[T_S_]

Thanks for mentioning Reed's Law. TIL.

According to that, the network value to an individual grows like 2^N - N - 1, which is the number of all possible subsets minus two obviously "useless" ones, The singletons (N) and the empty set (1). In the case of Facebook this seems to ignore plenty of other useless subsets, overestimating the value of the social network.

Simple example. Think about 2 of my friends that don't like each other. I would be better off with two networks, one for each. Every division I can think of leads to a new circle, so the value of a network offering circles grows more like C (2^(N-C)). This looks like its smaller than Reed's Law, (more circles even makes it look worse!) but is actually more achievable. My Facebook network value is really more like 2^("max number of friends with no issues"). In the worst case this leas you to a network value of N^2 which is well-served by email.

I'm sure somebody has thought of a more refined analysis.

[corin_]

Perhaps you should have read the article. (The second paragraph of page 1 was entirely about Reed's Law.)

[onemoreact]

Reed's Law ignores the relative weight people place on connections. Concider most americans there is little difference between everyone in india joining Google+ and nobody in india joining Google+. Having your dentist on Google+ might be helpful but it's hardly on the same scale as your wife.

[kjames]

Which raises an interesting and valid point; I believe many people are confusing VALUE for WORTH, whereas worth is self-determined.