Talk:Social bookmarking

How about an up to date list of Social Bookmark sites?

I was hoping to find a list on Wikipedia! 207.106.86.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

Social Bookmarking vs Social News

I don't really think Digg/reddit/Netscape/Pligg etc are "social bookmarking" and are instead "social news". However, for a while after Digg's origin, the explanation on the right hand side of the page claimed to be social bookmarking, and so some people still refer to it in that way. To me, "bookmarks" implies that the user can save whatever they like and social news sites can punish users for sharing things they don't find appropriate, etc. This is definitely not the use I had in mind when I called added "social bookmarking" as a byline on del.icio.us (and I believe thus coining the term.) Perhaps someone could clean up the entry to reflect this? JoshuaSchachter 08:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly agree with JoshuaSchachter's opinion. Digg, Reddit, Mixx and Newsvine are social news services, and not social bookmarking services. If someone doesn't provide a good reason for keeping "Social News" redirecting to here, I plan to take the initiative to separate them soon. theGeoffMeister (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree too (of course), but see the discussion over at the other article - do we have enough real sources to back up making a distinction yet? Dreamyshade (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Visit to link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.173.162 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What should go in the list of services?

Can we get a clarification about what is and isn't appropriate in the "Some social bookmarking services" section of this article? The section had included a long and useful list of services, which was removed, then some of them were put back in. Is the right thing to create freestanding articles about each of the services, then link to those articles? Thanks. Prentiss Riddle

IMHO that tools list should be put back - this article is about the websites themselves. If there is a seemingly useful NPOV article like digg it should be linked instead, but stuff like BlinkList and Furl clutter Wikipedia much more than an external link here. (and are much more prone to POV problems). Red links are even more annoying.

However, it might be better to create a page like List of online bookmarking websites and put the links there. Categories like "General-purpose", "Academic", etc... should also help. As for link spamming - it's still happenning... Eug 23:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a better description of what social bookmarking is, how it works, etc. is more important than a corporate history. The links to the services are fine as examples of the general concept. The corporate history could be left out, all the "external links" reduced to the aforementioned list. - Beowulf314159 17:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Some observations:

1. I don't see where DotHat have sharing capabilities, I don't think it's social.
2. Pligg, is and open source digg style engine, hence there are over 100 of them. So maybe instead of listing thoses that use it, like GoKoDo MyBookmarks or Tutorialisme, would it not be better to just list Pligg?
3. For information: IndiaGram is a an enhaced Scuttle engine.
4. About Bloglines, personaly I don't consider RSS bookmarking as social bookmarks, it's not an HTML page and the source is different. But then where to but the limite? There are videos bookmarks (but that's on an HTML page) ycc2106 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found an existing article List of social software which contained a section for Social bookmarking. As a list article is a more appropriate place for the list, I have moved the entire section to that article. Now this article can focus on writing about social bookmarking instead of being a spam target. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

About Oneview and History dates:

The internet archive have been sharing links since 1996. Isn't that a form of social bookmarking? Incase I've collected all the starting dates, a programme language of many services here. --ycc2106 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PopUrls.com and TheWebList.net

In the external links:

• PopUrls.com and TheWebList.net aggregate the top social bookmarking services.

Someone User:86.56.236.146 changed this to:

• PopUrls.com aggregates the top social bookmarking services.

Why? Having some healthy competiton and giving users some alternatives is bad?

See: What Thomas Marban (creator of Popurls) had to say about TheWebList.

GeoFan49 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

REVERTED to include both PopUrls.com and TheWebList.net in External Links

67.107.133.3 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

REVERTED AGAIN to include both PopUrls.com and TheWebList.net in External Links

• PopUrls.com and TheWebList.net aggregate the most popular social bookmarking services.

146.74.231.113 03:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs examples, not just comments about the idea of it

Could we maybe have a brief overview of what the main actors are on this market and what their specificities are, please? That would help, and never mind if we get a couple too many, that's better than too few. Jules.LT 16:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

agreed. 71.232.108.228 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Along with an overview of bookmarking, please tell me why it is important that I know what it is and how I can use it.

Request to add external link to 100+ Social Bookmarking Services

Dear Author,

I request you to visit my analysis on 100+ Social Networking Portals categoriezed in 6-7 categories. Analysis & ranking is given on the basis of popularity and traffic genereated by portals. Hope this link will be helpful to readers. Here is the link:

(removed advertising link)

I am now aware whom to ask to add external link so i am using this page.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voyage2mail (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Redundant

The first sentence in the "introduction" section and "functional overview" section are virtually identical. Could these sections be merged? --166.70.188.26 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Can we come up with a good guideline on what belongs in the External Links section? I've removed a couple entries which I considered linkspam but don't want to keep doing this arbitrarily. --NeilN 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're doing the right thing - we don't need an external links section here, really. If there's a useful external link, we could probably integrate it as a reference, which the article needs quite a bit more of. Dreamyshade 05:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, can I make a suggestion for a external link ? http://forum.vbulletinsetup.com/f7/over-500-social-networking-sites-can-3548.html

Thanks -Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.195.146 (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC Links here

Slightly offtopic, but a help page for the BBC News website links to this article. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Publicness and Privateness

The introduction section says

These bookmarks are usually public, but depending on the service's features, may be saved privately, shared only with specific people or groups, shared only inside certain networks, or another combination of publicness and privateness.

I know what is meant by publicness and privateness, but as to my knowledge, these are not proper –let alone correct– words. --Invenio 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC) tc

Heh, sounds like most dictionaries agree with you. I changed those words to "public" and "private". Better? Dreamyshade 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Most popular

I removed something about del.icio.us being the most popular. I know it's a blunt tool but Alexa doesn't seem to think so - by some margin.[1] TreveX^talk 17:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just seen this detailed examination - "it’s probably safe to say that Digg does get equal or a bit more traffic than Del.icio.us" TreveX^talk 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have cited that assertion when I put it in there. Here's my explanation. I agree, Digg is definitely more popular than Delicious. But I differentiate between "social bookmarking" and "social news" services – I think of Delicious and Digg as different but related types of things. Most of this "social bookmarking" article describes Delicious, Magnolia, Simpy, etc.; it doesn't really describe Digg or reddit. See the top of this page (Talk:Social_bookmarking#Social Bookmarking vs Social News) for some of the discussion about separating the two types. Sounds like I need to try digging up some sources again. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Social Bookmarking Services and Search Engines

I would like to see some information added about how SBS interact with search engines and can help SEO for a page. I think this information would be relevant and highly interesting. Emmgal8 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of third-party sources that cover this, and it would vary for each service, but on Delicious, links are nofollowed and the robots.txt does not allow crawling, and bookmarks that are created as SEO attempts are considered spam. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See also Andy Baio's posts on The Times (UK) Spamming Social Media Sites and Social Media Founders on Undisclosed Mass Promotion. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AddToAny, ShareThis, AddThis

Not sure if it would fall under Social Bookmarking article or not, but would like to see something about the services that facilitate and aggregate, AddToAny, ShareThis, and AddThis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.52.98 (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect "Collaborative Tagging" to "Folksonomy"

I have noticed that "Collaborative Tagging" incorrectly directs to this article, instead of "Folksonomy" where it is explicitly listed as a synonym. While "Collaborative tagging" is indeed a feature present on social bookmarking sites, it is not one and the same, since it spans multiple other types of systems (for example, Flickr, a social photo-sharing site includes a collaborative tagging aspect, yet has no social bookmarking features).

I'd greatly if someone can help me fix this, or recommend the process I can follow to propose to fixing it...I'm a WP newbie :) Thanks! -- K.G. 02:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgwiki (talk • contribs)

New list created

I split List of social bookmarking websites out of List of social software. It's very basic, and needs expansion. --Pnm (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Provide an image for tagging

The current article has no image. Since tags are one of the significant features of a social bookmarking system, I suggest to add a tag image. A screenshot of a website like Flickr that provides the most popular tags can used with regards to the copyright issues Roya.hosseini (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC).

• It seems more appropriate to include a screenshot of a social bookmarking website instead of a social photography website. An old screenshot of Delicious could be particularly appropriate, since it was the first website to use the term "social bookmarking". Here are a couple examples from the founder's Flickr account: Delicious in May 2004 and Delicious in September 2004. We'd have to use the Template:Non-free web screenshot tag and write a rationale for using the screenshot. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I believe that you are right. I used the Non-free web screenshot template and uploaded the screenshot of the delicious.com. Though, I think it is better to put the up-to-date image of the site so that people can see the same website as they see in the social bookmarking article. Roya.hosseini (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think there is some information value in showing "social bookmarking" as it looked when the term was first used, especially since AVOS Systems has been slowly moving Delicious in a direction away from its original focus on bookmarks and tagging - for example, the current screenshot doesn't show any tags. How about we show both an old screenshot and a new screenshot? Dreamyshade (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the nice suggestion. You are right and I believe that since in the introduction section we mention Delicious as the first social bookmarking website, it is good to keep the current screenshot of the website there. Also, I think it will be a good idea to add the old screenshot of delicious that shows bookmarks and tagging in the history section since it explicitly mention "Founded in 2003, Delicious (then called del.icio.us) pioneered tagging and coined the term social bookmarking."Roya.hosseini (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Improve the Well-written feature of the article

I suggest the following modification for improving the well-written feature of the article:

1- There was one spelling error under "Common features", second para. The sentence is: Such descriptions may be free text comments, votes in favour of or against its quality, or tags that collectively or collaboratively become a folksonomy. Although, favour is correct in British, I suggest to change it to favor.

2- After I check the punctuation, I saw the the SPACE after the dot is forgothen on "Common features", fifth para: This allows subscribers to become aware of new bookmarks as they are saved, shared, and tagged by other users.It also helps to promote your sites by networking with other social book markers and collaborating with each other. I think it should be changed to this: ... users. It also ...

3- Also, some para should be merged with the others. under "Common Features" we see that the first para, consists of only one sentence!!! -> para 1 and the sencond para should be merged. Also, the last two line in the last para under "Common feature" should be changed merged with the previous para, since they they continue the topics about the services.

4- The definition is not accurate in the first para. I suggest to add accurate definition from a valid reference Roya.hosseini (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC).

• In response to the last part of #3, I don't think the last sentence of the "Common features" section should be merged with the prior paragraph, since then the last sentence may seem to be additional information about "web feeds", while it is actually about a different set of features.

• OK, but then we should expand the second paragraph. it is too short for a paragraph to be only one sentence. Do you agree with this idea? Roya.hosseini (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that it'd be best for the last paragraph to be longer than a sentence. We could probably find some kind of reference with additional information to add to it. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• In response to #4, I like the idea of using a definition cited to a source, but your addition has produced some redundancy in the introductory section - these two sentences mean almost the same thing:

Social bookmarking is a method for Internet users to organize, store, manage and search for bookmarks of resources online. A social bookmarking service is a central online service which enables users to add,modify, and delete bookmarks of web documents with additional metadata.

I'd like to simplify those two sentences into this new sentence:

A social bookmarking service is a centralized online service which enables users to add, annotate, edit, and share bookmarks of web documents.

Do you believe this proposed sentence can still be cited with the reference you added? I don't have access to reading the full article. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, that is good to remove the redundancy. This is the original sentence I used for the definition from the reference : "A social bookmarking service is a central online service which enables users to add, modify, and delete bookmarks of web documents with additional metadata". They convey the same thing. Do you agree with this? Roya.hosseini (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I believe that works fine. Thanks for providing the quote! Dreamyshade (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Improving being accurate and verifiable

Currently the definition part has no section, I believe that an accurate definition should be added to it. Also, the history part can be developed by mentioning other systems that are used for social bookmarking. The "uses" section also is too weak, and does not mention many of the social bookmarking application. This section can be expanded by adding the verifiable reference. There are more to say with the application of social bookmarking on the library. Also social bookmarking can be used to improve the web search. Here are some of the possible and candidate references:

1. Bao, S.; Xue, G.; Wu, X.; Yu, Y.; Fei, B.; Su, Z. (2007). "Optimizing web search using social annotations". WWW 2007. pp. 501–510. doi:10.1145/1242572.1242640.
2. Boydell, O.; smyth, B. (2007). "rom social bookmarking to social summarization: an experiment in community-based summary generation". IUI 2007. pp. 42–510. doi:10.1145/1216295.1216311.
3. Arch, Xan (2007). "Creating the academic library folksonomy". College and Research Library News 68: 80 – 81.
4. Redden, C. (2010). "Social bookmarking in academic libraries: Trends and applications". College and Research Library News 36 (3): 213-227. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.004.

Further, I think it is good to add another subsection for the uses, called: "Social bookmarking for education". There are many papers regarding this topic and hence, I believe it is good to dedicate a separate section for it. some possible references are:

1. Novak, Elena; Razzouk, Rim; Johnson, Tristan E. (2006). "The educational use of social annotation tools in higher education: A literature review". The Internet and Higher Education 15 (1): 39–49. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.09.002.
2. Farwell, T.M.; Waters, R.D. (2010). "Exploring the Use of Social Bookmarking Technology in Education: An Analysis of Students’ Experiences using a Course-specific Delicious.com Account". Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6: 398–408.
3. Churchill, Daniel; Wong, Wing; Law, Nancy; Salter, Diane (2009). "Social Bookmarking–Repository–Networking: Possibilities for Support of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Original". Serials Review 35 (3): 142–148.

Roya.hosseini (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Can you clarify your additions to the "History" section? I can't find a mention of Frassle in the document you cited for it, and it appears to be described by its creator as a blogging system, not a social bookmarking system. You also cited that document for your addition of Flickr (which isn't social bookmarking), Spurl, and unalog, but they also aren't mentioned in the document. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• In the article "Social Bookmarking Tools (I) A General Review", the author mentioned that the Frassle is not only the blog environment, but it is also a social bookmarking system. Here is the main sentence from the article: "Frassle provides a social bookmarking environment: it allows users to see related content, based on what they have posted."
• There are also separate paragraphs paragraphs for the unalog, Spurl, and Flickr and the author mentions them all as a social bookmarking tool. In the following sentences the author mentions that Flickr has the same purpose as the other social bookmarking system and hence can be also known as a social bookmarking system: "Flickr, one of the most well known and widely used of these tools, offers a different kind of service. Flickr is for managing images (specifically digital photos) rather than links per se. But it is so similar in purpose to the other tools that we include it here. " Roya.hosseini (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I see what the issue was - your reference linked to "Social Bookmarking Tools (II): A Case Study - Connotea", but you meant to link to "Social Bookmarking Tools (I): A General Review", so I couldn't find what you were referencing. Do you know of additional references to Frassle that describe it as a social bookmarking environment? Otherwise it seems like this may be the interpretation of the author instead of a generally-recognized interpretation of the service, so we might not want to include it in this article. Unalog and Spurl seem valid to include as part of the history section. We may want to discuss Flickr like we discuss Digg, Reddit, and Newsvine - as a service with some elements in common but not exactly a social bookmarking service. Flickr is interesting in this context since its tagging feature was inspired by Delicious - see this reference on the tagging article. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment on this section. I illustrated in more detail that why flickr can be categorized as a social bookmarking website. Also, as Nov. 1st 2012, Alexa.com ranks Flickr 56 in terms of web traffic. Also, many websites mention that Frassle had a social bookmarking service. For example Frassle's author agreed with considering it as a social bookmarking tool in his blog. Roya.hosseini (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The items people share and tag on Flickr are photos instead of bookmarks, and the Frassle mention on the author's blog refers back to the same article, so I'm not sure it's as strong of a reference as we'd like to see. But I made an effort at merging our points of view - let me know what you think. I edited the Frassle mention to call it a blogging system with social bookmarking elements, and I edited the Flickr mention to note that it's a social photo sharing website with social bookmarking elements. I also merged the Spurl.net and unalog mentions into an existing sentence about similar services from that year. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Social bookmarking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512023438/http://www.llrx.com/extras/itlist.htm to http://www.llrx.com/extras/itlist.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411021843/http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6476403.html to http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6476403.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014064700/http://tags.library.upenn.edu/ to http://tags.library.upenn.edu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605034827/http://airweb.cse.lehigh.edu/2008/submissions/krause_2008_anti_social_tagger.pdf to http://airweb.cse.lehigh.edu/2008/submissions/krause_2008_anti_social_tagger.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Social bookmarking forum" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Social bookmarking forum has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Social media forum until a consensus is reached. ^user:A smart kitten_meow 06:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)