It almost pains me to use MySpace in the title, seeing how much I dislike the service.  In any event, there is something to be said about Facebook’s new “direction”, and how they may be moving towards a product offering similar to that of the mighty content clusterf–k, otherwise known as MySpace.  I’m talking more specifically about Facebook’s recent polling of its users regarding vanity URLs.  It appears that Facebook is entertaining the notion of offering its users customized Facebook URLs.  So, for example,  instead of the very forgettable Facebook profile page of:

facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=11324937&ref=name we will likely see:
facebook.com/kevinpruett

In fact, Facebook has already dished out a select number of vanity URLs to businesses and individuals (see facebook.com/barackobama).  Point being, this is just one necessary step that Facebook must take in order to become a more open service.  A service that didn’t seem all that likely a few years ago, when they were competing for users with MySpace.  Of course, vanity URLs are not a new concept.  Many web services today offer its users a customized URL on their prospective profile page.  But in Facebook’s case, switching to this type of network structure holds greater meaning than you may think.

While MySpace implemented a relatively open and horizontal structure, Facebook represented a much more closed-off, vertical hierarchy; operating behind sub-networks and various levels of privacy.  In the end, Facebook emerged the victor in the social network war by developing a better and more interactive network.  It is no coincidence that Facebook has acquired 200mm+ users in just a few short years.  They are simply the best social network in existence.

But to keep up with the rapid movement towards transparency on the web, Facebook will have to tweak their service.  In doing so, they may end up becoming a bit more like their rival network.

Facebook…Tear Down This Wall

I wrote a post entitled “What Twitter Has That Facebook Doesn’t.”  The post talked about Twitter’s ability to operate transparently, and how it essentially knocks down all the barriers (the barriers Facebook has) to communication.  I ended the post with the following comment: “I can see Twitter accounts being distributed as commonly as email addresses are today — something that Facebook accounts just don’t have the flexibility in executing.”

I believe Facebook understands that in order to facilitate even more conversation and interaction, they must tear down some walls.  The vanity URL topic falls in line with this agenda.  As of late, we have all seen Facebook’s ability to “borrow” features from other web services.  We also know that Zuckerberg and Co. are not afraid of changing the face of their product in order to achieve their desired goals.

So what can we expect from Facebook in the future?

• Expect to see the service continue to strive for increased transparency.
• Going against there original strategy of operating behind a “walled garden,” Facebook will help user profiles step outside of Facebook into the broader world wide web.  Google juice for Facebook profiles will significantly increase.
• Privacy levels will be affected as this transfer occurs.  Users may opt for a public profile, making their profile (facebook.com/theirname) accessible to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
• Facebook becomes the (micro)blogging platform for the “normal” people.

Do any of these predictions remind you of MySpace’s offerings?  What are your predictions for the future of Facebook?

Isn’t it frustrating to see a particular domain name being literally wasted?  The scenario is all too familiar, and it goes something like this…

You set out to register a domain name and  eagerly check its availability.  “Status: ALREADY TAKEN”.  You may try another variation.  Again, “Status: ALREADY TAKEN”.  Out of curiosity / frustration you may visit the particular site(s) in question only to find out that it is either:
a) an untouched “parked” site
b) under construction (no content)
c) a promotional landing page linking to hundreds of websites
d) a website that hasn’t been updated since 2001
e) absolute bullshit

Well, (e) is completely subjective, so we can scratch that from the list.

The point of this post is to raise the question of regulation on the web, with regards to the registration and maintenance of domain names.  This “regulation” (and I hate to use the word regulation) has nothing to do with the actual content on the website, but has everything to do with how the owner maintains, updates, and most importantly, adds value with their website.  In other words, we must look at how a particular domain name assists in distributing information and contributes to the betterment of the World Wide Web.  I am a huge proponent of the web and what it stands for.  Trust me, I believe that the web should be kept as open as possible, be accessible to anyone, and continue to operate in this fashion.

But I do believe we are at a time where the web can make small strides in gaining a bit of legitimacy and/or efficiency.  Obviously, the nature of the web excludes itself from ever being completely legitimate, and quite frankly, I think we are all fine with that.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least get closer.  The internet is maturing before our eyes, and we must follow suite with more mature guidelines.  We are past the days of the late 90’s dot-com boom; the internet users today expect more than ever, and rightfully so.  Let’s attempt to create a platform of more value.

I suggest we start by enforcing simple guidelines and parameters that domain name owners must fulfill in order to keep ownership of their domain name.  A few standards would include:

• Each domain name must be hosted and online within 6 months of purchase.
• Website content cannot remain stagnant for more than 1 month.

whereas,

Faulting on these parameters would result in the loss of the domain name, making it open to the public.

These straightforward guidelines would accomplish a number of things.  It would remove a large majority of internet clutter.  It would prevent impulsive domain name shopping/hoarding.  And best of all, it would give internet traffic confidence that the websites they visit are being maintained and updated regularly.

I’ll be the first to admit that I have a few domain names right now that aren’t doing anything.  At the same time, I can honestly say that if these guidelines were to be enforced tomorrow, I would happily surrender my shopping cart of URLs.