Why Facebook can't match Ravelry, the social network for knitters.

The article hit the nail on the head - this community was built from within, by people who know and love their craft.<p>It's hard to see a similar thing becoming a more "general" community - reputation is a strongly guarded thing in these tighter-knit communities (woe betide you if you rip someone off on a pattern or steal money/etc. from other knitters, or don't come through on a swap).<p>Also it's a great way to get involved in the indie craft scene. Crafting materials can be hard to acquire, especially good quality and variety of fibres and yarns, so it's great to be able to go to the source of indie dyers and spinners to get hand-made and custom work done. I know of several indie dyers who would not exist if it hadn't been for Ravelry. Anyone can have an immediate audience for their related goods and services, and there is a great appreciation for quality work (whether it is dying, spinning, or pattern-designing). This sort of immediately accessible feedback is really good for community building.<p>I don't think it'd be a good idea for all communities to copy Ravelry piece for piece, since it's such a contextual site, but you can certainly think of Ravelry as a case study for an excellent design and response to user needs.

Ravelry is a fantastic social network. It has a load of innovations worth copying. Two examples:<p>- On Rav anyone can create a new discussion forum, and the creators are responsible for moderating it. It allows the community to continue to grow and embrace a wider range of people who could not otherwise coexist.<p>- Rav has a like button for ages. It also have agree, love, and disagree, IIRC. Disagree might be mistake. It generates quite a bit of heat. If you've ever had your HN posts downvoted without comment you'll know how annoying it is.<p>It's worth signing up even if you don't knit just to check out the tech.

So we have a popular social website, 1.4 million registered users, huge amounts of content, innovative discussion and a fanatical userbase, and it's all been coded and maintained by one person? Awesome!

The title of the article is misleading because it ignores fundamental differences between online communities and online social networks in the sense of Facebook, Myspace, etc.<p>While Facebook may have areas in which digital communities form, it is a constructed primarily to facilitate and track communications between people with existing real world relationships - for users it is ateleological. On the other hand, Ravelry has a sense of purpose - better knitting - which creates an overall community.<p>People on sites like Ravelry interact extensively and willingly with people they only know and often meet online because they are members of the same digital community. This is generally not the case with Facebook <i>et al.</i> where interactions are largely between people who have met face to face at some point. This means that Ravelry's social graph is constructed digitally on the site - unlike Facebook, for online communities where one went to junior high school is far more difficult to determine and there's no reason for your mom to join unless she is interested in knitting.

<i>"Casey says that hobbyists of all stripes are constantly asking the company to branch out into other domains. The couple refuses to do that, in part because they don't have the resources (Ravelry makes enough money for them to live on, but not enough to hire a second full-time software engineer), but also because they believe that cloning Ravelry wouldn't work. Instead, they say, each pastime should have a social site that's built carefully to meet the needs of that group, and it should be built by people who are active participants in that group"</i><p>I found this really interesting since StackExchange took the opposite view and raised a ton of cash. OK, it's not quite a social network but they did take something that was wildly successful in one domain (Q&#38;A for programmers) and try to apply the format to other areas. I'm inclined to think that Ravelry's approach <i>could</i> be applied to other areas (e.g cooking) but it's their choice.

If you have the slightest interest in online communities and social networking I strongly recommend that you sign-up for a Ravelry account and see what the fuss is about. It's truly inspiring how well-designed the community is with its knitting specific features and fun interface. If more communities took the Ravelry approach to social networking Facebook wouldn't have a chance.

My girlfriend has been active on Ravelry for some time, and we actually had dinner with a charming family that she met via Ravelry.<p>They actually hauled an antique spinning wheel across the country for her, made us some italian chicken, and regaled us with tales of revolutionary war re-enactment over dinner. utterly fascinating folk, generous and warm and welcoming. my girlfriend is now building a business around yarn, knitting and spinning, and ravelry is, and will be, instrumental to her growth.<p>it's one of the most impressive community/social network projects i've EVER seen.

So Facebook has a big graph(on school peers and acquaintances.) Not too interesting, and even becoming a burden. Niches will grow in this next phase of interaction. The web is still so young.

My mom doesn't get Facebook or Twitter, but she keeps telling me to go to Ravelry to see the pictures she posts of a new scarf. If knitting is your thing, the site is horrible addictive.

Similarly, Goodreads is a targeted social network for readers. As well as letting me keep up with what friends are reading, it provides features like keeping track of books, reviews, etc. I have not seen the kind of development of community on the site that is described happening on Revelry though.

I wonder who made the acquisition offer?