社交网站_外文翻译

社交网站我们定义的社交网络站点作为基于Web的服务，允许个人：（1）有界系统内构建一个公共或半公共的配置文件。

（2）阐明列表中的其他用户，与他们共享一个连接。

（3）查看和遍历他们的名单和那些由其他系统内的连接。

性质和命名这些连接可能会有所不同，从站点到站点。

虽然我们使用的术语―社交网站‖来形容这种现象，―社交网站‖也出现在公共话语中，经常交替使用这两个术语。

我们选择不采用―联网‖的原因有两个：重点和范围。

―物联网‖强调关系启动，往往陌生人之间。

虽然网络是可能在这些网站上，它是不是主要的做法，他们中的许多，也不是有什么区别他们从其他形式的计算机中介传播（CMC）。

是什么让独特的社交网站并不是说他们允许个人见陌生人，而是他们让使用者能够表达，使人们看到他们的社交网络。

这可能会导致个人之间的连接，否则不会进行，但往往不是我们的目标，而这些会议之间―的潜在关系‖（Haythornthwaite，2005年）谁分享一些脱机连接频繁。

许多大型SNS网站，参与者不一定―网络‖或寻找，以满足新的人，相反，它们是人谁已经扩展社交网络的一部分，他们的主要沟通。

为了强调这一点明确的社会网络，这些网站作为一个重要的组织特征，我们将它们标记―社交网站‖。

虽然SNS网站已经实施了各种各样的技术特点，他们的骨干组成可见型材显示铰接式的Friends1谁也系统的用户列表。

配置文件是独特的网页，人们可以―输入自己的应运而生‖（松登，2003年，第3页）。

在加入一个SNS，一个人被要求填写表格，包含了一系列的问题。

回答这些问题，这些问题通常包括描述符，如年龄，位置，兴趣，和一个―关于我‖一节使用该配置文件。

大多数网站还鼓励用户上传的个人资料照片。

有些网站允许用户添加多媒体内容，或修改他们的个人资料的外观和感觉，以提高他们的档案。

其他，如Faceboo k，允许用户添加模块（―应用程序‖），提高他们的个人资料。

在一个档案中的知名度不同的网站，并根据用户的自由裁量权。

默认情况下，型材Fri endster和被搜索引擎抓取，使他们的人看到，无论是否观众有一个帐户。

另外，Li nkedIn的控制的基础上，他或她是否有付费帐户，观众可能会看到什么。

像MySpace允许用户来选择他们是否希望他们的个人资料，以成为公众或―朋友只。

‖Facebook的一个不同的方法默认情况下，谁是在相同的―网络‖的一部分用户可以查看对方的轮廓，除非一个轮廓所有者已决定拒绝那些在其网络的权限。

结构变化的可视性和访问社交网站区别于对方的主要方式之一。

加入一个社交网络站点后，会提示用户识别系统与他们有关系的人在。

这些关系的不同而有所不同的标签对网站热门词汇，包括―朋友‖，―联系人‖和―粉丝‖，大多数SNS网站需要双向确认的友谊，但有些则没有。

这些单向的关系有时会标示为―粉丝‖或―关注‖，但许多网站称这些朋友。

―朋友‖一词是误导，因为连接并不一定意味着在日常白话感的友谊，人们连接的原因是多种多样的（博伊德，2006A）。

公共显示器的连接是SNS网站的重要组成部分。

好友列表中包含链接到每个朋友的个人资料，使观众通过点击好友列表遍历网络图。

在大多数网站，好友列表是可见的人谁被允许查看配置文件，但也有例外。

例如，一些MySpace的用户已经破解隐藏好友显示他们的个人资料，LinkedIn允许用户选择退出显示其网络。

大多数SNS网站还提供了一种机制，用户朋友的个人资料上留下消息。

此功能通常涉及离开―的评论，‖虽然网站使用此功能的各种标签。

此外，SNS网站往往有一个私人消息功能类似的webmail。

虽然私人消息和评论上流行的主要SNS网站，他们尚未普及。

并非所有的社交网络网站等开始。

QQ作为中国的即时通讯服务，LunarStorm开始作为一个社区网站，赛我网作为韩国的讨论区工具，以及环讯（原Skyblog）的加入SNS功能，是法国前博客服务。

，学校联营公司在1995年推出的一个目录，开始支持SNS网站走红后，铰接式好友列表。

在2005-2006年与SNS的功能和结构，然后再重新启动，MiGente AsianAvenue，BlackPlanet早期流行的民族社区网站与好友的功能有限。

虽然SNS网站的设计通常是普及，许多吸引同质人群最初，因此它并不少见找到组使用网站分开自己的国籍，年龄，教育程度，或其他因素，通常段的社会（Hargittai，这个问题）即使那是在没有设计师的意图。

字的口碑策略有吸引力，因为他们结合消费者克服阻力显着降低成本和快速的交付，尤其是通过技术，如互联网的前景。

不幸的是，目前scantr egarding经验证据的相对有效性口碑营销提高企业绩效随着时间的推移。

这就提出了一个需要研究企业如何测量WOM通信和口碑如何与其他形式的营销传播效果。

字的口碑营销是互联网上的一个特别突出的特点。

互联网为消费者提供了大量的场地，分享自己的观点，喜好，或与别人的经验，以及公司利用口碑营销的机会。

正如一位评论家指出，―折腾了数百万美元的超级碗广告，而不是初出茅庐的dot-com公司正试图通过吸引注意力的营销策略，如博客和[口碑]运动‖（2006年，惠特曼B3A页）便宜得多。

因此，重要的是要了解是否口碑才是真正有效的，如果是这样，如何与传统营销活动的影响比较。

万维网发展最快的舞台之一是所谓的社交网站的空间。

社交网站通常由一小群发送了邀请函，以自己的个人网络的成员加入该网站的创始人发起的。

反过来，新的成员发送邀请到他们的网络，等等。

因此，邀请函（即口碑推荐）网站获得新的成员一直是最重要的推动力。

随着社交网站的成熟，他们可能会开始增加他们的传统营销工具的使用。

因此，在这个阶段，管理层可能会开始质疑口碑的相对有效性。

本研究的目的是开发和估计一个模型，捕捉新成员收购，口碑转介，与传统营销活动之间的动态关系。

在这样做，我们提供一些贡献。

首先，我们之间的第一次直接观察到的口碑链接吸纳新客户。

其次，我们将展示如何配装有口碑与传统营销的措施（例如，增加口碑营销行动的活动，这反过来又增加了新的成员收购）的直接影响和间接影响。

我们经验证明，我们的数据集，新加入的会员UPS，这些营销变量之间的内生性。

这突出表明，需要考虑到这些间接影响口碑与传统营销的效果，以避免偏估计。

第三，我们量化和对比口碑和传统的营销行动，立即和长期弹性。

特别是，我们结转效果强的口碑在我们的数据文件。

最后，我们估计货币价值附加到每个口碑推荐，提供一个上限的财政奖励管理可能会考虑提供口碑推荐。

事实上，这种做法的播种或刺激口碑已迅速增长，但这一活动的有效性仍然很难量化（例如，戈德斯和Mayzlin 2004的）。

我们本文的其余部分组织如下：首先，我们总结前人的研究，以帮助的角度，把我们的贡献。

然后，我们描述我们的建模方法。

接下来，我们提出了我们的实证分析的数据合作的互联网社交网站，并提供理论和管理者的影响。

特别是，我们发现，口碑推荐强烈影响收购新客户，并具有比传统的营销形式由该公司与3至7天（21天）显着较长的结转。

我们估计口碑的长期弹性为0.53-约20-30倍，高于传统营销的弹性。

Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarshipdanah m. boyd, Nicole B. EllisonJournal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 13, Issue 1, pages 210–230, October 2007Social Network Sites: DefinitionWe define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.While we use the term ―social network site‖ to describe this phenomenon, the term ―social networking sites‖ also appears in public discourse, and the two terms are often used interchangeably. We chose not to employ the term ―networking‖ for two reasons: emphasis and scope. ―Networking‖ emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers. While networking is possible on these sites, it is not the primary practice on many of them, nor is it what differentiates them from other forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC).What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks. This can result in connections between individuals that would not otherwise be made, but that is often not the goal, and these meetings are frequently between ―latent ties‖ (Haythornthwaite, 2005) who share some offline connection. On many of the large SNSs, participants are not necessarily ―networking‖ or looking to meet new people; instead, they are primarily communicating with people who are already a part of their extended social network. To emphasize this articulated social network as a critical organizing feature of these sites, we label them ―social network sites.‖While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of technical features, their backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of Friends1 who are also users of the system. Profiles are unique pages where one can ―type oneself into being‖ (Sundén, 2003, p. 3). After joining an SNS, an individual is asked to fill out forms containing a series of questions. The profile is generated using the answers to these questions, which typically include descriptors such as age,locat ion, interests, and an ―about me‖ section. Most sites also encourage users to upload a profile photo. Some sites allow users to enhance their profiles by adding multimedia content or modifying their profile’s look and feel. Others, such as Facebook, allow users to add modules (―Applications‖) that enhance their profile.The visibility of a profile varies by site and according to user discretion. By default, profiles on Friendster and are crawled by search engines, making them visible to anyone, regardless of whether or not the viewer has an account. Alternatively, LinkedIn controls what a viewer may see based on whether she or he has a paid account. Sites like MySpace allow users to choose whether they want their profile to be public or ―Friends only.‖ Facebook takes a different approach—by default, users who are part of the same ―network‖ can view each other’s profiles, unless a profile owner has decided to deny permission to those in their network. Structural variations around visibility and access are one of the primary ways that SNSs differentiate themselves from each other.After joining a social network site, users are prompted to identify others in the system with whom they have a relationship. The label for these relationships differs depending on the site—popular terms include ―Friends,‖―Contacts,‖ and ―Fans.‖ Most SNSs require bi-directional confirmation for Friendship, but some do not. These one-directional ties are sometimes labeled as ―Fans‖ or ―Followers,‖ but many sites call these Friends as well. The term ―Friends‖ can be misleading, because the connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense, and the reasons people connect are varied (boyd, 2006a).The public display of connections is a crucial component of SNSs. The Friends list contains links to each Friend’s profile, enabling viewers to traverse the network graph by clicking through the Friends lists. On most sites, the list of Friends is visible to anyone who is permitted to view the profile, although there are exceptions. For instance, some MySpace users have hacked their profiles to hide the Friends display, and LinkedIn allows users to opt out of displaying their network.Most SNSs also provide a mechanism for users to leave messages on their Frien ds’ profiles. This feature typically involves leaving ―comments,‖ although sites employ various labels for this feature. In addition, SNSs often have a private messaging feature similar to webmail. While both private messages and comments are popular on most of the major SNSs, they are not universally available.Not all social network sites began as such. QQ started as a Chinese instant messaging service, LunarStorm as a community site, Cyworld as a Korean discussion forum tool, and Skyrock (formerly Skyblog) was a French blogging service before adding SNS features. , a directory of school affiliates launched in 1995, began supporting articulated lists of Friends after SNSs became popular. AsianAvenue, MiGente, and BlackPlanet were early popular ethniccommunity sites with limited Friends functionality before re-launching in 2005–2006 with SNS features and structure.While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homogeneous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typically segment society (Hargittai, this issue), even if that was not the intention of the designers.Word-of-mouth communication strategies are appealing because they combine the prospect of overcoming consumer resistance with significantly lower costs and fast delivery—especially through technology, such as the Internet. Unfortunately, empirical evidence is currently scantregarding the relative effectiveness of WOM marketing in increasing firm performance over time. This raises the need to study how firms can measure the effects of WOM communications and how WOM compares with other forms of marketing communication.Word-of-mouth marketing is a particularly prominent feature on the Internet. The Internet provides numerous venues for consumers to share their views, preferences, or experiences with others, as well as opportunities for firms to take advantage of WOM marketing. As one commentator stated, ―Instead of tossing away millions of dollars on Superbowl advertisements, fledgling dot-com companies are trying to catch attention through much cheaper marketing strategies such as blogging and [WOM] campaigns‖ (Whitman 2006, p. B3A). Thus, it is importa nt to understand whether WOM is truly effective and, if so, how its impact compares with traditional marketing activities.One of the fastest-growing arenas of the World Wide Web is the space of so-called social networking sites. A social networking site is typically initiated by a small group of founders who send out invitations to join the site to the members of their own personal networks. In turn, new members send invitations to their networks, and so on.Thus, invitations (i.e., WOM referrals) have been the foremost driving force for sites to acquire new members. As social networking sites mature, they may begin to increase their use of traditional marketing tools. Therefore, management may begin to question the relative effectiveness of WOM at this stage.The objective of this research is to develop and estimate a model that captures the dynamic relationships among new member acquisition, WOM referrals, and traditional marketing activities. In doing so, we offer several contributions.First, we are among the first to link observed WOM directlyto new customer acquisition. Second, we show how toincorporate both the direct effects and the indirect effects of WOM and traditional marketing actions (e.g., a marketing action increases WOM activity, which in turn increases new member acquisition). We empirically demonstrate, forour data set, the endogeneity among new member sign-ups and these marketing variables. This highlights the need to account for these indirect effects to avoid biased estimates for both WOM and traditional marketing effects. Third, we quantify and contrast the immediate and long-term elasticities of WOM and traditional marketing actions. In particular, we document strong carryover effects for WOM in our data. Finally, we attach an estimated monetary value to each WOM referral, providing an upper bound to the financial incentive management might consider offering for WOM referrals. Indeed, the practice of seeding or stimulating WOM has grown rapidly, but quantifying the effectiveness of this activity remains difficult (e.g., Godes and Mayzlin 2004).We organize the remainder of this article as follows: We begin by summarizing previous research to help put our contributions in perspective. We then describe our modeling approach. Next, we present our empirical analysis of the data from a collaborating Internet social networking site and offer implications for theory and managers. In particular, we find that WOM referrals strongly affect new customer acquisitions and have significantly longer carryover than traditional forms of marketing used by the firm (21 days versus 3 to 7 days). We estimate a long-term elasticity for WOM of .53—approximately 20–30 times higher than the elasticities for traditional marketing.。