自从社交网络Friendster宣布平台将于5月31日暂停运作后，许多人开始猜测其中失败原因。CNET Caroline McCarthy就此发表了800字看法，抛出了平台过早达到顶峰、平台缺乏足够多元化用户及平台规模过小等观点。

事实上，平台消亡的原因再明显不过。首先，Friendster并未真正理解社交媒介的某些基本理论，但这无可厚非，事实上当时很少有公司能够充分掌握相关原理。现在我们可以发现Friendster显然过于注重媒体方面，而忽略了平台的社交性。

friendster

McCarthy阐述Friendster失败原因完全是出于新闻需要，没有一项符合Friendster实际情况。首次登陆Friendster的用户需要填写冗长的个人资料，（游戏邦注：包括照片、个人情况和兴趣等）。然后就是评价好友，用户填写一半个人资料的时候就会发现，Friendster用户的主要任务似乎就是不断润色个人资料。

当然Friendster用户可以浏览好友信息、发送消息甚至加入团体，但是个人资料仍旧是平台的核心内容，特别是玩家需要填写个人历史、上传图片以及收集尽可能多的评价。如果用户足够诚实，那么可以要求朋友给予尽可能高的评价。这流行了一段时间，用户当时觉得很有趣，但其实网站无非就是要求用户不断装饰页面，特别当用户没有其他好友的时候。

Facebook刚推出的时候也是主要侧重个人资料方面。Facebook用户最常做的就是利用窗口和诸如《Knighthood》之类的荒诞游戏点缀自己的页面。很多用户登陆Facebook纯粹是为了体验《Scrabble》。事实上，润色页面、合理安排窗口以及创造Facebook页面本身也是一种游戏。

马克·扎克伯格和他的团队终止了这些“胡搞”行为。扎克伯格准确发现Facebook的新闻动态是长期制胜的关键所在。虽然网站仍旧不断吸引新用户，但扎克伯格还是决定提高网站新闻动态的重要性，把应用和窗口调至后方，将好友的更新、分享和讨论放置到前方和中心位置。虽然Facebook的状态更新变得和Twitter消息大同小异（游戏邦注：主要采用“某某吃熏肉”形式，而非强调页面的个人资料）。

用户自然对此颇感愤怒。但扎克伯格顶住压力，有趣的事情随后发生了。用户开始习惯于新设计模式。他们开始渐渐淡忘应用。他们开始评论任何事情。而不再一味关注自己有多少好友。Facebook因此变得越来越强大。

所以Friendster的失败原因并不在于平台没有重视消息发布，而是在于关注焦点和时机观念。社交网络想过取得成功，就不能忽视对社交性的关注。新用户登陆Twitter或Facebook帐号时，首先被提示的就是更新自己的状态。这两个网站都是旨在帮助用户同外界联系，了解外部动态，并发布自身相关消息。

自从Facebook转而关注用户消息发布后，Friendster甚至是MySpace就变得希望渺茫。虽然两个网站后来都引入了消息发布功能，但为时过晚。网站需要随时关注平台动态的用户，自从Facebook重新定义社交网络后，两个网站便变得门可罗雀。总的来说，它们没有时机观念。

Facebook聪明之处在于，它先让用户尝到游戏和个人资料的甜头，从中掳获大批用户的芳心，然后就在用户尝尽甜头且尚未离开平台之前，提供消息分享。Friendster并未完全理解社交媒介的真谛，因而埋下了失败的伏笔，而这正是平台生存的关键所在。Friendster并未意识到用户个人资料不过是平台体验的一部分，而非核心所在。制作精美的个人资料可能颇具趣味，甚至很有满足感，但这是不过是另一种游戏。就像对待其他游戏一样，玩家早晚会厌倦的。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

Why Friendster Died: Social Media Isn’t a Game

Ever since the news broke that social-network prototype Friendster will, for all intents and purposes, end its sad existence on May 31, many have speculated as to why it ultimately failed. CNET’s Caroline McCarthy flails around for more than 800 words on the topic, throwing out theories that the site peaked too early, didn’t have a sufficiently diverse audience, or simply never got big enough.

I think the answer to why Friendster died is more clear than that. From the start, Friendster didn’t understand some basic tenets of social media. It can be forgiven for that—very few did at the time. But in hindsight, it’s apparent that Friendster put way too much emphasis on the media, and not enough on the social.

The short answer to why Friendster failed is the news feed—or rather, Friendster’s lack of one. I remember first logging on to the site, and seeing a big empty profile to fill in with photos, personal details, interests, and the like. But once I had a meaty profile (right down to my timely lamenting of the end of Buffy the Vampire Slayer), the next thing to do was… what, exactly? Sure, there were testimonials for friends, but after writing the half-dozen or so I actually wanted to write, it seemed that the only thing to do on Friendster was polish my profile.

On Friendster, you could browse your friends (of course), send them messages, or even join groups, but the focus was definitely the profile, specifically, filling in your personal history, adding photos, and gathering as many testimonials you could. And, if we’re being honest, getting your friend count as high as possible. It was fun for a while—and very popular (circa the site’s peak in 2003-2004, most of my friends were on Friendster, and I was first invited by someone I’d never think of as technical)—but the service didn’t offer anything substantial that went beyond merely “decorating,” at least not when it had an audience.

In its early days, Facebook was about profiles, too. Decking out your profile page with “boxes” and ridiculous games like Knighthood used to be what you did on Facebook. A massive chunk of its users came to the network almost exclusively to play Scrabble. Really, the whole practice of polishing one’s profile, arranging boxes neatly (remember that?), and curating your Facebook apps was kind of a game in itself.

Then Mark Zuckerberg and his team stopped playing around. Zuckerberg rightly recognized that Facebook’s news feed was the key to its long-term success. While the site was still attracting new people, he revamped it to elevate the news feed’s importance, pushing apps and boxes to the rear and putting friends’ updates, shares, and discussions front and center. Even the popular Facebook status update became more like a Twitter message, dropping the “so-and-so is eating bacon” format and losing its special prominence on profile pages.

Naturally, users freaked. But Zuckerberg stuck with his gut, and a funny thing happened. People got used to the new design. They started to miss their apps less and less. They started commenting on everything. And (most) stopped caring about how many friends they had. Along the way, Facebook got bigger than ever.

So the long answer to why Friendster failed isn’t just its news-feed problem, but also focus and timing. For a social network to be successful, the focus needs to be on social. When you create a Twitter or Facebook account, one of the first things you’re encouraged to do is put up some kind of status update. (With Twitter, it’s not just encouraged but the essence of the service.) Both sites steer you toward immediately reaching out, seeing what’s going on, and putting yourself out there.

Friendster—and to a large extent, MySpace—really didn’t stand a chance once Facebook made the news feed its focus. Even if either service had introduced a comparable experience to the news feed, it was far too late. You need an audience for anything to care about what you’re doing, and both sites’ playgrounds had been abandoned for a long time once Facebook had figured out social networks. In short, they had no sense of timing.

Facebook’s genius is that it first lured us in with the candy of gaming and profiles, then, after we’d gorged ourselves on them but hadn’t left yet, snared us with the feed. Ultimately, Friendster sowed the seeds of its own failure by not fully understanding the subtleties of social media when it mattered most to its own existence. It didn’t realize that user profiles are only one element of the experience, and not even the most important one at that. Crafting a great profile can be fun, even satisfying, but it’s really just another game. And like all games, it eventually bores you.（Source：pcmag）