I'll write a longish response that may or may not actually be read by many people
(1) on the New York Times site, or
(2) interesting blog posts.

My comments here fit into that second category, 'interesting blog posts'.

Also, thanks for pulling me back from that cave (Plato's probably) with tin foil and golden girls, telling me that I'm “pretty damn social”.

ps . . . I like your picture. It looks like you're saying something . . .

And that said, much of my post was written in the context to advocate the consumer of social media. We hear much about brand use and business value, but have ignore the user based experience over the last year. The fact is social media in not optimized for consumption. Some think google buzz will solve this issue. I am not sure I agree. I think that the reality is until we have some type of customizable dashboard, someone needs will always remain unmet. It's quite interesting how a tool that is driven by niche market needs is not optimized for its consumption.

Here's the deal. Ultimately it is up to us to define how we socialize. Just like in life ppl can be naturally introverted & extroverted online ( in my opinion). Just because you interaction tends to be more about quality than quantity does not make you anti-social, but rather penchant for poignant conversation.

I also think that online communication in many ways is a selfish act. For example you shared how you like to respond to articles that may not ever have their comments read. I am am going to ignore that my site was thrown in this mix ( ouch) and venture to say that small one way interactions are part of new online social dynamics. Fundamentally it's likely that online social definitions vary from offline ones, but as times bear the burden of snapping to their predecessors frame. But the truth is, this medium is so new we don't have any proof one way or the other. In 10 years some one is going to write a great study about it and get tons of acclaim, but for right now we have be caught up in the web. Get the pun?

Lastly,I , if no one else, appreciate your comment because it got me thinking. I guess in the end that's pretty damn social.

I'm wondering if the commonly accepted definition of the word “social” is changing (or has already changed). It used to be that someone who was “very social” liked to go to public events, parties, had many friends, etc.

Now I'm wondering if being social means being linkedinto Twitter, Facebook, etc., and are people really starting to equate “being social” with sending bits of text and links to one another over the web? Is someone with 20,000 Twitter followers “more social” than someone with 20? What about your number of Tweets?

Do you have to carry around a mobile communications device to be considered social? Is being social media saavy now equivalent to being a social person (in the old sense of the word)?

I wonder in part because I have a blog and I'm on Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, YouTube, Vimeo, & del.icio.us, write for Examiner.com, and continue to try to express myself online and develop my presence, etc. However, I really don't like cellphones. I have a very basic LG model that I use exclusively to make and receive calls. I have never sent a single text message from or to a mobile device. I don't constantly check my Twitter and Facebook status (and don't feel a compulsion to do so).

Usually when I'm on my computer working, I post things using these various networks, owever don't spend a whole lot of time reading and reacting to things others have written or posted. Occasionally, when something catches my attention, I'll write a longish response that may or may not actually be read by many people (often on the New York Times site) or interesting blog posts.

So does this mean I'm anti-social?

Andrew Raimist
http://AndrewRaimist.com

And I agree Brand value and personal value are two different worlds. We shouldn't look at them in the same way. If normal people talked like brands we'd have a much higher suicide rate. Who'd want to live in a world like that?

Social media has different value for you as an individual than it does for a brand trying to interact with consumers. The perspective you bring to the conversation should determine how you need to evaluate any given relationship – this will be different than an organization’s perspective. Perhaps you as an individual don’t require a technology to make these determinations, but I am guilty of wearing the marketer’s hat and thinking that automation can aid in this process.

But thanks for pointing out that these technology solutions can be horribly inaccurate. IMHO we need pragmatism and common sense when approaching social. Kudos to you for working to figure out how to do both.

Plus I feel many of these stats are given with out the context the desperately crave to be meaningful. Just because we have web driven banter via twitter does not mean it's friendship either. It solely means I have had conversations with then. Thats said… I do love @shellykramer Perhaps a musing off the top of my head did not provide the real depth this concept deserves.

For example, one of my best friend in the whole world I rarely see or speak with. I keep up with her life digitally as she does mine. And there is value in the passiveness of our relationship and I want, no demand, the right to make sure I am more likely to see her content then where User 401 checked into foursquare for the 30th time that day.

I am not trying to devalue your comment but to say that we need to organize our own views. I am not saying I should alert people that they are not part of my inner circle and tell them to go to hell. Instead I want the ability to frame how I see my social community and easily isolate and at times highlight those lives that are meaningful to me regardless of how those individuals value my connection. I shouldn't have to rely on a stat program to do this.

We as users should demand the right optimize our experience to benefit and bolster our digitally supported relationships.

Excuse and fodder in here.. this is a drive by comment response

@digitalinfant- I'll give you a proper response tonight

These glimpses into Twitter start to reveal nuances in your social relationships. Yet, I agree that there must be some distinction or bifurcation between types of friends. As we all become more interconnected through our networks this will only get more confusing. In my mind, the bigger question becomes what will you do with information that one group of friends is different than another? To really start using social effectively, one needs a plan for how to address certain people, groups or segments within their networks. Ok – enough of my rant – and I’ll stop stalking you now.

Cheers,
John Lovett

What are your thoughts on Robin Dunbar's piece and do you think more social networks should allow us to categorize and organize those that we have meaningful relationships with versus those that are just connections (although, I think quite a few are already making this move)?

Hope you are well

-Johnathan