1.I think I might already be there. There are many things I joined and let languish. Now I have my blog and other PR blogs, which I consider a network, LinkedIn, Second Life, Flickr, MySpace and now Twitter, the new one on the list. I can't say I do any of these, save my blog and Twitter (for now) on a daily basis. I haven't even joined one that addresses my personal/non-professional interests. I am too tired.

2.Good thoughts and question. I think the affinity-based social networks will look like Forum 2.0. There are already message boards and mailing lists for every conceivable interest and hobby. We're not seeing people heavily participate in more than 2 or 3 forums (even the heavy forum enthusiasts).

And whats to stop the forums from becoming more social? Not much. Forum software can easily adapt and evolve to incoporate more Web 2.0 dynamics and features. Social networks based on an affinity will have to compete with existing forums, and it will be a challenge for them.

What will thrive however, are social networks based on actual offline communities and networks. Facebook for college students, LinkedIN for professionals. I may enjoy a discussion with other hybrid car owners that I've never met in real life, but I don't really need to network with them.

Of course, all this is my opinion... and I have a biased one. I believe church communities fit well into the dynamics of a social network.

3.Thanks, Joe, for your thoughts. Members of churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions are a natural for social networks. Since they already know one another through their affiliation with a local institution and are already committed to their involvement, the social network becomes an extensio of their existing relationships more than a channel for creating new ones. Thanks for introducing me to your effort!

4.Shel:

You hit it on the head with this one. I think it will eventually get to be "too much" as more and more networks build.

I think the networks that are established will thrive in the sense that subsets of those networks will grow. For example, the hybrid owners group from Toyota may not work while a hybrid discussion group or group within MySpace will continue to thrive. I am more likely to participate in groups on Google for numerous topics than I am for a separate "network" for each different topic.

I liken it to a physical location. I will go to a restaurant with a group of people and have a conversation about numerous different topics. I won't go to separate restaurants to talk about specific topics, limited to that location.

Just my $.02. You raise an excellent point of "when is it too much?"

5.I think obviously the answer is "not that many", but in particular I am convinced corporate-driven communities are bound to fail.
It is a fact of life that people's allegiance to a club, or association rises and ebbs with time - why should the online world be different?
But I think the strongest allegiances are the one we pick for ourselves out of our genuine interest as opposed to the ones "induced" by corporates.

But the (good?) news is that there's plenty of online spontaneous communities already, if we can stick our creaky little necks out and look beyond blogs, today's fad: the Usenet is much older than blogs, but also much, much older than the web, and it has always been about people trading to each other the only currencies that really matter to social communities: Information, Attention and Support

6.I find the breaking point to be 3. Today, I maintain two intranet blogs and then 1/3 LinkedIn, 1/3 Wordpress, and 1/3 del.icio.us.

I haven't ever tried Twitter cuz I'm already overloaded.

7.I've hit the wall. One of resolutions for 2007 is to simplify...the message, the method, and the time applied to it.

In fact I'm even considering a blog sabbatical...

8.Shell:

Inactive accounts and hyper-inflated membership numbers are things I am willing to accept if they give me access to social networking sites that are geared to my specific interests. When evaluating the effectiveness of a social networking site, I never consider membership data. Instead, I read to see how pragmatic and accessible other people and their information are to my specific interests. If I have a question about my Hybrid, I?ll go to the social networking site and contact someone who OWNS a Prius, which would contain simplified information not available on Kevin?s overrun Myspace or Google postings.

While I may not have the volume of eyes or comments on a specific page, I will enjoy the luxury of cutting through all the INCORRECT data and commentary. Anyone can post information on the internet, and not many people are in place to filter for its accuracy. Individual pages prompt the user to have vested interest in the stated subject, central location sites and message boards encourage littering of cursory hoopla and often misleading data. If having individual networks means I forfeit a greater circulation audience and gain exclusivity and accuracy of information, then I?m ok with that.

9.In a great article in AdAge last week, columnist Scott Donaton warns readers to beware of the tendency among marketers to pile-on to any and all cool new trends. Donaton calls this the "Get Me One Of Those" (GMOOT)...