Why do some social sites thrive while others fail? Why do you find some networks have you dedicating hours every day to participate, while others couldn't get you to raise an eyebrow? And why don't your friends see with you eye to eye on what the best services are, even after you've told them about your favorites time and again? The more I am exposed to new sites and social services, it becomes clear to me that there are three core elements that need to be solved to deliver a killer social service - and falling short in just one can mean rapid closure. Meanwhile, even if all three of these core elements are solved for one person doesn't mean they are solved for everyone.

These three core elements? Technology, community and relevancy.
(Though not always in that order)

Technology

Social service users want to have a flexible array of features that let them accomplish the task at hand quickly, without the user interface getting in the way. Members of social sites want the reassurance that they are working with a leading network that provides high quality tools, keeping pace with industry developments, and not growing stale with age.

If sites do not utilize current technology, not even the most ardent fans can expect to keep loyal, especially as they are reminded of alternative functionality through their ventures on the Web. In this case, solving for a strong community, even with good relevancy, is not enough.

Community

Community can be measured in terms of both quantity and perceived quality. Only the rarest of early adopters wants to participate in a social network that doesn't have any members. Without debating what came first, the chicken or the egg, successful social networks require an active community that will deliver a regular stream of updates - keeping the service fresh and vibrant. On other occasions, visitors to a social site will find the existing community does not meet their needs, as they may have little in common.

Even the most targeted sites with top technology can fail without an evangelizing community to keep it alive. And one man's perfect community is another man's "mob", so just because it works for you doesn't guarantee runaway success.

Relevancy

While most of the talk around social services focuses either on technology or how to grow communities and customers, simple relevancy cannot be overlooked. The most "sticky" communities are those that center around a specific topic or group, no matter how esoteric. From the mommyblogger movement to sports or automobile discussions, being on topic is a must for growing a network.

Without the site's content or community being relevant to potential new users, they would not be likely to want to engage, barring the often misguided belief that the individual could "drag" along a critical mass of friends or followers to have serious impact on the topics being discussed.

---

When sites hit a two out of the three pillars, it is little better than only focusing on one of the pillars. There are precious few social services that can gain significant traction for the masses, without needing to target specific communities or derive a specific niche relevancy. And we have seen way too many sites have an interesting group of engaged people, only for the technology to look near abandonment, taking the form of a 90s-era social bulletin board or forum.

While Facebook and Twitter have much of the minds' eyes out there right now, there are many other social networks that are seeing strong engagement, tucked away due to their niche focuses. From the team of blogs at SportsBlogsNation and their resulting communities to small business sites like Ecademy, communities are building with relevancy, and some strong technology - helping them to be survivors in a world littered with failures.

I am looking at a lot of social networks these days. I am seeing frantic e-mails from slowing and dying communities asking what is next. There are some new ones I am quite fond of - but they are usually ones that solve for 2 of these 3 issues, requiring some serious help to take them to the next level. If you are manufacturing a social site, or even if you are just a frequent user, think about these three pillars: Technology, Community, Relevancy. Is the site meeting those needs, or is it falling short?

On Tuesday, the Open Web Foundation released an agreement aimed to speed new specifications' ability to be adopted by downstream users, with the intent of spreading open tools throughout the Web. Though occupying the always-complicated intersection of both the legal world and the tech world, the agreement is very interesting. The non-profit organization, featuring leading geeks from many of Silicon Valley's best known and most-respected companies, is hoping to promote data portability and open Web standards, no matter their source. Tuesday's agreement makes it easier for others to implement specifications without requiring lengthy bureaucratic legalities, and already features 10 major protocols and services as having signed up.

Among the services that have committed to using the new agreement include Yahoo!'s Media RSS standard, OAuth, Microsoft's WebSlice, and my often mentioned personal favorites, the PubSubHubbub and Salmon Protocols, being promoted by employees from Google.

As explained on the Yahoo! blog, on Facebook's Developers' blog and at Standards Law, services such as OpenID and OpenSocial were both forced to spend a great deal of effort working on legalities, taking their sharp engineering resources away from doing what they do best - code. The hope is that by setting a standard for approvals and access, much of these headaches can be eliminated.

The agreement itself is lightweight, compared to many legal tomes, and essentially mirrors standards set by Apache and Creative Commons, both of which have much history in the Web community. It covers how to handle attribution, that users can be trusted to leverage the work without fear of patent lawsuits, and that downstream users will not lay claims to others' efforts.

It could be yet another important step in making sure the Web is open, and that users can expect similar behavior and access capabilities from site to site and service to service. See also:
The Blurry Picture of Open APIs, Standards, Data Ownership from October 29th.

As more and more people are turning to social networks to share their information, practically all of us are connecting to an ever-increasing number of people, and for the most part, we are updating more frequently, and sharing content from different sources in multiple places. The resulting increase in velocity, often termed noise, has led to practically all tools to try and assist us to find the "most relevant" data, or the "best" information, based either on activity from others in our social graph, or through our own past activity. Sometimes, this works very well, helping to make signal out of the noise. And on other occasions, it can dramatically miss the stated goal, and actually make things worse. This week, Facebook's latest enhancements appear to have had a serious negative impact on me (and my family).


As you likely already know, Facebook has been working on a slew of changes to its "news feed", the main column on the site that alerts you to friends' activity. The social network implemented "real time" updates to show you when new entries were posted, and very recently divided the feed into two parts - a "Live Feed" for all updates as they occurred, with the newest on top, and a "News Feed", ostensibly from those who I engage with most often, or for "hot" content - presumably measured through interaction. This is a similar approach taken to FriendFeed's "best of day", PostRank's work on RSS feeds, and Google Reader's new feature, "Magic".

This weekend was a busy one for me, one where I was less connected to the computer than usual. As a result, I checked in to Facebook only a handful of times. Glancing at the News Feed on Saturday, nothing particularly stood out. The same held true on Sunday. I was greeted with updates from friends like Jason Goldberg and Chris Saad, both solid tech entrepreneurs. I also saw notes from Robert Scoble and a handful of connections that originated on FriendFeed. Still, nothing amazing to report.



But after 11 p.m. Sunday night, I saw a friend from high school make a mundane update, saying he had a good weekend, one he would cap off with a round of "Anno 1404." Turns out that's a city-building game, like Sim City. No big deal. I clicked through to his wall to see if he hinted at the good weekend. At the top of his wall, I saw something truly interesting. A simple update, his wall said, "Don likes Malinda Gray's photo." Malinda is my 23-year-old sister. Why would he be looking at her photos? And what photo?

I clicked through, and to my surprise found out that my other sister, 28, had given birth to a new baby boy, her first, making me an uncle. Wow! After more investigation, I found that my sister, as well as my mom, and also the mother of the child, had made posts on Facebook throughout the day Sunday on the progress of the labor, and how things had gone. I also found out that my sister had actually gone into labor and started that process around noon on Saturday - the previous day, and that I had absolutely no clue.

How could I have missed it, considering they had been updating Facebook regularly, and amassing a good share of comments and likes with each update? Well, apparently, Facebook didn't figure out that this update stream was relevant to me. It didn't realize and start sending - with alarm bells - that Louis's sister was having a baby. It didn't realize that photos from my sister, both of them, of a new baby, and the hospital just prior, were more important, than a random "OH" via Twitter from Chris.

Facebook's filter failed me. While, yes, I could have clicked on each of my individual family members' profiles at any point over the prior 24 hours, or yes, I should maybe make a Family-only list and make sure to visit it regularly, I've so far trusted the network to do a good job at gauging relevancy. Yes, it's true that I interact more often with Jason Goldberg or Johnny Worthington on Facebook than I do with my own family, but in this case, the News Feed hid the only truly relevant thing that was going on this weekend, and we missed it.

I explain further in the below video:

"It is a complete joke how we interact with people on the computer right now," believes Brad Feld of the Foundry Group. With multiple devices and scads of Web services needed to consume information and engage with others on the Web effectively, Feld and other venture capitalists are looking for ways to fund the next generation of companies and products designed to leverage social connections, reducing information overload and enabling simpler collaboration in the enterprise. In a keynote panel at the Defrag conference last week, five venture capitalists explained how they thought they could help companies take advantage of social experiences that are being forged, which, if successful, could supplant the way we discover information today.

Today's Web is one that is largely search driven, leading to Google's position as both king and king maker. But Union Square Ventures VC and principal Fred Wilson said that much of the information we discover and the links we click on are coming through social experiences, instead of from search or navigation. Taking advantage of this activity woul be a logical extension for companies, and therefore, for VCs looking to enable it to happen.

Roger Ehrenberg of IA Capital Partners, whose fund is behind BlogTalkRadio, Mashery, TweetDeck, Bit.ly and many other services, said that despite advances, the Web continues to have a problem of finding relevant information, and identifying people who would be potential connections. Social leverage should enable you to tap into the knowledge of your peers to bring the information to you, at your own pace.

"It's an opt-in world, and you can let people in as they deliver information," Ehrenberg said. "When you look at all this information you are receiving, you need to build in filtering."

As I have often stated, I believe "there is no information overload", or at least, there can't be without your explicit permissions. Feld argued that the perception of information overload is due to individuals' approach to how they consume data, more so than an increase in total data.

"We are stuck with a rigid set of distribution models," Feld said. "You can be rigid or disciplined about one type of information, or you can let whatever comes at you come at you. The computer has to get a lot smarter about what to do with all that stuff, and it needs more adaptability. We are in an era over the next decade where there will be a fundamental shift."

Over the last 20 years, Fred Wilson has said he has already seen two major shifts in communication. In the 1980s, as he started in the venture capital business, events would lead to business cards, which led to hours on the phone chasing deals. The 90s brought e-mail and the ability to hit an estimated 10 times as many people. Blogging then let him reach more than 10,000 people a day, which he called "a different interaction model."

"I still see the deals I want to see and I can see better deals because of it," he said. "E-mail is a heavy interaction model, which is a lot of work, but a blog post is easy for me... I don't even use the phone any more."

Feld and Wilson have found ways to adapt to the changing dynamic to continue their efforts in business, but with so many others feeling an information onslaught, lacking proper filters to reduce the noise, this too sets up the potential for new solutions and new services.

"The biggest opportunity is the opportunity in the enterprise for social leverage," said Jim Tybur of Trinity Ventures, "There are tons of opportunities for that to permeate throughout business. There is a place where e-mail and social streams can coexist effectively."