<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top 20 Social Networks Ranked</title>
	<atom:link href="http://profy.com/2007/03/17/top-20-social-networks-ranked/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://profy.com/2007/03/17/top-20-social-networks-ranked/</link>
	<description>Internet news and commentary</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:31:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jon Frisby</title>
		<link>http://profy.com/2007/03/17/top-20-social-networks-ranked/#comment-11309</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Frisby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:34:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://profy.com/2007/03/17/top-20-social-networks-ranked/#comment-11309</guid>
		<description>Just an interesting thing to note here.  Once you start dropping below double-digit numbers -- I.E. the "big guys", it's pretty meaningless to build top N lists.  You'd have to be clairvoyant.  When you're talking 0.x% reach, it's just to easy to *not know about* somebody.  For example, according to Alexa, CherryTap.com has had 2-4x the reach/rank/pageviews of HoverSpot since november.  Never heard of 'em?  They want to be the first "online pub and happy hour".  They're pretty much the archetypal example of "web 2.0 as grand video game" (with apologies to Gaia Online which is actually *intended* as a game, versus having created a de facto 'game' essentially by accident).  Of course, Alexa disagrees substantially with Hitwise about how the sites near the bottom of the pack rate, with BuzzNet.com vastly outstripping HoverSpot, BlackPlanet and so forth for example.

In other words, when you're that far down the long tail, the data is all noise and there's really not much sense in devoting this much attention to rankings.  Now, it's always worth looking around to find up-and-comers or groups with creative and interesting ideas, but ordering them according to perceived success is a bit of a fool's errand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just an interesting thing to note here.  Once you start dropping below double-digit numbers &#8212; I.E. the &#8220;big guys&#8221;, it&#8217;s pretty meaningless to build top N lists.  You&#8217;d have to be clairvoyant.  When you&#8217;re talking 0.x% reach, it&#8217;s just to easy to *not know about* somebody.  For example, according to Alexa, CherryTap.com has had 2-4x the reach/rank/pageviews of HoverSpot since november.  Never heard of &#8216;em?  They want to be the first &#8220;online pub and happy hour&#8221;.  They&#8217;re pretty much the archetypal example of &#8220;web 2.0 as grand video game&#8221; (with apologies to Gaia Online which is actually *intended* as a game, versus having created a de facto &#8216;game&#8217; essentially by accident).  Of course, Alexa disagrees substantially with Hitwise about how the sites near the bottom of the pack rate, with BuzzNet.com vastly outstripping HoverSpot, BlackPlanet and so forth for example.</p>
<p>In other words, when you&#8217;re that far down the long tail, the data is all noise and there&#8217;s really not much sense in devoting this much attention to rankings.  Now, it&#8217;s always worth looking around to find up-and-comers or groups with creative and interesting ideas, but ordering them according to perceived success is a bit of a fool&#8217;s errand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
