FriendFeed & Dividing Personal & Professional Friends

Most people who know me understand that my heart is in Twitterville, but I still find FriendFeed compelling and useful. Unlike Twitter, the overwhelming share of people I subscribe to on FF are people I actually know and/or admire. I plan to keep it that way. I use FriendFeed when I'm in a hurry and just want to see what certain people had to say, quickly. In Twitter, I tend to just hang on the street corner when I have some time to spare.

FreindFeed, like several other sites, did a redesign last week, and I find myself really liking it. It makes FF much more usable and slightly more functional. But there is one feature that nags at me. It shouldn't because I don't have to use it. But I do see it every time I go there. FF allows you to create folders for friend category. This can be useful, if you want to track what your friends have to say on any given topic. But it displays three folders, when you are on your homepage: "Favorites," "Professional" and "Personal."

Why does it bother me so much? Because I am such a believer in blurring the line between business and personal relationships. I believe that we should be transparent, credible, generous in both categories. I believe social media culture contributes to eliminating the differences in language, topics of conversation, apparel and so on. I just hating having to figure out which box to put anyone in so I avoid using any boxes at all friend.

I know this is a minor point, and in no way will it diminish my use of FF. In fact, when working on projects, FF is makes it much easier for me to organize content than does Twitter (where I often ask people to use email so I can manage the content). But I really wish they would move those folder names so that I don't have to think of the nature of my relationship every time I talk to someone.

Comments

[Louis Gray]

Shel, while FriendFeed starts with those lists, as something like a guide, there's no reason you have to follow them, or even keep them.

I made multiple lists, for those I know in real life, for brand name bloggers, and even a "front page" for those I don't want to miss. I deleted the ones they offered.

I wrote this up a few weeks ago:

With FriendFeed Lists, I Start to Organize the Noise
http://www.louisgray.com/live/2008/09/with-friendfeed-lists-i-start-to.html

Good luck!

[shel israel]

I think I acknowledge that I don't have to use those folders and can make other folders in the piece Louis. What I'm saying is that it reminds of how much I don't like putting my friends in any boxes.

[Bertil Hatt]

I certainly agree with you on this one — but this feature can be used to sort buzz makers from closer, quieter friends. I have contributions in several languages, and this might come helpful to sort that, too.

More importantly, FriendFeed labelled them folders while those are tags, really: I have issues with boxes, too, but not with adjectives. You are insightful; xkcd is funny — depending on my mood, I might want to talk to my academic friends or need a clown to cheer me up.

You do not put your friends in boxes, but FriendFeed (or similar services) might replace the mail, the phone and the e-mail, the press, etc.: I'd like to have BBC's feed somewhere in there, but be able to hide it so that I can see my family's contribution; I will need boundaries when commercial services will take advantage of those services (what you call for): I'm fine with a friendly ISP, but a respectful ISP that doesn't come smiling and asking for my opinion when I'm trying to find good mixes for a party. . . Not so friendly.

A friend had a great definition of a friend: it's someone who knows when you are with your girlfriend, and should not call you. Organizing distance is useful in a relationship.

[Tinu]

I get what you're saying here, Shel. You understand, as you've stated, the functionality of these groups isn't the issue, nor is the fact that we shouldn't have to use them.

For me, it's not *just* that I don't like to put my friends in boxes, and the increasingly prevalent insistence that I should. It's the fact that they're there - if widely adopted it can take us in the wrong direction.

That's annoying enough and isn't keeping pace with the way the world is changing, online and off. It should be enough for social sites to say they're going to give us groups and let US define what the labels should be.

Maybe it's not such a big deal in the grand scheme of things. But when I see things like that I second-guess whether the folks at the top of the tree really *get it*, you know? At least as much as I thought they did.