Talk:List of social networking websites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion in January 2007. The result of the debate was also keep

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of social networking websites article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Archive
Archives
  1. December 27, 2005 – March 8, 2006
  2. March 9, 2006 – September 16, 2006
  3. September 17, 2006 – December 31, 2006
  4. January 1, 2007 – March 31, 2007
  5. April 1, 2007 – December 31, 2007


Contents

[edit] Criteria for Inclusion on List

I understand that a site must have its own separate Wikipedia article before it will be included as part of this list -- that makes sense. But I call into question the requirement that social networking must be a site's primary purpose. I think we should instead simply define the minimum functions which constitute social networking and then agree upon a minimum number of members to merit inclusion in this list. Then if a site meets these criteria, it should be included -- irrespective of whether social networking is primary.

Consider this: What if the social networking area of a site is a secondary function and yet still itself is much larger than other sites whose sole function is social networking? Why should such a site be excluded merely on account that it provides other services as well?

If you wonder how we should go about defining social networking functions, I submit we can use Wikipedia's own article on social networking as the starting point. It says,

Most services are primarily web-based and provide a collection of various ways for users to interact, such as chat, messaging, email, video, voice chat, file sharing, blogging, discussion groups... ....Some social networks have additional features, such as the ability to create groups that share common interests or affiliations, upload videos, and hold discussions in forums. Geosocial networking co-opts internet mapping services to organize user participation around geographic features and their attributes.

Jeff Mincey (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vox

A blogging site not Social Networking (primarily anyway)! Wikipedia she shouldn't be an advertisement for sites to get more traffic and members. I suggest this and others be removed? 11:11 29th April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.184.47 (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zanby

May I ask why both the page for social networking site Zanby and the link from this list page were removed? Tomcat66 g500 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Tomcat66 g500 16:56, 2 January 2008

because the article was speedily deleted as having not established notability per WP:WEB. this list only includes social networking sites which have an article on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Habbo

Habbo should be added. See here.

Habbo is one the world’s largest and fastest growing virtual worlds and social networking services for teenagers. Localized Habbo communities all around the world are visited by millions of teenagers every week.

I understand that social networking has previously not been the main focus of Habbo, but this has changed with the advancement of the Internet, and Web 2.0. Habbo consists of two main features; a virtual world, which is presented in the form of a massage chat room, and user profile in which community members have the ability to express themselves by customizing and sharing content with each other through their own Habbo homepage.

It's clearly a social networking service, hence it should be added to the list. --Supermatique (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the kinds of sites we've discussed before. Sites which weren't social networking, then because of web 2.0 throw a few social networking features on. Does it really make them social networking? This is a marketing description, and social networking is a buzzword (term) right now. If you actually go to the habbo sites themselves, I don't see social networking mentioned on the front page, its only referred to as a virtual world. Regardless of their marketing, the primary focuses seems to remain that of a virtual world.--Crossmr (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that. However, websites are changing their standards to meet with how the Internet is today, the service has existed since 2000 — and era when social networking websites weren't really around, they can't be blamed or restricted from being a social networking website just for moving along with the rapid future of technology today. The virtual world is just an advanced Chat room presented in the form of a virtual world which is a service they have made the focal point of their product, just like Last.fm made music the focal point of their service. However, they have not limited user interaction with various other services such as messaging, discussion groups and profiles. --Supermatique (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No one is blaming them or restricting them. Not being on this list doesn't effect the site in anyway. However we have to look at whether or not social networking is their primary function. And there may be entries on this list which need to be removed. I've made one pass at it in an attempt to clean it up at some of the more obvious one, but each entry needs a little scrutiny to make sure it belongs here. For Habbo, while they've created the ability to have a profile and a friends list, social networking doesn't seem to be their main function, that's the key criterion for being on this list (in addition to being notable and already have an article on wikipedia) Thank you for bringing up Last.fm, because after I've gone and read the page, it doesn't seem like social networking is the primary function there either. Its a good spot to start the cleanup.--Crossmr (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)gfdsgfdsfgdshgf tfdsghf

[edit] giblink.com

I would like to see www.giblink.com added to wikipedia. The site was banned because a past user tried to add the listing, but filled their submission with blatant advertising. A simple listing would cover the bases, and with 26,000 members signing up since September, it would seem this is a legitimate website for small and home-based businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msjvd (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a website to this page, a user has to write the article first. If the article does not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especailly WP:V and WP:RS, it is likely to be deleted. Please do not add a site to this page before that is done. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yuwie and iYomu

I think both of these are notable and should be put on the list. 172.194.15.162 (talk)

Before adding a website to this page, a user has to write the article first. If the article does not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especailly WP:V and WP:RS, it is likely to be deleted. Please do not add a site to this page before that is done. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] seniorennet.be

18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)~

Hi,

I came to this page via google and looked at the list. I am member of www.seniorennet.be. And it is not in the list. There exists a Wikipedia article on it, on the Dutch Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniorennet (didn't found any on the english one)

It is a Belgian website with over 1 000 000 members (I heared a few months ago over 1.3 million; but i am not 100% sure), and all the members are all seniors (50 years or older) and is one of the 10 biggest sites in our country. So it is maybe interesting to add it to the global list.

sorry if I am wrong if it isn't a good site for the list.

Until someone writes an article in English WP, the site should not be on this list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ipernity.com

Maybe you might want to check Ipernity.com, a Flickr-alike growing site, with blog and multimedia file capacity. I have no idea about the number of users. It's France-based but pretty international and growing in Europe.

81.75.222.76 (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless it has an article on wikipedia which meets WP:WEB it won't be added to the list.--Crossmr (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connectture.com

A very interesting Social Business network which is growing, reminds me a bit of one of the big business networks. Connectture.com has a lot of usable features. Its a multilingual site, right now its in English, Swedish and Danish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.215.181 (talk • contribs) 17:44, January 16, 2008

First it needs an article and to create the article it needs to meet the criteria laid out at WP:NOTE for web content.--Crossmr (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fubar

Why is Fubar not added to this list? I am curious as it's also a community similar to myspace, facebook, bebu, hi5, etc. Ariyen (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because entries are only included in the list if there is a Wikipedia article about the site which satisfies the guidelines at WP:WEB for the inclusion of articles about websites. On this list, the principle of Write the Article First is followed. -- AJR | Talk 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been added now. Haoie (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vampirefreaks

I think this site should be added. http://vampirefreaks.com/main.php

Its a social networking site inventied for the goth and industrial subcultures, but also has many metalheads, cybergoths and punks on it. I would say its a social netowrking site for people of alternative music subcultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.230.85 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have a Wikipedia article. All entries require Wiki articles to have already been written. You can start the article if you'd like. -- FatalError (t|c) 01:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tuenti.com

Tuenti had a formatting issue that made it appear at the top of the list when sorting by total number of users. I looked at their main Wiki entry and apparently they have had some issue with someone overzealously promoting the site here, so I went ahead and just fixed this for them. Robbiemuffin (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging with Onesource, Out of date, and Page number

Not sure why you don't understand why I added the 3 template tags: {{Onesource}} because only one of the the registered user numbers is sourced, {{Outofdate}} because the registered users numbers get outdated very quickly, and {{Page number}} because the one source listed just says "New York Times". Libcub (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding WP practice for list articles allows the sourcing to be in the article linked, but because you apparently feel strongly about the tags, I added a second source to justify my removal of the {{Onesource}} tag. I took away the {{Page number}} tag because the source is the online edition of the NYT (which I clarified), and someone has left page numbers off of a lot of the internet. On the {{Outofdate}} tag, could you point to a particular number that is out of date (note from the edit history how frequently this page is updated): it's the whole lighting a candle is better than cursing the darkneness concept: how about helping make the page better like the rest of us rather than just throwing tags around? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of items

Several editors are continually removing other editor's additions to the list, citing Wikipedia:Write the Article First. That page is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It is not appropriate to remove items from the list because of what the essay says. Libcub (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding empty Red links to an article does not add any content or meaning to wikipedia and is an unhelpful contribution.--Hu12 (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for or against adding social networking sites without a corresponding Wikipedia article. I'm just saying that it isn't appropriate to justify a deletion with an essay. Libcub (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It does represent the Vast majority consensus for inclusion criterion, and avoids the repetative task of repeating the same statement to the hundreds of ip's and WP:SPA accounts spamming redlinks. It need not be policy, however the consensus process, basically, means that the majority of editors can more or less agree that additions should conform with WP:WTAF. Hope that helps.--Hu12 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The references to WP:WTAF are similar to the references to the essay WP:AADD in deletion discussions: the essay reference provides a shorthand (that fits in the edit summary) to the editor's reasoning (which, as Hu points out, is universally shared by the editors who have made the majority of the contributions to this page). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Social Websites like CareFlash.com

How about a Medical Social Website like CareFlash.com? Klostermankl (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Booksie.com

I added Booksie.com but see that it was deleted. I created a page for it so can it now be added. It's one of the biggest literature social networks on the Web that I know of. --Phillanuto (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BannedFromEverywhere

There is no page for this site, also listing contains advertising. I checked out the site and there are only four members. Seeing that other listing where deleted because of this, I removed this listing. Ediciuz (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Floxtar

No page exists for this entry. (And bad formatting.) Removed. Ediciuz (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] urSESSION

What about this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.120.188 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

www.urbanstop.us would be a nice addition to this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tx Nique (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] the "Registered users" Button doesn't work proprely !

it sorts the numbers with faults

~~Mario~~ ~~ 12th March 2008 ~~ ~~ 18 h 22 ~~

[edit] Last.fm

I added Last.fm. It has an extensive wikipedia page and definitely deserves a place on this list. Actually, its wikipedia page already linked to this page without it even being on it. Ingridjames (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It was removed because social networking wasn't its primary function. This list is for sites whose primary function is social networking. Social networking seems only to be a footnote in the introduction to this website.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Its slogan is "the social music revolution". It qualifies as much as iLike. -- FatalError (t|c) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] QQ is the biggest SNS in the World!

Check this [1]. I add it to the list with unknown number of users --Zinayida (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] enhancing this article with another column

The most significant thing in social networking is how so many major social networks are launching platforms for third party developers. I'd like to see this article enhanced with a column that lists whether each social network has launched such a platform (like Facebook and Friendster), or has announced support for OpenSocial. The Wikipedia Article on OpenSocial lists about 20 social networks that have announced support for it. I'd like to see that info added to a new, far right column entitled "Platform Support."

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Paulballen (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Social Networking for children

Are there any safe sites available for my 10 and 7 year old daughters? They would like to use one but i am not sure what advice to give. I don't want them to use myspace, bebo etc. and then lie about their ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.236.159 (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't the place to ask. "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." However, you might find this post useful. -- FatalError (t|c) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting

I know this may not be the place but I cannot sort the table properly using the down button under the column of Registered Users. Does anyone have an idea or a solution? --Jack in the box (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Do you have JavaScript enabled in your browser? -- FatalError (t|c) 01:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with the sorting too. I'm using FF2 with NoScript and all scripts allowed. I can sort by the first four coloumns but I can't sort by the Alexa-coloumn. And I sorting by the number users doesn't work correctly as I get this order: [14], 70mio, 9.6mio, 70mio, 68mio, 0.475mio, 0.382906mio, ..., 20mio, 2mio, 110mio, 10mio and then comes all the rest without this cell filled. Sorting by the other three coloumns gives the correct result but that is sorting my letters not numbers. -- JanCK (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well the Alexa column doesn't work for me either; I don't know if it's supposed to. And I didn't notice the problem with the Registered Users column. I'm guessing the <ref> tags are messing it up. -- FatalError (t|c) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The alexa column doesn't wok, because it is missing cells. it needs a whole load of {{ntsh|0}} entries. Mayalld (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scuzz.com

Would I be able to add this site to the list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuzz#Scuzz.com

It is mentioned under the article on the rock channel Scuzz, and the site can certainly be classed as a Social Networking site. It is a Social Networking Site for Rock/Metal fans who want access to new music, in a similar style to Rockworld.tv, only it allows profiles to be set up, has talk functions and the ability to upload photos, videos and music files, in a similar method to Myspace. Starom (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like another WEB 2.0 mash-up. That doesn't exactly make a site a social networking site because you've tacked on profiles, etc.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sites to Consider

  1. SummitPost.org - Climbing/Hiking, Rocks/Mountains
  2. BookQube.com - Books
  3. EmoEarth.com - Alternative Social Network —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.98.177 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not exactly here to consider sites. There is one criterion to have an article listed on this list: It has an article on wikipedia. However that comes with its own criteria, notably it meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEB. If you feel those sites meet those policies, most importantly WP:WEB, then feel free to create articles based on them and add them to the list.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Numbers

3 problems: 1. Almost all the user numbers are uncited 2. Those that were cited are often several years out of date 3. The numbers quoted do not match those in the actual article on the site's WP page!

all 3 of thse pose a serious problem in a factual encyclopedia! rather than simply have this page deleted, i've removed all the numbers that seem to have arisen out of the ether/someone's arse and left spaces for nice, cited, utd ones Jw2034 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, i've added (some) of the alexa global rankings for each of the sites. a very crude and NPOV way of judging relative number of current users, but far better than unsourced speculative user numbers Jw2034 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work, BTW ;)--Hu12 (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I also like the removal of the uncited numbers and the "unknowns"; thanks for that. I am less happy about the Alexa column: there are big problems with Alexa numbers (statistical bias - see the WP article), but I also think they change too frequently to be encyclopedic or useful: it is kind of like putting the closing stock price on every company article in WP, which we would not currently do. Do you have a big problem if I remove the Alexa column? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i do have a problem. The alexa numbers update frequently, but wikipedia also lists company operating profits (updated quaterly or more) and further, data on sports scores and events, updated near instantaneously. Yes, there is some bias - particularly in the number of page hits - in the alexa data, but the alexa ranking generally strongly correlates with the number of users of the social networking site. Besides, for at least the top 5 by alexa ranking, there are few people who wouldnt disagree that those 5 are certainly the largest and have the most active users. Either way, the alexa data is npov, far better than 'numbers of users' which may be a)inflated by advertisers (a major problem with this article continuously), b) inflated by users, c)from a news article 2 years out of date (i've corrected this particualrly in the case of facebook) d)not count active users (which the alexa data at least gives a idea of). Further, the alexa ranking cannot be manipulated - if alexa says it's 1000'th globally, then it is that!

A major problem on this page is spammers artificially inflating popularity of adlinked sites - the alexa data may not be perfect, but it is a better, npov, unmanipulatable (at least by single users). Anyway, there is a link to alexa in the article itself, where such statistical matters are addressed and the reader can make up their own mind as to precision. Can also add Google Pagerank figures, which should help. Jw2034 (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Selective lists of competitors on main website page

Another thing i've noticed is websites listed here tend to give something like 'similar to Myspace, Facebook, etc...' in their description. Since this list is selective, and tend to be 'similar to big popular website' it clearly raises issues with NPOV and advertising in articles. Ideally, all such comparisions should be made to this article instead Jw2034 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted and replaced with a different company

Why was college tonight deleted from the list? Blm0303 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A mystery. This site appears to qualify for listing, and no explanation for its removal was offered by the editor that removed it, so restored. Mayalld (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.  :) Blm0303 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Terribly sorry, meant to revert another spam edit. College tonight is ok to be added. Jw2034 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How does one indicate that a listed social network has shut down?

I noticed that Consumating.com is on the list, but it shut down on March 14, 2008 -- according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumating

I think it should perhaps remain on the list.. but with an added column of its closed status? Especially since there many be more of these sites that end up shutting down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhfive (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should cover notable historical sites as well as present ones, since the article's part of an encyclopedia, rather than merely a web directory of present-day sites. --Delirium (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa numbers should be removed

Alexa is not useful for this page -- it has an English-speaking bias and many of these websites are international. Shii (tock) 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexa recently changed its methodology -- I'm not saying that it no longer has any English-speaking bias, but it's a reasonable metric that is freely obtainable. Compete.com or Comscore numbers might be better, but they're expensive to obtain, I think. (Alexa has incorporated ISP traffic data, so it's not just using its toolbar anymore)
I vote to leave the Alexa numbers in for at least some metric of traffic because user registrations numbers can be vastly inflated and traffic can offer at least some hint as to whether the user numbers are generating a proportional amount of traffic.
Mhhfive (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, hence unfortunately will have a bias towards English sites anyway!Jw2034 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we should exacerbate it with data from American ISPs and English speakers using the toolbar. Shii (tock) 15:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
English Speakers RUNNING WINDOWS AND IE using the toolbar, actually, which makes it even more biased. --194.202.236.116 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube

If Flick is in the list, Youtube should be there too, as it's a video-blogging platform where you can build a network of "favorite users/channels" and post video-comments on video-blog pages. Jcak77 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Youtube is a video sharing site. Flikr is a photo sharing site. Neither are social networking sites, and should not appear hereJw2034 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is the definition of social networking site, "A social network service uses software to build online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others," then both Flickr and YouTube should definitely be included in the list of social networking services. In Flickr you can join groups to post and discuss specific types of photographs. You can also add contacts who form a network of people who view and comment on your pics. YouTube, similarly, allows you to add contacts who are alerted when you post new videos. You can also not only comment on videos, but video reply to videos. There is also a video blogging feature (called vlogging). Both of these sites provide the infrastructure to interact with others in a social networking style, they just have a specific medium in which the social networking is fashioned around. They may not fit the original Friendster or Orkut format of social networking, but they're definitely indicative of the direction that social networking is headed. Barefootmeg (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC

read:
http://www.youtube.com/t/about 'Founded in February 2005, YouTube is the leader in online video, and the premier destination to watch and share original videos worldwide through a Web experience. YouTube allows people to easily upload and share video clips on www.YouTube.com and across the Internet through websites, mobile devices, blogs, and email.'

you can also have: YouTube, quote 'YouTube is a video sharing website where users can upload, view and share video clips'

youtube is a video sharing site, as defined by Video hosting service it it not primarity a social networking site as defined by Social networking site and should not appear hereJw2034 (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bug/Misformatting?

The last two columns cannot be sorted (the Alexa rank and Users ones) in Firefox 2.0.x.x on Windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.177.26 (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong planet

The article's listing of popular and high-traffic discussion boards should include Wrong Planet, an online community and social networking site for members diagnosed with Autism and Asperger's syndrome. The site is where many autistic adults sought advice in social situations they find difficult and to promote a sense of community among others with their neurological disorder. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad numbers for spaces.live.com

The numbers for windows live spaces are inaccurate. They include *all* traffic to live.com, only 4% of which is actually to spaces.live.com. Alexa only shows stats for top level domains.

Quantcast shows much more realistic numbers for the spaces subdomain: http://www.quantcast.com/spaces.live.com 64.81.57.203 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] funny counting

wtf? Image:Http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/227/clipboard01jb4.jpg

[edit] Geni.com registered users

The number of 15,000,000 users registered on geni.com is simply false! The number refers to profiles. A member can add as many profiles to his family tree as he/she wants. That does not mean that the person he added to the family tree is registered but that there is some info on the person in Geni's database. The correct number would have to be YXZ family trees, because there has to be at least 1 user registered on geni.com to build a family tree and this is probably a much smaller number. Newbie1980 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie1980 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)