.engadget.com.

I hate "Best of" lists.... unless, of course, I'm on them.  Then I have an entirely different opinion.  :)   Check out the "Biz Bloggers" list.  Honerable mention.  Not too shabby!  Thanks!

Link: Mighty: God's Informed People '05.

Nifty new help section...  cool!

Link: del.icio.us/help.

So the other day I'm watching the new Dunkin' Donuts commercial... have you seen this?  CEO sits down next to the lacky and suddenly the old guy is sporting some Snoop Dawg style cornrows.  He's also got a cup of the new vanilla spice flavor coffee.

"Whatcha got there, sir?"

"Oh, vanilla spice."

"That's kind of a change for you, no, sir?"

"Well, I just woke up today and thought I'd try a little something new."

Its hilarious.  I nearly fell off my chair the first time I saw it.

Then, it got me thinking about the following problem:

A lot of people have trying to become Flickr for video.  The ones I've used are Castpost and Vimeo.

The Flickr model is that its free up until a certain bandwidth, and then you pay for more access.  Flickr is a really great service and I don't know what their revs or expenses were, but it just seemed like that could only get so big.  I think the NPV of the values Flickr could actually generate on its own was probably less than its combinatoral value (whatever law that is) as yet another thing one could do on Yahoo! if they could integrate it into the network properly.

Video presents a similar issue... one that's worse.  Video requires that much more bandwith and  is a smaller market with less valuable metadata.  The market will always be smaller in terms of videos created versus pictures taken because

Brad calls it the "narrow point of the wedge."

Umair calls it "microchunking."

Whatever you call it, lately, I've been fascinated with the idea that the key to leveraging committees that oversee larger consituentsies is in trying to create more "small things" that everyone in the community can do.  We might understand this in technology, but a lot of professional organizations, school clubs, academic departments, student service offices like the career office, haven't gotten this yet.  They struggle to delegate and create leaders because they don't actually have the small tasks that fuel community participation and self-organization.

Currently, I sit on two committees.  I'm the co-Chair of the Fordham Young Alumni Comittee and I'm also the Chair of the NYSSA SEMI Committee which is a college mentoring program.

Both groups mirror each other.  They have small groups of people loosely tasked with organizing and programming for a much larger set of people.

In each situation, we have the same issue.  The work of the group tends to fall into two categories.  Either we meet on it, or one person goes and does most of the work on their own.  Neither model scales at all in the context of the larger organization. 

There are two problems.  The leader definitely doesn't scale.  That's an obvious one.

Boards don't scale either.  The leader can only push so much to the board, and even if the board members do great work, they're still only a small group of people getting a limited amount of things done, especially if they're volunteers doing this in their off hours.    If you put 5 people in charge of 500, then all they'll ever be able to do is speaker and seminar them to death.  The nature of your programming will reflect the nature of your organizational approach.

Both of my committees have the same problem.  We want to get more people involved, but we can't reasonably expand the size of the committee.  There's not enough to do in a committee meeting as it is.  It only takes on person to invite a speaker. 

Its obvious you want to push down more resposibility and delegate, but the problem is that you don't actually have any tasks to delegate to anyone.  If "show up to an event" or "show up to a meeting" are the smallest tasks you can assign to someone, you'll never be able to create interesting community dynamics.  Have you ever wanted to delegate but didn't actually have anything small enough to hand to someone?

That's where microchunking comes in.  Make the tasks smaller and more distributed.  Instead of running your group with 6 members who each contribute 2 hours a week, what can you give 24 people to do that takes them a 1/2 hour?

We've done this to some extent with the alumni group and the career planning office.  Whereas it used to fall on the 7 or so staff members of career planning to despense all of the career education, we created a program that allows 50-100 alumni to partipate as mentors.  That actually gives an answer to the alumni that come back to us and say, "I want to get involved... what can I do?"  We didn't really have that before.

Similarly, we're doing baby steps like this with the SEMI program is well.  Previously, all you could do was either mentor (which was limited to 25 people), which was usually reserved for more experienced professionals, or sit on the board.  Yet, I have all these alumni coming back to me saying, "I want to help."  Now, we're letting companies sponsor some breakfasts for the students, and we're going to have alumni run some small group discussions as well.  Its not a lot, but its more to do and the important part is, these events are going to be self-organizing.  The volunteers will put the events together.  Little/no incremental effort on the part of the board.

Knowledge sharing is a big area that allows for microchunking in big groups that also requires little maintaince by the small group that runs things.  There are people that don't want to/can't mentor or run small groups, but might be able to put 15 minutes into answering questions, or contributing these answers in a blog post.  Technology has to be a factor here.  Wikis are a little less mainstream at the moment, but they'll get there and are a great way to get the community to share knowledge.  Sometimes, an active website that allows community contribution can bring a lot of people together in small chunks of interaction, making the group as a whole thrive.

I'd love to hear from people that are involved in professional organization management, alumni programs, etc to see how you get participation out of the long tail of your community.

BTW... just for kicks, here's the promotional video I did for SEMI on our blog, which we started this year and has been a big success.

Check out the comments on our USV blog...

I took these videos at Sessions...    Castpost has had some server issues over the last week, but I'm happy to link to them here anyway.

We've got the Intro, Bruce Spector talking about how some of the big names in the web space got started as social endeavors, Dick Costolo talking about user contributions, Yochai Benkler, Umair from Bubble Generation, Jeff Jarvis and Tim O'Reilly.

I've gotten some negative feedback about my eHub post, which I made a few edits to.

Just wanted to make a few things clear:

1. I don't speak for  my firm on my personal blog, especially now that we have our own.  Keeping with that, I took out the paragraph about how my rant relates to the way we do business.  Should be more careful about that.
2. The only thing I said personally about Emily was, "Emily Chang is a slick designer and an even savvier businesswoman."   I believe that, and last time I checked, that's a compliment.
3. Basically, what I was trying to say was that its really easy to look at this resource like its an "auto-fill for a deal log", which it isn't.   I was trying to comment on how there are so many little web tools out there that its a lot to keep up with.
4. I never said eHub was a bad tools resource.  Its a great tools resource in fact.
5. Anyone who reads my blog regularly (which I'm not sure that my critics do) knows I can have an abrasive and sometimes obnoxious style, and sometimes I use that to emphasize a point.

So, I apoligize if I offended anyone.  That was not my intention.

You're all welcome to unsubscribe from my blog, of course, and to rant about my obnoxious behavior when you do.  In fact, I'd be happy to link to it.  :)

Of course, I say that in jest.  I hope you don't unsubscribe, but I encourage anti-Charlie ranting.  I love feedback, of any kind.

Perhaps karma got me back with the ankle injury.  "What goes around..."

Sometimes, when you act a bit crazy, it sollicits an interesting response from people:

"I think the web-based features that are appearing all over the place will be the home pages of this new era -- many will be abandoned by their developers and left to die a slow death once the developers realize that they don't have many long-term users. And others will be cultivated and slowly grow into businesses. In that respect, I think Ning is the new GeoCities."  - Scott Moody

I remember watching that stock guru/nutcase Jim Cramer announce that he was "off Fedwatch"  a few years ago.

People were so overfocused on trying to figure out what the Fed was going to do that they stopped paying attention to some very basic attributes of the companies they were trying to invest in. 

So this morning, I was going through my feeds and checking out the latest Web 2.0 tools and innovations on Emily Chang's eHub.  You know eHub... 

Its a "...constantly updated list of web applications, services, resources, blogs or sites with a focus on next generation web (web 2.0), social software, blogging, Ajax, Ruby on Rails, location mapping, open source, folksonomy, design and digital media sharing..."   

...and Mesothelioma.

Ok, maybe not... but it might as well. 

"Web 2.0" is the hottest discussion topic in tech right now, and if there ever was a site that was striking while the iron was hot, this is it.   I'll bet you every single tech VC that has figured out how to use RSS (many probably still haven't, which is fine) is subscribed...   mostly in paranoid fear that they might miss "the next big thing".

But I looked at it today, like I did everyday, and yet again, I couldn't find anything that not only solved a problem for me, but solved a problem for thousands or millions of people in a way that anyone who didn't know what Ruby, RSS, or open source was would adopt.  Correction:  I found a lot of neat tools.... some great tools.   I didn't find a lot of businesses and I've been looking at it like I should be, which isn't what its for.

Well, I'm tired of it. 

I'm tired of signing up for calandering and todo applications. 

And "Fuck you, I have enough friends!"

I'm also tired of knowing through the Crime stats/Pedometer/Blogmap mashup how close the blogger nearest to me needs to walk to get mugged.

That's not a useful service nor is it a business.... in the same way that blogging isn't supposed to go be bookworthy.  (Well, except maybe Tom's thing... but that's a whole other story.)

eHub itself is a great example.  Emily Chang is a slick designer and an even savvier businesswoman.  She's latched on to a hot topic with a resource that plays into exactly what the crowds are clamoring for, and her business is going to take off because of it.  But, she's not evaluating or discerning...  Addition:  ...   and that's fine, but I think a lot of the Web 2.0 naysayers are looking at collections like this and acting like this represents a list of what Web 2.0 has to show for its best business ideas.

Think of it this way.  If all of these little tools bought Google keywords that said, "Discover the greatest ajax apps right here", would you click on it?  No, you probably wouldn't take it seriously.   So, if eHub isn't doing any screening, then what's the difference? 

eHub is promotion, not scripture. 

With a lot of blogging, there's a huge amount of content now available created by people who aren't in the business of creating content.  They're trying to promote some other service, or are simply promoting their industry in general.  Some of them even actively engage in discussions meant to lead to best practices, enlightenment, etc. 

In the same way, there are now thousands of little lightweight web services out there created by people who aren't in the business of building businesses.  They are programmers experimenting in their free time.  Maybe they're trying to promote their services.  Maybe they just needed to solve a problem that only they had, without much concern as to whether or not anyone esle had it.  These apps serve a lot of different purposes for a lot of different people, but that doesn't make them all businesses.  Bubbles happen when we don't see the difference and we start funding (and overfunding) the projects.

And the line is certainly blurry, don't get me wrong.  The difference between now and ten years ago is that what someone can build today, on their own, for free, is a million times better than the "real" applications people were building back then.  Plus, they come to market faster with a greater buzz.  A lot of them seem very real.  But some of them are just pixel copycats.

EDIT:  So, I'm done deluding myself that I could just relay on resource lists like this as an easy way to find the beginnings of great businesses.  eHub is a great resource for tools, but not an auto-fill for a deal log.

I'm off eHubwatch!!

This is where me and the guys are today, along with a whole bunch of other smart people.

Years ago, Adobe came up with a brilliant business model for PDF documents that more services should be taking advantage of today:

"The reader is free, but you pay to format the file if you're a publisher."

We're spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to aggregate, join, standardize, etc., but no one is just working on coming out with a really good "reader", particularly on the social networking side.

All of the social networks out there are branded and closed, yet their does exist a syntax for social networking called FOAF.  Can you imagine if every single place you got a PDF from gave you a new reader?  But that's what's going on in the social networking space.  LinkedIn, Friendster, etc. should allow you to "publish" your groups by adding/inviting users, adding data, pictures, etc...   but when it comes time to "reading", they should allow you to publish to an open standard.  That's what would tie in all the people who don't want to be on them, and I think the best place for a "reader" is in your e-mail.   

The social networks are going to have to learn at some point that they need to open up to truly create value.  This is especially the case for groups.  Institutions like Fordham, NYSSA, would pay gladly pay to "publish" the group functionality if there was a universally accepted reader.  So, someway, you've got to be able to read your connections universally, and add them to other networks.  So, Fordham could publish my alumni connections, NYSSA could publish its database, and I could just catch and connect them all with a freely distributed viewer.  Maybe I'll use the Friendster viewer, or the LinkedIn viewer... as long as they all read, who cares?  Those services could still do all the advertising they need, compete on "extra services", etc. but on top of infinately more valuable interoperable networks of people.

What would this all look like?  Not sure, but right now, the social networks are treating everyone like a publisher, connecting to each other without context, and trying to figure out how to monetize everyone--yet not making access universal.  They've got it all backwards.  The entities to reach I'm relevently connected to, like my school, should be given better tools to connect to their constituenties in an open, universally readable way.  RSS feeds should publish something similar...   creating "socially open feeds" (reading lists) that can connect you to the people you share subscriptions with.

So next steps?  Get the networks to publish their FOAF (if it does what I think it does) and someone should develop a really slick Ajaxed out FOAF reader that you can combine, remix, and add networks, too. 

Link: Mashable* � Blog Archive � Discussion: The Google of Social Networks? - Internet Entrepreneur Pete Cashmore on Web 2.0 and the Future of the Internet.

Pete is asking what the "Google of Social Networking" will look like. I wrote a comment on his post:

The power of Google was that it didn't require an actual human being to connect up a page.  No one had to submit their page, add it to a list, etc.

With social networks, there's never going to be a one stop shop.  I use LinkedIn for something, and Friendster for something else, but I can't get on the Facebook.   The real power lies in connecting the LinkedIn people to the Friendster people to the myspace people.

I have a social network.  I e-mail, IM, link tags /for on del.icio.us, Skype, etc. etc. etc...   but nothing ties all the people I contact togethere in a displayable fashion... nor does anything tie me to their friends, etc.  Frankly, nothing even ties in the people to themseves... my computer doesn't know the difference between Fred Wilson the Skyper versus an e-mail to Fred Wilson versus the guy I'm tagging links for. 

Someone needs to do what Google did to the internet, and what Indeed is doing to jobs.

Did you know Union Square Ventures has a website?

Seriously!  Its not just Fred's blog and my blog.

But websites suck, right?  Stale.  Canned.  Hardly worth visiting.

Not anymore!  I'm pleased to say that *I think* we're the first venture capital firm to turn our website into a blog.  And you know what the best part is?  Brad's written his first blog post on it and he'll finally be sharing his wisdom with the Blogosphere.  (Fred and I asked him in our weekly meeting yesterday if he was done with his post.  He said, "Almost" and we both immediately jumped on it and said, "That means its done!")

So please, go check it out.