Orkut Needs Clear Migration Path to Google+ 09/06/2011
 For at least three years now the status on my Orkut profile has been a message in Portuguese stating that Facebook is far better than Orkut. As bad as the user experience is on Orkut, I'm surprised it's hung on as long as it has, essentially outliving MySpace despite virtually no visible development work to improve it or add functionality. The reason my status was in Portuguese was simply that the only contacts I have there are all Brazilian. Orkut, virtually unknown among Americans, has been the social network of choice for Brazilians for a few years. It would seem that is now changing.  According to recent numbers, Facebook now exceeds Orkut in total number of users in Brazil. Facebook has around 30 million users there, more than Orkut's 27 million. Click here for a translation of an article on these statistics. Personally, I've observed this shift taking place over the past year or so as Brazilian family members and friends have created profiles and friended me. It makes my life a little easier, consolidating all of my contacts into one location. This brings me to the suggestion in the title of this post. Google still wants to compete in the social networking arena, as evidenced by the creation of Google+. Orkut, a Google property, is visibly in decline. It seems only natural that Google should create a simple, prominently-displayed (on Orkut) migration tool from Orkut to Google+. Even better...let people who migrate keep their non-migrated Orkut friends, and vice versa. As Google+ improves (hopefully) and Orkut continues to be the static mess it has been for years, users will make the reasonable choice and shift over to greener pastures, staying in the Google fold at the same time. After all, I really believe the only reason Orkut held on as long as it did was because Brazilian users already had all of their friends there and were accustomed to the interface. If now they are beginning to weary of Orkut, how much easier would it be to stay where their friends are bug obtain a better experience? Just a thought. I'll be very interested to see what happens with Orkut, Google+ and Facebook over the coming months. UPDATE: There's now an option to share Orkut albums on Google+! It's not much, but it's a good first step. 9/30/2011  Add Comment A few months ago I saw a link to a blog post entitled "How Facebook Killed the Church." As a Christian and former missionary who works and plays (one might even say frolics) on a daily basis in social media, the title seemed seemed so preposterous that I assumed it was merely bate for a different type of article. So I didn't bother clicking through. Over the course of the following weeks I noticed others commenting on and responding to the original post, so I decided to take a look. It was a shock to see something so far our of touch with the reality I experience on a daily basis presented as fact. Still, I opted not to say anything. In the past couple of weeks, though, I've been reminded on several occasions of how beneficial Facebook and other online social networks to me personally and in my journey of faith with other believers. So, here's how I see social media in general, and Facebook in particular, helping the church.
First, it's inaccurate for me to say that social media "helps" the church. Facebook, for example, isn't interested in promoting one particular religious view, philosophy or ideology (other than young Mr. Zuckerberg's affirmation that "Facebook is about sharing"). Social media provides a handy tool for the church to connect like-minded believers, promote mission and social ministry projects and share teachings. Best of all, no "web deacon" is necessarily needed to make all this happen. It really annoys me when I poke around looking for a particular congregation's website, only to find that it doesn't have one, or it does but the last time it was updated was sometime in 1998. If I exaggerate, it isn't by much. The situation for church websites, aside from the mega-churches, is pretty sad. The trouble often seems to be that either the older, technophobic leadership of the church doesn't understand the value and need for a solid, dynamic online presence, or else someone volunteers to set up the website, then moves on and doesn't leave the "keys" for another person to continue maintaining the site. Often it appears that having a website is set as an objective, like making sure there's a listing in the yellow pages (remember those?), and then people say, "There, all done" and leave it alone for another year or more. Facebook and other social media have removed these obstacles to a church having a lively online presence. Where it isn't a very good idea for someone to set up a website in a church's name without that church's permission, anyone can set up a "fan page" on Facebook and start posting about events and activities. People can "like" the church and receive the updates in their own feeds. Depending on how the page is set up, people can post their own info about the church to the fan page's wall. There is something very liberating and empowering about social media for people, and it is providing a great means for the "average member" to help the church have a presence on the web. Second, young people are constantly online. Heck, I'm not that young and I'm online all the time via my desktop, laptop or Blackberry. All the time. This makes for a very good, direct means for members of church youth groups and campus ministry's to stay in touch. When I was attempting to organize a youth ministry with the Brazilian Church of Christ in Newark, NJ, Facebook was my primary tool for connecting with the youth of the church and their friends. Beyond the church's fan page we had an event set up for the first meeting (it failed to come together for other reasons). Not long ago some of those same young people from my former church were baptized. My family made a point of being there to witness the baptisms. We took pictures and subsequently posted them to Facebook. The kids shared the pictures with their friends and commented. 10 years ago the only way those pictures and word of their decision would have circulated would have been word of mouth and possibly e-mail, since the church has no one in current membership who's tech-savvy enough to maintain a webpage and post the pictures there. Social media made it easy. Third, as I've already indicated (but perhaps haven't yet said out-right), social media strengthens connections between church members. Before my family officially "placed membership" with our present church we were already connecting to people there through Facebook. We saw one another's mundane, day-to-day comments as well as struggles with challenges that arise. We share pictures, celebrate births and new births (baptisms) and mourn with those who lose family members. While the church sends out prayer requests regularly via e-mail, I often get word faster on Facebook. Fourth, mission cooperation and unity is enabled via Facebook. I'm a "fan" of several ministries and missions, and when they post updates I share them with my friends. Anyone who is on my friend list who hasn't hidden my feed will likely see what I've passed along. Word gets out. The fact that the missions I follow on Facebook (and Twitter) primarily represent different branches of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement means that people from these distinct groupings have a window, through what I share, into what's happening in other parts of the movement. One practical example of the power of social media in getting the word out about a mission project is "Dump Day." This is a day, once a year, that Trey Morgan uses to raise money for the feeding program at a dump in Honduras. Rather than depend on letters to other churches and real world word-of-mouth, blogs, Facebook and Twitter are employed by everyone interested in spreading the news and focusing on raising funds on that day. This year the tally at the end was more than any had imagined, and I believe our heightened ability to communicate without regard to geographical and other restrictions was a major factor in making this happen. Fifth, please don't say silly things about something "killing" the church. It seems like there's always someone looking to criticize what some Christians aren't doing. That doesn't mean that we're all out of touch. Everything I've written here comes from direct, personal experience of how Facebook and other social media have served the church well. I could have written more, but I doubt anyone will even read this post all the way through, given how long it already has become. The church belongs to the Lord Jesus and is empowered by the Spirit. She messes up and falls short, but the bridegroom is taking care of her and won't let her ultimately fail in the mission of God. The Web 2.0 world is also God's, and it doesn't overwhelm Him. | 
Adam Gonnerman - Former missionary, ESL teacher, customer service rep, social media manager and web producer; currently employed as a project manager in New York and volunteering through HOPE worldwide.
Follow Igneous Quill: 
 
 
   |
RSS Feed