Charlie Park [10.02.07 06:37 AM]

I know you know this, Tim, but I wanted to note a difference between the graphic and your description of the graphic. It's subtle, but it could confuse casual observers. Your title referenced "how Facebook users spend their *time*" ... but the core function of the graphic is showing which areas within Facebook have users using them. For example, the two largest (and almost equally-sized) circles show times of just over 1 minute vs. 4.25 minutes (~305% different), yet their size is cued off of the unique visitors (~5% different).

It's not a big deal, and not even really worth changing your copy (you're right, that it is *where* they're spending their time; it's just not *how much* of their time they're spending). A graphic showing the time disparity would be useful.

Sorry for picking nits. I agree, that it is an interesting graphic, and interesting data behind it. Thanks for pointing it out.

  Thomas Lord [10.02.07 09:19 AM]

How does this data benefit Facebook's users? How did this come to be the conversation?

The problem: this data says nothing about user desires. It says nothing about what users hope to or think they are accomplishing by using Facebook. It says nothing about how the service succeeds or fails as a tool for users. Rather, this is data about the stimulus-response behavior of a mob.

Sometimes users very clearly benefit from being surveilled as a stimulus-response mob. For example, an architect designing a plaza may study the mob to make sure that traffic passing through and traffic lingering can happily co-exist.

Sometimes users are very clearly harmed by such surveillance. For example, a shelf planner might decide to put brightly colored candy products at child-eye level in a grocery store.

What is being optimized for when social networking sites use this kind of data? It would seem to be how to stimulate the mob so as to maximize opportunities for ad exposures or transactions, while also segregating the community into accurate targets for various kinds of ads.

So if you want to say that this data helps users, I think you need to argue that users really desire to have their social interactions monitored in order that they may be better targetted by advertisors. If you put the survey question that directly to a focus group of possible users, I bet you know what the answer would be.

You could, instead try to argue that this data gives indirect insight into the quality of features of the service. For example, "applications" are taking off -- doesn't that mean user's are finding them useful? I would say no, based on the number interviews with teenagers I saw, when MySpace was all the rage, with those teens reporting that the growing popularity of MySpace had (then) made participation essentially mandatory within some social circles (basically because the more popular kids insisted on it).

It's a little bit different when, for example, a software vendor who sells copies of code measures sales. The vendor adds feature X and sales go up, etc. The difference there is that customers are knowingly engaging in trade -- parting with cash, getting a product. Here in the social graphing space, though, customers are unknowingly giving time and personal data to the vendor who deceitfully de-emphasizes that aspect of their service ("It's free! Please click here to indicate you've read the terms of service.")

Here is a thought experiment: suppose that every Facebook page had prominant display at the top that said "Note: We monitor the amount of time you spend here and what you click on in order to decide how to modify our service. Our trading partners reward us for getting you to stay longer, click on more, and tell us as much as we can about yourself."

I wonder what that would do for the numbers?

(Credit: I realize as I finish this that I'm partly riffing on E. Dyson's idea that terms of service should come with a quiz instead of checkbox. Not "did you read this?" but "prove you read and understood this.")

The more these companies come to have to explain to users exactly what is going on, in ways that customers clearly understand, the less promising current models are going to look.

-t

  Bruce [11.01.07 11:55 PM]

The number is great. It helps me make a valuation of facebook. Good basis for starting the analysis on my own. Thanks Tim.

  Noneq Kehaian [12.06.07 02:29 PM]

This is a good graph but I think the most reliable data are the time spent on each activity. Because the more the activity interests people, the more time they will spend with it. But at that point we should remember one thing about the applications. Lots of users are firstly interacting with the applications by the advice mail of their friends and while application users are wanted to suggest it to their friends, all friends are checked in default. I mean, the time for applications may not be so long if everyone were supposed to find the applications by himself.

  Caglar kaya [12.23.07 02:11 AM]

This is a good graph which shows us how much time

we waste in facebook. İn fact we have enough time

to work hard for our countries. But we prefer

to waste it in facebook. Thank you for warning us!

  videos [01.20.08 01:51 AM]

It's not a big deal, and not even really worth changing your copy (you're right, that it is *where* they're spending their time; it's just not *how much* of their time they're spending). A graphic showing the time disparity would be useful.

  sƒ±nƒ±f dizisi [01.25.08 10:57 AM]

The number is great. It helps me make a valuation of facebook. Good basis for starting the analysis on my own. Thanks Tim.

  Tom M [02.13.08 04:22 PM]

This is interesting information. My understanding is that it is similar to what MySpace went through. However, I am a bit shocked that so little time is spent adding friends. I thought that would be the biggest circle.

  Tech [02.15.08 12:19 PM]

I mean, the time for applications may not be so long if everyone were supposed to find the applications by himself.

  Sport Lover [02.16.08 08:44 AM]

So, most Facebook user look into profiles and pictures....

Is there any way to utilize this?

perhaps the most obvious way is to put advertisement into our profile and pictures

  Maxleitch [03.30.08 08:46 AM]

(you're right, that it is *where* they're spending their time; it's just not *how much* of their time they're spending). A graphic showing the time disparity would be useful.

  jena [07.07.08 01:11 AM]

This is a acceptable blueprint but I anticipate the a lot of reliable abstracts are the time spent on anniversary activity. Because the added the action interests people, the added time they will absorb with it. But at that point we should bethink one affair about the applications. Lots of users are firstly interacting with the applications by the admonition mail of their accompany and while appliance users are capital to advance it to their friends, all accompany are arrested in default. I mean, the time for applications may not be so continued if anybody were declared to acquisition the applications by himself.

  andy wood [08.02.08 09:50 AM]

It is always interesting and can be quite helpful to understand what people are doing on facebook. We use facebook a lot for advertising so understanding trends helps.

  AG [12.15.08 01:38 PM]

Was there any information from this study that explains how much time users spent on modifying their profile (pictures, relationship status, etc?)?