I'm the same way. I often read articles that I would like to share with people, but since I'm more interested in the ensuing discussion, I'd rather directly link a person during a conversation (or as a way to start one) rather than throw it at my Facebook page or similar.
I consider sites like HN quite different, as that is their sole purpose :)
Yea that stuff is totally blocked out of my mind. I use Facebook to connect with my friends and family, and will share a link occasionally if it really pertains to me. For the most part, though, I don't like spamming mass amounts of data to friends. The only benefit I see to things like delicious and other "social bookmarking" tools is the fact that they're "up in the cloud", aka, backed up somewhere away from my browser config folder.
Has anyone noticed the new Mahalo-esque stuff they're doing? All of your hobbies, movies, music, etc... that they're making part of this social graph is now linked together a lot better.
"Our goal is to make this Community Page the best collection of shared knowledge on this topic. If you have a passion for Underwater basket weaving, sign up and we'll let you know when we're ready for your help."
Do people really use the whole "social bookmarking" part of Delicious? I mean, I've tagged a few things for:whomever, but 99% of my usage has been bookmarking stuff for myself, or looking for stuff I've bookmarked.
Same here...there are so mamy of them they are shrinking down all the time. Makes me feel a bit sorry for bloggers, watching their retweet and like and digg scores all the time.
I can't agree more. Look at the first comment: 20 karma points, and no real substance, hackerish or otherwise.
I'd like to see a discussion about (a) what it actually means to "like" something, (b) what demographics currently use the "like" buttons (c) are there any startup ideas to revolutionize the distribution of information etc.
Clicking "like" is like saying I have nothing to actually contribute but I want to feel like I'm participating. Also, I guess it stops the thousands of comments that would just say "I agree," "Yeah" or whatever?
But what good is a "like" button if there is no "dislike/hate" button?
People may end up preferring liking to digging (though who knows at this point), but when it comes to actively looking for interesting content, digg's still got something to hang onto. It begs the question, however, whether facebook will ever make an attempt to organize all of the outside links users promote so that such content becomes discoverable by topic and not just incidental lines on the newsfeed?
On some pages, the number of affiliate aggregator upvote links takes up some significant portion of the page (Digg, Reddit, StumbleUpon, etc.). It would make sense for somebody to aggregate the aggregators, a meta-aggregator if you will, and just have one button on the page that sends it to all of them.
Simple solution: Complainbook.com. The web is viewed through a frame that that adds Dislike buttons to every piece of content. It aggregates what people are disliking and recommends things to the user that they will be sure to hate. It will instantly gain a high market share amongst content degregators, and Facebook will see everyone disliking their Like buttons with the Dislike button and be less evil.
It would also include location based features where users upload geotags of places they've never been, nor would want to go to.
Well it depends how you look at it. It definitely adds to network traffic and CPU load. But IFRAME content and javascript-injected IFRAME are both loaded asynchronously.
Browsers are pretty good in progressive rendering of page content these days. So user should see the main page first and then it starts loading these additional resources. So no big deal IMHO. The button should not degrade user experience during page loading.
I think they can solve it when using Javascript SDK on modern browsers. IFRAME could be loaded offscreen and when it finishes then it does postMessage to notify the parent window. Javascript SDK injector then unhides the IFRAME.
Easy to do, but they are probably busy doing other stuff.
At first it seems like overkill, because it blocks sites from accessing data from other sites, but you can enable certain sites (either globally or on a per-site basis) and it remembers those, so after a little playing around, sites you visit frequently look quite normal.
It's also very interesting seeing how people assemble sites these days...
I thought things were getting ridiculous with all the buzz, digg, sphere, reddit buttons already.
From what I can see, those are being replaced with a single option (though I admit, I haven't seen many of the facebook implementations yet).
It is nice to have a 'standard' rather than voting for multiple items. At the same time, how much is liking something really doing for ya?
I don't think it has the benefit of a community like HN, so Facebook doesn't have it all yet.
Do you think reddit (or twitter or digg or stumbleupon) users will start liking the "like" and prefer it to replace other buttons? Completely agreeing about the ridiculous aspect of so many buttons though.
I don't know that it has to be an if/else situation.
I do suspect sites will start putting only the 'like' button, as it is cleaner, likely loads the page faster, and has such a larger audience.
At the same time, I suspect people will still visit digg, reddit, etal to find new articles, and up vote them there.
However, I wouldn't be surprised to see sites like Digg get significantly less posts added.
I hope we don't see the same suspected decline here on HN, as my friends on FB aren't HN types.
Why do we need all these buttons to do things we already all have our own specific ways of doing?
If you want to bookmark something, bookmark it in the way you know how (in browser, Delicious, etc). If you want to tweet about something, go tweet about it in the client of your choice.
I don't care for the unnormalized "number of diggs/tweets/karma" etc.
I'd actually use the "like" buttons if they learned what I liked/disliked, rather than just being there to show off an unnormalized and somewhat meaningless figure.
Or any kind of sharing widgets, for that matter. If only web admins would trust visitors to have their own bookmarklets or extensions, so that pages wouldn't have all the cruft.
What do you mean by "less evil"? The whole point of the "Like" button is that it's universal. Something being mildly annoying is not "evil" by any stretch of the imagination.