Metropol

I'm getting my "you" and "he" backwards, but I think the point should be clear.

I've just liked Steve Dutfield's status from Sunday evening. See who can see what. He's a friend of mine and Mark's, but not of Gavin.

I'm not seeing it in my timeline, but maybe that's 'cos it's too far in the past.

Nick Harvey wrote:I've just liked Steve Dutfield's status from Sunday evening. See who can see what. He's a friend of mine and Mark's, but not of Gavin.

I cant see that.

Funny enough because I spotted this thread a made a point of double checking my settings (I'd started receiving a few email notifications which I'd previous disabled) Turns out they'd enabled a few and some settings had reverted to public that I previous had as friends, grr at facebook. Also made a point of deleting ALL of my apps bar the guardian which was the only one that didn't want access to my details.

Just got a notification saying someone had replied to a friends status, and it told me that the friend was the friend of another friend. For example:

Gavin (Friends with Nick) also commented on Dave's status.

Flawed, in how that, in this scenario, Gavin would also be friends with Dave, to be able to comment, yet Facebook decides to say they're also friends with Nick, who is, in this case, unrelated.

Not necessarily.

Say, for example, I'm friends with Gav but not friends with you. You, me and Gav are tagged in YOUR photo (I am tagged by Gav).

According to the "people tagged in posts" privacy setting, as I am tagged, all MY friends (e.g. Andy, who is not friends with Gav or you) can post comments on your photo.

Therefore if me and Andy both comment, it shows that I am one friend in common with you whereas Andy is not.

I think.

Yes.





Bloody Facebook.

Yes, I think you're right there, actually. Why does the logic behind all Facebook security settings have to be so long winded, and bizarre?

Facebook for me is one hell of a double edged sword. I'd love to give Zuckerberg and his army of faux-revolutionary "social" army the big two fingers and go join one of the lesser intrusive, complicated social networks but I can't because it'd feel like I was in the only pub in town that wasn't holding a karaoke night. Nice, quiet and civilised, but not the party.

Alexia wrote:Facebook for me is one hell of a double edged sword. I'd love to give Zuckerberg and his army of faux-revolutionary "social" army the big two fingers and go join one of the lesser intrusive, complicated social networks but I can't because it'd feel like I was in the only pub in town that wasn't holding a karaoke night. Nice, quiet and civilised, but not the party.

Haha fair enough. Personally I don't think facebook is on the wane at all. Did you not hear all the hullabaloo about it doing well on the stock market? That makes me think that it's become more used than ever. However in saying that, I am using it a lot less. Used it a lot when doing my Overseas experience travels around Europe last year, just because it was easy to see what friends and family were up to and vice versa.

Although over the years I reckon it's becoming harder and harder for new users to integrate to the network. Do others think so too? Remember when it started out and it was easy as compared myspace who let you personalise everything. Now there's that weird space at the top of everyone's profiles or 'cover photo' as they call it. Bet you in 2 years time, FB will have the same concept as myspace and everyone will get turned off by it. It's becoming increasingly more complicated especially with the whole privacy setting aspect to it, which I find a bit dodgy. And timeline? Hate the thing. Espeicially if your internet is slow and you're on someone's profile. It's the worst thing ever.

All up I would tell FB to not go any further. Keeping it simple is key.

I read its still on the up, loads of countries still just getting into it.