Recently there was a post out on a blog I read on technet asking "to social network or not" and I'd like to take this a step further.  There's no manual on -how-, much less a -right/wrong- way of social networking, but consider this a loose guidelines.  Why?  I'm seeing two groups, right now, using social networking.  One is doing it right, the other, very wrong.  Just my opinion, but hear me out.

As I stated with my response to the technet blog, I've been finding very little or no value in myspace, linkedin and facebook.  I might even take the leap and say facebook and myspace after you are done with highschool/college are effectively worthless.  LinkedIn can have value, but only in certain circles at certain times.  I contriube this to one flaw: they lack -instant- communication.  Instant Messaging (duh) provides this, BUT there's a knee-jerk "who are you" response if you message someone you don't know, but want something from.  Regardless if that something is advice or a date, the inital reaction is more or less the same.  I blame spammers for this mostly.

Many people, mostly non-nerdy people ask "what is twitter for?".  It's the benefits of instant-ish messaging, without the invasiveness.  If you post something up to a friend, and that persons friend sees it, they can look at what you've posted, see the things you talk about/cover and decide to follow you.  You don't have to follow them if you don't want, and vice versa, so its a nice blend.

Now, onto the "right" and the "wrong".  Some organizations have seen this as a useful tool, a way to contact/connect with people they normally wouldn't in a way thats virtually 0 cost and doesn't have to be work related.  I won't name names, but there's two in particular, that are in the same business, if you're in the central ohio area, you know these places, maybe even their employees by name, but one is doing it right, the other is doing it wrong -- here's my humble opinion as to why.  Interactiveness.  It can get into a fuzzy area and let me use an example of non-interactiveness thats the "right way" to help explain this.  Did you know the Mars Pheonix is on twitter?  Usually you get these updates before the media does, which is cool.  Now, notice it is NOT following anyone, at all.  This makes sense.  The purpose is to send out updates to people, not to recieve them, a media outlet if you will.  Why would it?  So this is a good example of "non-interactive" social networking and a special case, since well, they're on mars, I'm not.

Moving back to "right"/"wrong" and that interactiveness - ideally that's what you manifest: conversations, discussions, community, dialog, whatever you want to call it.  Even simple responses of "hey thanks, its nice to see blah blah", something, ANYTHING is better than totally ignoring it.  If you refuse to do this, I say you're doing it wrong, otherwise whats the point of using a SOCIAL networking service of any kind?  It's -social-, not clique-networking.  One of them is kind of a clique, a silo.  Sure, they're there, but they don't follow the average joe (like me), they don't respond to you, they don't do much but talk among themselves, you ain't part of the cool kids crowd ...the other does on every level.  They follow you, message back to you, ask questions "to the world" and take those responses and make them useful to themselves.  They are doing it right.