3 ms·

The groups on Facebook are very different but it still works. You should be able to build most things on top of the platform. Flickr was the social network for

The groups on Facebook are very different but it still works. You should be able to build most things on top of the platform. Flickr was the social network for photographers but most photographers post on Facebook now.

wolco 9y ago
Sharing photos is easier on facebook because all of your friends are connected. Quality is worse but speed and discovery are easier. Strangers don't belong in that model because they are not friends. Most people want to keep strangers away from your real life until they become friends so having a third party site keeps that experience away from preying eyes. Once a couple is formed they will connect over facebook and start sharing their experiences.
gdilla 9y ago
allowing you to connect via FB and sign up for 3rd party services is essentially that. it's questionable how much integration with FB is valuable, considering people are justifiably wary about what they want to do publicly and privately, and FB privacy settings can change and are confusing to many.
landon32 9y ago
I think the product's design is pretty different though. If you want only text as well as photo-centric options, that's hard to design. Also, if you want people to spend 2 minutes reading a profile before deciding if it's someone they want to "like" or message, that use case needs to be designed very differently than a use case where a user wants to decide in 3 seconds if the other person is cute enough to "like". You might be right though, it might consolidate in the future if people figure out really good interfaces that make it work well for many use cases.
vertex-four 9y ago
Ehh, most photographers advertise on Facebook (for free, via postings on a page), while pushing their users to other sites to actually browse their content. Basically, they use Facebook as a glorified RSS feed for their external site.

wolco 9y ago

Sharing photos is easier on facebook because all of your friends are connected. Quality is worse but speed and discovery are easier. Strangers don't belong in that model because they are not friends. Most people want to keep strangers away from your real life until they become friends so having a third party site keeps that experience away from preying eyes. Once a couple is formed they will connect over facebook and start sharing their experiences.

gdilla 9y ago

allowing you to connect via FB and sign up for 3rd party services is essentially that. it's questionable how much integration with FB is valuable, considering people are justifiably wary about what they want to do publicly and privately, and FB privacy settings can change and are confusing to many.

landon32 9y ago

I think the product's design is pretty different though. If you want only text as well as photo-centric options, that's hard to design. Also, if you want people to spend 2 minutes reading a profile before deciding if it's someone they want to "like" or message, that use case needs to be designed very differently than a use case where a user wants to decide in 3 seconds if the other person is cute enough to "like". You might be right though, it might consolidate in the future if people figure out really good interfaces that make it work well for many use cases.

vertex-four 9y ago

Ehh, most photographers advertise on Facebook (for free, via postings on a page), while pushing their users to other sites to actually browse their content. Basically, they use Facebook as a glorified RSS feed for their external site.