October 06, 2004

Me and 100 of my closest friends

Posted at October 6, 2004 03:42 PM in Instant Messaging .

I found an interesting article the other day about IM and IM viruses/worms. The article itself wasn't interesting for the technical discussion about the worms, but rather for the facts it had about people's buddy lists and social habits. You can view the original article if you wish, Super-connected users could aid IM worms.

The virus throttling technology works by limiting the number of IM messages infected IM users can send outside their "working set," the small number of regular correspondents each IM user has. The technology is effective because even highly connected IM users with 100 or more IM "buddies," still have a small working set of buddies they talk to each day -- typically around five, with two messages sent outside the working set each day, Williamson said.

I know people who have buddy lists with the maximum 200 allowed by AOL, and have to go find someone to delete in order to add someone new. One time I witnessed someone doing this, and when they deleted a few people from their list, I asked, "Who are they?" to which my friend replied, "I don't even know anymore." Good thing that you have them on your buddy list so you can talk to them frequently! It'd be a shame for you to fall out of touch.

The article has a point--that keeping huge buddy lists makes it a lot easier for viruses and worms to spread by giving them huge target lists, but I think the underlying social aspect is far more interesting. Why maintain a long list of 200 people when you only talk to a handfull? Perhaps there is some underyling need to feel wanted, and having a list full of people makes us feel connected and loved? I have the feeling that this same behavior is found elsewhere, too, like in address books and cell phone contact lists too.

Don't get me wrong, I have a long list and I don't talk to many of them very regularly, or at all, but I just haven't "gotten around to" deleting them yet. You know, keeping them around just in case. ;) So, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to chatting with 100 of my closest friends.

Comments

Why maintain a long list of 200 people when you only talk to a handfull?

I have the maximum number of buddies on my list, but not because I talk to them all. How often should I look at my list and say, "Hmm, who haven't I talked to in a week?" I keep 'em around unless I have to take them off, not because I think I might talk to them again, but because it doesn't matter.

Posted by Tom at October 6, 2004 06:00 PM

Becuause of being a supper-buddy I would have a long list, but if I don't talk to the person in a couple weeks of them signing up, they go away. If I carry on a good coversation the are put into my "do not delete" list also known as "friends" :)

I like a short list, makes it easier to find those I do talk to.

Posted by he_the_great at October 6, 2004 06:19 PM

i cant say i have the biggest list of people..but its decent. i dont talk to 95% of people on a regular basisis, but if i ever need to talk to any of those 95% of people, i know i can.

anyway, i always add people, a month later i have no idea who they are and have never talked to them - i delete them.

people that i use to talk with on a daily basis that for some reason dissapear - i keep them in hopes of them one day returning (happens all the time, dissapear for 6 months and reappear with interesting stories :P)

Posted by Sonic_Molson at October 6, 2004 07:02 PM

I really don't understand the phenominon and I agree in the belief that it's an esteem issue where people desire vindication of being wanted, important, or desirable.

If you don't talk to people, there's little reason to have them on your list other than to ogle at it's sheer size.

Posted by EvaUnit02 at October 7, 2004 06:37 AM

As always, social habits are as varied as the colors of the sky... always interesting to see other perspectives! :)

Posted by Kevin at October 9, 2004 10:17 PM
Posting of new comments has been disabled for this post.