aral
Just saw a stupid little twirp kick a pigeon. Idiot.
| aral K, I've simplified the model for Singularity - thanks everyone, you guys rock! :) _scuttles off to lunch followed by more coding_ |
|
| aral Wait a second... replies are working... replies are working :) :) :) |
|
| aral @555: :) |
|
| aral @Fitzchev: *virtual hug* :P |
|
| aral Thanks for brainstorming with me guys and gals :) |
|
| aral @petehotchkiss: LOL! I'm sure I'd hit some sort of quota on Google App Engine with that one :P |
|
| aral @markng: LOL, I love the "sometimes" bit :) |
|
| aral So... there are only contacts. |
|
| aral ... and make it stupid simple to ignore, if necessary. |
|
| aral For a conference, though, I'd rather remove the following/follower distinction, the whole approval process... |
|
| aral @stephtara, @andybudd: The more I think about it, the less I like the duality. Fan _is_ probably the most positive, as you state... |
|
| aral @Carlo: interesting read, thanks! |
|
| aral @pjnet: You're right, I didn't think about that connotation (we're always joking about online stalking, it _is_ much more serious IRL.) |
|
| aral Or... do away with the duality altogether and just have contacts. And make it easy for an unwanted contact to be ignored? |
|
| aral Thoughts? How would you feel if you had "stalkers" and "buddies" on a theoretical social network for a theoretical conference? |
|
| aral How about purposeful exaggeration? "Stalker" to signify a one-way subscription of interest, and "Buddy" to signify a mutual interest? |
|
| aral _Mutally interested_ is too long. Subscriber is too cold... |
|
| aral ... are you really _friends_ because you've expressed _interest_ in each other and are _watching_ each other's updates? |
|
| aral I really don't like the term "friend" to describe a mutual subscription relationship in social networks... |
|