<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Social networking: not even close to dead</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:52:45 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Social networking: not even close to dead</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/04/23/social-networking-not-even-close-to-dead/#comment-1313832</link><description>That's a fair point.  I guess it's the "networking" part, which means stuffing your business card in people's faces or whatever. That's why I like to call it "social media."</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mathew</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:52:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Social networking: not even close to dead</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/04/23/social-networking-not-even-close-to-dead/#comment-1313831</link><description>You think? :-) I was actually looking for your thoughts on the risks of applying the term "social networking" to all networking sites out there (think MySpace vs. Linkedin). &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I know when I speak to non-techies in the biz world they immediately think social networking is for socializing/fun.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Do we let them figure it out for themselves?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;GT</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">George Tsiolis</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:23:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Social networking: not even close to dead</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/04/23/social-networking-not-even-close-to-dead/#comment-1313830</link><description>George, I think you could probably call it whatever you like -- it's your site  :-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mathew</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:38:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Social networking: not even close to dead</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/04/23/social-networking-not-even-close-to-dead/#comment-1313829</link><description>Mathew, agreed on both fronts.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Having said that, we are getting ready to launch a social network component of our website (for small-cap investors) and wondering if we should call it "investor networking".    Not for the sake of being different but for the sake of better categorizing the offering.  Otherwise, if we all call it "social networking", do we run the risk of the masses thinking their purpose is to strictly socialize online?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Would like to hear your thoughts.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Best,&lt;br&gt;George</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">George Tsiolis</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:49:48 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>