Yeah diaryland and lj were roughly contemporary. There was a bit of a boy/girl divide at first, as well, if I recall, though my good friend Buster (née eric) was on Diaryland. I think it deserves a mention, absolutely, if only for the concept of a great idea poorly executed. It was IMPOSSIBLE to track more than one or two diaries, for example. LJ really won in the end because of the flist.

Another one that doesn’t get much credit but was insanely innovative and very popular was makeoutclub.com. That was a shame.

Rick - Hello! I agree. Diaryland was swarming with girls but what I loved about DL was the very international community it attracted. I remember my favorite diaryist was from Norway and another from Columbus, Ohio. I still visit their diaries wondering if they picked them up again.. But I agree, LJ outlasted them all, both in terms of popularity and longevity. LJ also managed to create a fiercely close-knit community. Danah Boyd has written and observed the LJ community for as long as it has been around.

Makeoutclub — hmm, I have to say I totally missed the boat on that one but I suppose it would’ve been a fun place for a 15 year old…
PS - Were you on DL, LJ or even ICQ? ICQ has such rich history to it too.

i too started off on diaryland. the only reason being - it gave me complete control over the design of the blog it had a huge community around it too…ppl designing templates, writing tutorials etc. i offered a few templates for free myself irc was also huge around that time with the mirc chat client. and also the yahoo chat rooms which i used to frequent.
i am still in touch with some of the ppl from dland and the chat rooms which seems like a big deal for some reason!
never warmed upto lj though. came across as a very closed community.

I find it interesting that you mentioned chat sites as rudimentary networking… It seems that the two exist in a symbiotic relationship; at one point, chat sites were considered the means to network, and then as network sites got established, they began to intertwine and become a place to chat. Funny how it works, like which came first: the chicken or the egg?

Now it seems that Darwin is making his way into the technological world, making people wonder if one evolved from the other. When you get to these sites (http://nevacross.com/?utm_source=cdg&utm_medium=media&utm_campaign=blogging) you begin to wonder if they were both created for the same reason (and not necessarily by God).

Chugs - Yes. I remember the template you designed for me I’ve stayed in touch with a few people from diaryland but most of them were my real-life offline friends so there..
LJ certainly was a very closed community and still is. I tried it - there was something about it.. I didn’t stay too long on it though. What’s interesting is — there aren’t these close-knit communities per blog portal these days. Blogger, Wordpress, Typepad - each has it’s set of followers and ambassadors but I’m not sure there is a community like there was one on diaryland.com. But maybe it was so because there were so few options back then?

Erin - Yes. I’ve maintained for a long time that what is happening now is not revolutionary - it is evolutionary. The purpose is the same - the means are different and better.
Interesting link though - not quite sure what to think about it!

It’s important to remember that key to our definition is that there is a public display of networks. This is why we don’t talk about them as social networkING sites. Lots of services (like chat) allowed you to meet new people without actually providing the infrastructure of social network sites.

ICQ definitely did not allow the public articulation of social networks that we felt was critical to the definition of “social network sites.” Neither did AIM or many other IM clients (until really QQ).

I actually hemmed and hawed over Diaryland. It was indeed a contemporary of LJ, but while LJ implemented “friends” almost immediately after launch, Diaryland did not. Notify lists, guestbooks, and a form of buddy lists arrived circa 2001. Unlike LJ, the buddy lists on Diaryland were more functional than display. While some people do indeed display their connections, this is not a core part of Diaryland. Given that this is key to the definition, I decided to leave Diaryland (and many similar blogging services) out.

I hope that help clarifies. Please feel free to drop me an email if you want to follow up.

Zephoria - Thanks for the clarification. Let me preface by saying that I highly admire the paper you and your colleague authored. However, I am curious to know more about how you arrived at the definition of a social network. I simply ask because I feel that one of the reqs. in your definition “the need to display your own network” leaves out a lot of these rudimentary attempts at social networks. Earlier, (in case of ICQ, diaryland and even LJ) users themselves facilitated the growth of their networks and now technology facilitates that growth. But then again, I suppose the term “social network” is relative and attempts at trying to define it may be a result of polarized experiences? In my experience and the way I perceive my use of those sites - I was already social networking. It’s just much better and easier now.

And I think that these are an important part of the social networking/ social communities history - perhaps even the foundation or the beginning of the history of social networks — on which the other, better technologies, ideas and networking capabilities were created. I don’t know where these fall or where to categorize them. I haven’t quite thought through very clearly to that extent yet - I respect your opinion highly - you’ve studied this subject more than anyone else I know. So I’m curious to hear your thoughts about this.

Jinal - To be clear, we are not using the term “social network” but “social network site.” The term “social network” has a long history in sociology and it would be highly inappropriate of us to call these systems “social networks.” Besides, that would be downright confusing.

We were trying to find a term that really focused on what makes a specific set of technologies unique as an area of research. The public display of networks really differentiates this grouping of technologies from other systems that support community interaction. It results in different practices, different social interactions. We wanted a term that really captured that narrow set of technologies.

Social network sites are part of a much broader set of technologies. These can be referred to as “social media” or “online communities” or even (gag me) “virtual worlds.” We are not saying that everything that is an “online community” is a “social network site” but everything that is a “social network site” is an “online community.” We are doing this because we needed a term to really capture the unique properties that were inherent to this subgrouping of technologies.

There’s no doubt you were social networkING using those sites, as you are when you used the Well or Palace or any number of other social media/online communities. And you’re right that users facilitated the growth of lots of social media… but again, that’s not the point that we were aiming for here. This is not to devalue these other sites. They are super important. And you’re darn right that the history of these other systems are key to the configuration of social network sites. We state this explicitly in our article, but we were not able to elaborate and provide references to this longer history due to word count. If I were to write a book about social network sites, I would no doubt trace the history of networked publics back to Usenet. But that’s not possible in an article.

The specific aim of this article was to lay out a framework for a narrow subset of social media technologies so that we could examine what is unique to them. A huge part of what makes them unique stems from the various features that are there. The public display of connections creates a dynamic where by people are constantly considering their audience, their relationships to others… there is social awkwardness, social accountability, etc. You can keep a private list of buddies and never face those issues.

In writing that article, we were very explicitly articulating our definition so that there would be no mistake as to why we didn’t include other sites. I understand that folks think that other sites have some similar properties and we specifically say that there are tons of sites that have one or two of the properties we listed, but not all. This is also why we called them “social network sites” rather than “social networking” or “social media.” What makes them unique is not the ability to connect and socialize, but to explicitly articulate and display the social network.

Does that help?