15年前，互联网上出现了BBS，极少数人有条件使用，于是不仅出现了“两岸第四通”，而且仿佛世界人民连在了一起，地域隔离也变得越来越无关紧要。

15年后，互联网极度普及，烘托出一代网络新贵的同时，也反映出了不可避免的副作用。在互联网这个大社区里，原本那种亲邻一家人的感觉也因为各种各样的原因被稀释掉了。即使还有一些保持风气纯种的论坛幸存下来，也都逃不了强制性的自我封闭，难有长进。历史轮回，互联网成为绝大多数人都有能力接触的媒介，地域的隔离效果又开始发挥作用，只不过这次两者是相互配合，而且愈加默契。

作为群居动物的人类自然希望与同伴产生互动，不管是聊八卦、谈心、旅游、创造新事物等等都是为了能和这个社会相互影响，可以说，人与人、人与物之间的连接是天生具备的。

互联网的诞生为的就是服务我们更好地连接，但当连接的机会足够充分时，反而会使单位连接的质量下降，也就是说网上的朋友很多，而真正熟悉的只有那么几位。

结合网络的互联性与地域的隔离性，正好可以相互抑制，达到真正意义上的连接——线上连接+线下连接。

P.S. 一句话：我看好同城性质的互联网应用，也会主动去尝试。

推荐阅读：http://gist.github.com/raw/6443/e42b087468d67d1f2f7f341f2abe175ae74c0748

你应该知道，我很少把引用放到标题上，但今天，我这样做了。

A guy who just turned his 22 years old, is living his Cloud Life happily.

(海盗湾回应奥委会的封杀令，临时更名为北京湾 via Solidot)

随意和重视，这两个词根本谈不上对立，但使用不同的网络服务恰恰会产生这两种对立的使用态度。

比如Youtube和Vimeo，都是视频分享，但我会把表现生活瞬间的片段上传到Youtube，把精心编辑的短片上传到Vimeo。

比如Tumblr和WordPress，都是博客，但我在Tumblr上写的内容要比WordPress上随意得多，会把认为写得不错的文章优先发表到WordPress上。

比如Flickr和Smugmug，都是照片分享，但我会把手机上随意拍摄的照片传到Flickr，而传到Smugmug上的照片都是用数码相机拍摄并且认真编辑后的产物。

不过，这只是我个人的使用态度，肯定不能代表全部。我想说的是，网络服务的某些特性会影响一名用户的使用态度，不管是随意使用，还是非常重视，亦或在二者之间。

具体有哪些特性？比如Youtube的限时、低画质和主流，比如Vimeo的界面设计和高画质，比如Tumblr的使用便捷，比如Flickr的社区功能和主流，比如Smugmug的收费策略和售后服务。

给网络服务赋予不同的特性意味着圈定相应的用户群，而那圈定的用户群也一定拥有相似的使用态度，两者能够有效契合是网络服务得以生存的前提。不过，获得大众、主流的认可会使得原本契合的用户群渐进模糊，这是一个公司想做成主流服务必须的牺牲，也是那些提供相同服务的小众网站获得生存资格的原因。

因此可以说，进入大众视野与徘徊于小众范围的网站都有存在的理由，而只有了解自己的用户，通过打造不同的特性，服务好相应的用户群，才是他们得以前进的根本动力。

Twitter怎么读？读作“推特”呗……不，我想说的是我平时如何阅读Twitter上的tweets。

虽然我很久很久没有“推”了，不过你们的“推特”我是时常关注的，不过(两个不过……)是在FriendFeed的一个Room里。

凡是遇到喜欢或认同的tweets，我就Like，相当于你们的Retwittering(有人称它叫锐推)，想回复的可以直接Comment，非常方便。对了，这是我最近Like和Comment的内容。

1. The Vision/Mission Statement Test:
Does adding (insert feature X here) to your product fit with the overall mission statement of your company or service? At Mint, our mission is to help people understand and do more with their money. The vision is to improve the national savings rate. How well a feature does this either directly or by making some other part of the process easier is a major test. Users and engineers alike often get excited about metoo features like Facebook integration, and this is where they often die.

2. The Audience Test:
What market segment are you trying to reach? Who are your current users? Would a majority of those groups benefit from the feature? Adding a feature for 5 percent of your users that clutters and confuses the experience for the other 95 percent is not generally something you want to be doing. Be wary of vocal minorities.

3. The Scope Test:
Engineering and design resources are a scarcity at every company. Respect them. Understand the scope of what you’re doing, and if a single feature is going to hijack your team for months, be wary.

4. The Best Solution Test :
Customers are typically not designers. Neither for that matter are CEOs. Often they will find issues and suggest the most obvious ways to solve it, bypassing the problem description entirely. Don’t be afraid to ignore their solution. Understand the problem first and the users’ reasons for requesting it. Is there a better way? Perhaps something you can leverage in the product already?

5. The Revenue Test :
You need to make money somehow. Google Search has its monetization model aligned perfectly with its primary purpose: You visit Google.com to find something. Getting to that something may be sponsored, it may not be. Your click on a sponsored link is perfectly aligned with what you set out to do. Compare this to MySpace where you go to interact with friends but are assaulted by ad banners trying to divert you. As a user I prefer the former, meaning your revenue features should be aligned with the purpose of your product.

6. The Attraction/Retention Test:
Will the feature help you attract new customers? Are current customers going to bail out without it? If so, can you approximate how many? Don’t guess. Again, respect your engineering resources.

(via Found|Read)