Indian Journal of Innovations and Developments

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Enhancement of Discriminatory Features in Facebook for Advanced User Experience


Affiliations
1 Department of Anthropology, University of Madras, Chennai-600005, Tamil Nadu, India
 

Online social networking sites are fast becoming a powerful tool for communication among people. In fact, social structures have extended their spatial boundaries due to such tools. Facebook is one of the leading online social networking sites. Currently it has more than 550 million members and is expected to grow even more. Facebook has enhanced the world's communication contributed to information flow and has provided new avenues to establish relationships and thus seek companionship. While, Facebook has some excellent tools for establishing such ideals, some enhancements in order to make this social utility tool more meaningful is suggested in this paper. This paper relies on the concepts of family (close and distant relatives) and kinship (consanguinal and affinal) in making such recommendations, and suggesting enhanced and more meaningful user experience and increased revenue generation to Facebook. Feature

Keywords

Facebook, Family, Kinship, Social Networking
User
Notifications

  • Bezanson K (2006) Gender and the Limits of Social Capital. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 43(4), 427-443.

  • Boellstorff T (2008) Coming of Age in Second Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Bott E (1957) Family and Social Network. London: Tavistock Institute. Reprint (2001): London: Routledge.

  • Boyd D (2006) Friends, friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday [online], 11 (12).

  • Boyer D (2010) Digital Expertise in Online Journalism (and Anthropology). Anthropological Quarterly, 83(1), 73-95.

  • Braun DP and Plog S (1982) Evolution of "Tribal" Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North American Evidence. American Antiquity, 47(3), 504-525.

  • Browning J (2010) Let’s Get Social. ITNOW (formerly The Computer Bulletin), 52(1), 18-19.

  • Burgess KR (2009) Social Networking Technologies as Vehicles of Support for Women in Learning Communities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 122. Wiley Periodicals, Inc, 63-71.

  • Burt R (2000) The Network Structure of Social Capital. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22(22), 345-423.

  • Cassidy J (2006) Me media. The New Yorker, 50–59.

  • Cerf V (1993) How the Internet came to be. In Aboba, B. (ed.) The Online User's Encyclopedia (pp: 527-535). Boston: Addison- Wesley.

  • Chambers D (2006) New Social Ties: Contemporary Connections in a Fragmented Society. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Coleman B and Golub A (2008) Hacker Practice: Moral Genres and the Cultural Articulation of Liberalism. Anthropological Theory, 8(3), 255-277.

  • Coombe RJ and Herman A (2004) Rhetorical Virtues: Property, Speech, and the Commons on the World-Wide Web. Anthropological Quarterly, 77(3), 557-572.

  • Craven P and Wellman BS (1973) The network city. Sociological Inquiry, 43, 57-88.

  • Crowell LF (2004) Weak Ties: A Mechanism for Helping Women Expand their Social Network and Increase Their Capital. Social Science Journal, 41, 15–28.

  • Dalsgaard S (2008) Facework on Facebook: The presentation of self in virtual life and its role in the US elections. Anthropology Today, 24(6), 8-12.

  • Ellison N, Heino R and Gibbs J (2006) Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441.

  • Ellison N (2007) Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

  • Ellison NB, Steinfield C and Lampe C (2007) The Benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends:’’ Social Capital and College Students. Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.

  • Freeman L (1986) The impact of computer based communication on the social structure of an emerging scientific speciality. Social Networks, 6, 201-221.

  • Gamble C (1998) Palaeolithic Society and the Release from Proximity: A Network Approach to Intimate Relations. World Archaeology, 29(3), 426-449.

  • Gross R and Acquisti A (2005) Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Paper presented at the WPES’05, Alexandria, Virginia.

  • Grossman L (2010) Person of the year 2010 Mark Zuckerberg. www.Time.com.

  • Hamilton MJ, Milne BT, Walker RS, Burger O and Brown JH (2007) The Complex Structure of Hunter- Gatherer Social Networks. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 274(1622), 2195-2202.

  • Hiltz SR and Turoff M (1993) The Network Nation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

  • Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 422-447. 29. Kelty C (2004) Culture’s Open Sources: Software, Copyright, and Cultural Critique. Anthropological Quarterly, 77(3), 499–506.

  • Lange PG (2008) Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361–380.

  • Mallan K, Ashford B and Singh P (2010) Navigating iScapes: Australian Youth Constructing Identities and Social Relations in a Network Society. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(3), 264–279.

  • Mazzarella W (2006) Internet X-ray: E-governance, Transparency, and the Politics of Immediation in India. Public Culture, 18, 473-505. 33. McClard A and Anderson K (2008) Focus on Facebook: Who Are We Anyway? Anthropology News, 49(3), 10-12. 34. McPherson M, Lovin LS and Cook JM (2001) Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.

  • Pachucki MA and Breiger RL (2010) Cultural Holes: Beyond Relationality in Social Networks and Culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 205-224.

  • Plickert G, Wellman B and Côté R (2005) It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Know Them: Who Exchanges What With Whom? In Blokland T and Savage M. (ed.) Social Capital on the Ground. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Plickert G, Cote RR and Wellman B (2007) It’s not who you know, it’s how you know them: Who exchanges what with whom? Social Networks 29, 405-429.

  • Preece J and Houghton A (2000) Nurturing Social Capital in Excluded Communities. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

  • Readers Digest Team India (2011) Some Facebook Friendly Numbers. Readers Digest India. New Delhi: Living Media India Ltd.

  • Reed A (2005) My blog is me: Texts and Persons in UK Online Journal Culture (and Anthropology). Ethnos, 70(2), 220-242.

  • Roberts SGB and Dunbar RIM (2010) Communication in social networks: Effects of kinship, network size, and emotional closeness. Personal Relationships, 1-14.

  • Scott J (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook (pp. 33-37). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Siegel DA (2009) Social Networks and Collective Action. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 122-138. 44. Skoufias E, Lunde T and Patrinos HA (2010) Social Networks Among Indigenous Peoples in Mexico. Latin American research review, 45(2), 49-67.

  • South SJ and Haynie DL (2004) Friendship Networks of Mobile Adolescents. Social Forces, 83(1), 315-350.

  • Stutzman, F (2006) An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. Paper presented at the iDMAa and IMS Code Conference, Oxford, Ohio.

  • Treese W (1995) The Internet Index Number 6. On-line: treese@openmarket.com.

  • Wellman BS (1979) The community question. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1201-31.

  • Wellman BS (1992) Men in networks: private communities, domestic friendships. In Nardi, P. (ed.) Men's Friendships (pp. 74-114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

  • Wellman B, Salaff J, Dimitrova D, Garton L, Gulia M and Haythornthwaite C (1996) Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238.

  • Wellman B (2001) The Rise of Networked Individualism. In Keeble L. (ed.) Community Networks Online. London: Taylor & Francis.


Abstract Views: 339

PDF Views: 62




  • Enhancement of Discriminatory Features in Facebook for Advanced User Experience

Abstract Views: 339  |  PDF Views: 62

Authors

Shriram Venkatraman
Department of Anthropology, University of Madras, Chennai-600005, Tamil Nadu, India
P. Govinda Reddy
Department of Anthropology, University of Madras, Chennai-600005, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract


Online social networking sites are fast becoming a powerful tool for communication among people. In fact, social structures have extended their spatial boundaries due to such tools. Facebook is one of the leading online social networking sites. Currently it has more than 550 million members and is expected to grow even more. Facebook has enhanced the world's communication contributed to information flow and has provided new avenues to establish relationships and thus seek companionship. While, Facebook has some excellent tools for establishing such ideals, some enhancements in order to make this social utility tool more meaningful is suggested in this paper. This paper relies on the concepts of family (close and distant relatives) and kinship (consanguinal and affinal) in making such recommendations, and suggesting enhanced and more meaningful user experience and increased revenue generation to Facebook. Feature

Keywords


Facebook, Family, Kinship, Social Networking

References