Are you a Facebook friend padder?

I think it makes all the sense in the world. I understand your point about it seeming hypocritical, but you did say that you were able to make 180 requests in less than an hour(seems almost physically impossible!), and I can't see anybody legitmately doing anything close to that if it was truly about adding real friends/acquaintances. I congratulate them on doing something that could potentially cut down on unwanted spam or requests.

Justin
Atlanta, GA

"It’s human nature, I guess — we all want to appear more popular than we really are. "

You guessed wrong! I, for one, don't give a hoot about Facebook or how many friends I have or how popular I am. Why would/should I care what other people think (unless I actually respect them)? People with 'hundreds of friends' must have fairly low standards or must really need attention that their parents failed to give them when they were younger. This is just further proof of how much young America is in the crapper. Are there ANY young people (30 and under) without their heads up their butts???

Only shallow, sad, pathetic morons care about how popular they are (and yes, you are one of them since you said 'we' and not 'they').

Further, the maximum number of friends you can have is 5,000.

I have no problem with Facebook putting limits on friending but it might work better if each user was able to set their own limits. Those who want the artificial high and false social status of having more friends could then happily spend their time doing just that while those of us who want to use the internet for real connections can better screen or block those contacting us. Frankly, 90% of the people who "friend" me never do post anything remotely personal.

Absolutely not. Hurray for Facebook for setting limits. Do we really want our beloved Facebook to turn into another Myspace? No thanks.

Adding 180 friends in less than an hour? Even for a first time user, that just seems extreme.

And yes, facebook seems to be taking a responsible stance here to stop spam, if only fighting real spam were so easy. Why do we have to bust their chops about it?

Give'em a break and let them do their job. It's their site, we're all invited to use it, but if you don't like it, go find another or build your own.

Personally, I don't even like facebook, so I don't use it myself.

Seriously, that was one key reason as to why I left myspace.

I thought Facebook would be nice to keep in touch with old friends. What a NIGHTMARE! Yes I got in touch with some old pals and relatives, but before I knew it I was in the middle of a divorce battle, an old girlfriend who wanted to go online every night, and people becoming my friends and pushing opions....eeekkk.
I am married for 28 years and very happy; this site was a waste of time so I turned it off.

I agree with FB on this one. I'm surprised the note popped up after 180 friend requests. I would have guessed it would kick in after 50.

If they have that much time and that many friends, they can wait a bit and add them in batches. I think the limit's a great idea.

I agree with Mike... if Facebook became like the wasteland that Myspace is, the world as we know it would come to a dramatic end.

This story is worthy of the SciTechBlog?

I tend to agree with Mike. If theyre actually friends, chances are good they'll be there in a couple days so you can add them later. trying to uber-load a friends list in a matter of hours is just pointless unless youre up to something.

kudos to FB for recognizing that

No they shouldn't. The site tries to help you find people you already know in real life, but may not know are on Facebook. That's not even remotely the same as adding 200 random people who aren't actually your friends.

There is a guy that I know who can't wait for some unwitting vicitm to accept his friend request so that he can get "1000 Friends"

I think most people are like you–95% of our friends are ... our friends. 5% are people we sort of know. I have 300 friends and I am comfortable contacting all of them.

I personally think we have more important things to worry about in this world then facebook friend restrictions...dont you agree?

Spam has ruined countless email accounts... I'm glad Facebook has strong anti-spam policies.

Anyone who wants to add more friends can wait an hour and add more. This also prevents robo-adding programs from adding too many people at once.

Yes, a user should be allowed to add any number of friends. It is a social networking site, with the keyword being social networking. Individuals have an option of declining someone if they don't know them and also the option of reporting the individual.

I have a ton of friends (literally over 1000) and unfortunately, my account was disabled because I added too many people that I know.

It's called padding for a reason. Weak, insecure lemmings.

I think...this is much ado about nothing. If you truly have that many "friends", then good for you. Unfortunately it might take a FEW DAYS to add them all. So what?

I don't see the big deal – who cares if someone pads their profile. As long as they aren't bugging me, i could care less. If someone "friends" me and I don't know them and I check their profile and its filled with a bunch of random people from all over the world, I hit "ignore". No harm, no foul.

The limits are an attempt to patrol/control spamming and people who are just trying to use FB as free advertisement.

Who. Cares.

I think there may be more important things going on in the world

Brandon – As far as "issues" go, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. But I'll bite. Limits are what makes Facebook better. There needs to be parameters set up for the enjoyment of all. If you want an unrestricted free-for-all, just go to Myspace and knock yourself out. But there's a reason why nobody cares about Myspace anymore.

Its designed for spam, and i don't get spam on facebook. if its not broke, dont fix it. if you cant wait to add friends, than maybe you should be spending your time a little better.

I absolutley side with Facebook here. You wanna have alot of friends? Fantastic. Do it by the sites rules. Myspace is a fine example of what happens when unregulated requests become exploited. The policy is there to protect people from the same garbage that become Myspace. Click here to see me nude!!! No thanks.

So you poke fun at people who "pad" their friend roster. but then go to say that there shouldn't be a limit? Stupid article. And who seriously is that eager to look up 200 people an hour on facebook. Surely people must have better things to do.

Most of the Facebook applications (read: games) include incentives for having more friends. For example, the more friend you have that play poker through Facebook the more chips per day the poker app gives you to play with. These incentives push people to add other poker players as friends even if they do not know them.

Friendship is a curious thing, it requires time and effort. I would be suspicious of anyone having the need to add hundreds of friends at a time. I would think they would want to take their time and post a message to these "friends".

I'm guessing maybe a few of the random strangers filed some kinda complaint about this, or maybe Facebook tallys up the number of people who refuse your friendship.

I think it would be rare for someone to join Facebook, whip out their Rolodex and friend 200 people in an hour. If the person received the message and was legit, they'd just wait a couple of hours until the restriction was lifted. Besides, I imagine that anyone joining Facebook this late in the game wouldn't be in that much of a rush anyway.

I think it's an empty argument either way.

I understand Facebook's limit, if indeed it's an effort to eliminate spam. However, imposing a limit on the number of people you contact is not really a protection to users, as my exposure to a 'spammer' is limited to a single add-friend-request. The limit is rather to protect Facebook from crashing due to a spammer attack. To call it a protection for the user is to mislable it.

For the same reason, those who argue against friend padding have no reason to gripe. Condemning those who do is unfairly discriminatory. While we're at it, let's picket against those who collect coins, beanie babies, and pez dispensers. Let's remember that those who pad have also been 'accepted' by the person to whom they wish to connect. Takes two to tango, right? So a slam against the padder, is a slam againt the pad-ee.

If we arbitrarily call someone a 'padder', we asume that we know who they are truely friend with, and that they only speak regularly with a small percentage of their entire retinue. We may as well then impose limits on those trying to connect to someone who is a padder. You want to connect to someone who already has 200+ friends? Tough! That person pads and we're not going to let you be an enabler!

Let padders be. No one is forcing you to be padding if you don't want to be. And if you're willing to judge someone by the number of friends they have, then you'll be no friend of mine in any case.

I have a policy of only adding people myself whom I already know in some fashion. However, every day I receive friend requests, and I accept every one of them.

I figure that if you are interested in who I am and what I am doing in the world, than GREAT! Check me and my work out. Besides who knows where the connection may lead. A new friend. A positive business connection. Anything can happen. Synchronicity abounds.

http://www.EroticRockstar.com

Facebook is not fun unless they are people you really know. At least I think so. People have to write back, too. I unfriend people who just seem to be there like dead weight.

I'm with Facebook. Anyone who wants to add 200+ friends in a day is a spammer, as far as I'm concerned. Also, if I'm someone's 201st friend, I don't mind waiting a day or two (or never) to be added to their list.

Facebook is for pretentous, insecure, attention seekers. These "social networking" sites are all very silly to me. But I guess it's because I have a family, job and other responsibilities so I could really care less about someone I knew 20 years ago and what they are doing today.

You are complaining that Facebook prevented someone from making more than 180 friend requests in about an hour? The only people with that much time on their hands are spammers, reporters "manufacturing news" by adding random strangers and high school kids – none of whom are really encouraged to get on Facebook!

I think you should try and delete your facebook account and see what happens. Good luck.

Thats one way of looking at it. What about the concept of meeting "New People" through facebook? Im not into padding friends or popularity contests but love to use face book to express ideas to people. Its the answer to the failings of print journalism and the customizable individuality of the information age. Social rules for facebook will inhibit social growth. I like to use my page as a social experiment and have set it up as kind of a self styled drudgereport. This way people who wouldn't otherwise be exposed to new ideas can get them from my facebook page. Thats the value of facebook for me...a social melting pot for individual freedom and expresion. The real challenge will be to keep people from using it as legal warfare....ie; the teacher from MI that was suspended for having a pic of her with a gun on FB.

Brandon... does anyone REALLY have 200 FRIENDS? You may know 200 people, but the definition of the word "friend" is (according to the dictionary) "a person you know well and regard with affection and trust". Seriously... if they stop you at 200, it's a number FAR too low. You may know 200 people, but they're not your friends. In my opinion, they should have stopped you at 10.

ugh.......as always....someone not using the application as it was meant to be used and raising a red flag unnecessarily........I hate that.......stop with the "what if's??"

Don't you have something better to write about? Does it matter whether you add 200 friends in 1 hour or in 2 days?

The limits that Facebook is utilizing are a good thing. I personally do not think I could maintain more than 50 online "friendships" anyway. I have to believe that anyone with more than 200 "friends" on facebook must not be actively interacting with most of them. I know that I have around 40 Facebook friends and I only regularly interact with about 3 of them per week.
Researchers such as anthropologist Robin Dunbar have guessed that humans will socialize in optimal sized groups of around 150. (There is also an assumption that all of the individuals in the group or community are actually trying to remain together.) Malcolm Gladwell makes mention of Dunbar and several other researchers in one of his books. Even higher estimations limit the number of meaningul friendships to around 200 people.
In my opinion, unless you count sending a generic holiday letter to these 200 "friends", I do not think its feasible for most people to even try and stay connected with size group.
Someone with a full time job sales job may claim to maintain contact with thousands of people they call their friends but I find this to be an abuse of the term "friend."
I am curious to hear what others may claim about the number of friends they have on Facebook and other similar sites. I would also like to hear about how they communicate and how strong their friendships really are. Does anyone out there REALLY have 150+ friends?

my space + facebook + linkedin = loser

True, there is no practical reason why anyone would need to add friends at a faster rate than the limit Facebook has set. However, I disagree that a large friend list equates to "padding". Many people add "friends" just so they can better participate in certain games and other applications available through Facebook ... not to pad their friend list. I have nearly 300 "friends", but only about half are actual friends, family, and colleagues ... the rest were added for the games. I actually wish that we could have two levels, one for friends and one for these acquaintances.

Is this even a question? Who actually, really, knows hundreds of people with whom they keep in touch? At most, new users will be slowed down for a few hours after they sign up. And most people won't ever be affected. In exchange, facebook stops the mass spamming that afflicted MySpace, Friendster, and other sites. Seems like a good idea to me.

Let's not criticize, condemn, nor complain about those FB users who have authentic connections and/or relationships with large numbers of people. Childhood, education, business, friendship, and volunteerism are five areas that have naturally allowed me to reach 1,000 friends as of last night. Some best-selling authors have thousands of friends. Should we complain about them all not being authentic? Let's focus on what is right for us and allow those who do things differently do things their way. I'll see you on Facebook!

so what is the intent of placing the people that appear in the box on the lower right side of my home page. It seems like it's saying I may want to make friends of them, but how did they get put there? - I don't "know" them.
Bird

I'm sorry but I don't see you giving us any alternatives to limiting the amount of friends you can add. Besides, once you reach the limit all you have to do is wait a few days and start sending out requests again. The only thing you may do is offend some of your friends by not adding them the first day.

Who cares? Don't you people on Facebook have anything else to do – eg work, socialize (in person), homework?

To be honest, it depends on what you consider a "friend" whether it's padding or not. I have about 200 (at last count) and most I would consider folks I know and acquaintenances more than actual friends. But I do have plenty of folks I would hang out with if I could. Eye of the beholder, I say!

I always deny requests from anyone that I don't know. If everyone did this "friend padding" wouldn't exist.

The idea of this feature being an unfair limit on honest users is a misguided understanding of fair use. Fair use would allow for a user to add as many friends as they want. It does not need to be within a given time frame. The number of users who would actually run into this issue is so small as to be inconsequential. In addition, those users could then simply wait an hour and put the next 180 friends in. So they would still get their army of friends and the rest of Facebook's users would have at least some protection against spam that comes in this form. Compromise is needed in many situations revolving around technology, and this one is really a compromise that all but a VERY few would even realize was a compromise at all.

Thats me in the picture! OMG Add me on Facebook!

I think you need to find a better subject to write about, this is just dreck and filler.

and this is news?

please be my friend

Who cares....our country is in the middle of the largest finacial meltdown in decades and you want to discuss how many friends you should be allowed on Facebook? I think this countries priorities are scrammbled, which could be why we are in the global position we are in right now. Waste the space on the internet for something educational for people. Show our politicians eye witness accounts of the thousands of struggling parents and children going cold when their utilities are shut off and their health insurance is cancelled. Contact me. I can show you these things. Help our country, not just Facebook users.

My Facebook account was hacked on all my friends (who are really friends) received a "wall post" supposedly from me hawking sexual enhancement products. Facebook caught it and helped me get my account back. I like that there is a system in place to catch such problems.

I'm glad we have Eric Zorn to expose the criminal hypocracy of limiting the number of new Facebook friends. I, for one, will sleep better tonight. Keep doing God's work there big boy.

Facebook is for social networking. The fact that contacts are called "friends" does not mean there are not other motivations, some perfectly good and legitimate, to add people to your list. I think this article oversimplifies the situation. 4/5ths of my "friends" aren't people who I would even talk to anymore, but for FB. It doesn't build my esteem to have all these folks along for the ride, but I am glad that I can communicate with them.

this is a moronic article that isn't saying anything that hasn't been said a hundred times before. sure there are people who "pad", but there are plenty of people out there who's lifestyles involve making and keeping track of a few hundred casual acquaintances. that doesn't mean they're not actually friends, or friendly or people that you know, and it doesn't mean that anyone is trying to appear popular. sometimes it's just nice to keep in touch with a lot of people who you've met over the course of your life. anyone who gets upset over this needs to calm down, or get away from the computer.

If it prevents spamming, there's nothing wrong with it. And what's wrong with only reaching out to a few friends at a time? I mean, hopefully, none of them are going to die or whither away while you're waiting to "gather" the next batch o' people you don't know all that well and wouldn't write a handwritten letter to without a gun pointing at your head.

Also, while I agree Facebook should be an online gathering place, the truth is, Facebook IS a popularity contest for some people. I know some friend-padders and these are the same people who ran around at the end of the school year getting everyone – even people they didn't know – to sign their yearbooks so they could sit in their lonely rooms at night, running their hands over the glossy pages covered in ink, reveling in their self-created fantasy of popularity. Anything that frustrates people like that is fine with me.

Adding 180 friends in an hour comes out to one add every 20 seconds. Probably, if you're going that fast, you're not adding just your friends. It takes time to search for friends or make sure you have the right "John Doe."

I've been on Facebook since 2005, and have roughly 330 friends, none of whom are padding. They are all friends or colleagues I have from "real life." Some are friends from K-12, friends from undergrad, masters, and Ph.D. There are also friends from the 4 companies I worked for along the way, churches I attended, and neighborhoods I lived in.

My criteria for accepting or sending a friend request is : Would I want to sit down and have lunch with them for an hour? Would I do them a favor if they asked? If so, the answer is yes. If not, sorry, I decline.

I'm extroverted and outgoing, and for me, 330 isn't padding. Its staying in touch with my social network.

What's the difference between a person rapidly adding friends to their Facebook account and a spam bot rapidly adding friends to their account?
The answer: there is none. That is, to Facebook. They have no way of telling if you're a lonely person or a robot sent to spam us.
So in what way is this hypocritical or wrong? Any person who absolutely needs to contact over 200 people in such a short time probably shouldn't be using Facebook, and certainly not with a new account.
If this simple, oft-used measure confuses or offends you, you should probably stop writing a 'SciTech' blog.

I've been called out!

I think it's a slow news day when someone at CNN concerns themselves with the internal intricacies of adding friends to facebook.

Good policy. No reasonable person will be in any way limited by that restriction.

It's only hurts FB's equivalent of spammers...perhaps we should call them Frammers?

this was the biggest waste of time article i have ever read.. and now i wasted more time commenting on it

I think the recent case of the octuplets' mom is a great example of what happens when someone is allowed to immediately expand their individual universe without limit or oversight. So it's probably good practice by Facebook to limit and pace the number of friends acquired....there's a lot of reckless and feckless people out there.

The limit is probably to protect all the other users of facebook. It has nothing to do with trying to stop "friend gathering".

If a user could send out nearly unlimitted friend requests in a short amount of time, a user's inbox could become flooded with friend requests from people they don't know.

Zorn should stop his whining and be glad that his Facebook inbox is more protected than his e-mail.

It doesn't take into account the games, ie. pirates, mafia wars, etc and the groups associated with them which encourage adding 'friends' to play. Hence the distinction between close friends, friends (acquaintances), and facebook friends (maybe that should be a new word). Isn't that a good way to meet/make new friends?!

Why does a stranger want to be my friend on FB? Just so you can see my pictures, profiles and my "conversations" with my real friends? I am glad there is a "NO" button in FB.

I think the facebook site should be called stalkerbook..it is so ridiculous. I cant stand the fact that it shows me everyones updates, even the smallest things. WHO CARES. If I wanted to see something or inquire about something, I would go to that person's page. And another thing that is very stupid..someone I dont even know posted a new picture, but then someone that I am friends with commented on it, and then another individual I dont even know commented on it and left their phone number...I dont care about a friend of a friend of a friends phone number and that they miss the person. I do not know them, so it should not even show up. If anything, the only info that should show up is if you are friends with both individuals

I only have real friends or friends from long ago. I do not have aspirations in numbers. I see my own friends have some 'padding'. It's true, it's not a popularity contest, it's a networking device and why would you want people who don't know you to see what your are up to. I agree, it's for the insecure who feel the need to have the numbers.

I'll stick with YeahOhYeah.com

Absolutely agree with Mike. I get dozens of pathetic "be my friend" requests every day from people I don't know and who I don't even have anyone in common with. If you want to collect something try stamps, pull tabs or self-respect.

Assuming a person did have 500 "friends" in real life; who would spend an entire day search for every single person they ever knew? Besides once you add a few dozen and write on a few walls, change your status a few times, you're friends will ultimately find you. Take a breather– if all your real life friends aren't verified and accounted for in facebook immediately as you create your account don't worry. You can still be the most popular kid in class.

What do I think? I think you ran out of interesting and original ideas. When adults start obsessing about the triviality of social networking sites that are really only appropriate for teenagers something is wrong with your journalism skills. I can't believe you were paid to write something so inane. Here's an idea, why don't you write about the dust bunny under your bed. CNN will probably pay you for that too!

I think a limit is great. How many people do you know that will actually sit down and invite 180 of their real friends in an hour...Seriously think about it. "Oh I'm going to get facebook today. Let me pull out my cell phone and add all 200 contacts in one sitting because I'm that bored."

This is a dumb story.

This is the scitech blog. Why not cover how libraries in Africa are just now starting to automate their collections, thereby making them available to more and more people? Why not cover how American universities are turning to Turnitin.com to prevent plagiarism, perhaps heralding a new age of academic accountability?

This story is just dumb, though. Facebook limits how fast you can friend? Really, that's a problem for you? A front-page-of-CNN problem? Ugh.

I think of Facebook friendships as being akin to bar friendships – some of them are actually your friends, but mostly, everyone's just getting drunk together. Outside of the bar, you don't exist.

I have almost 800 friends on Facebook. This was not intended, but has happened gradually (I have been on Facebook since it was invitation-only, and the only game was to send your friends virtual drinks). I have accumulated so many, not through any type of "padding", but (a) I actually do know a lot of people, probably half of my friends list I knew long before Facebook existed; and (b) I like to play several of the games on FB, and most of the games require friends who are playing to progress. Sometimes I will start talking to other people on the game's forum to learn how to play, and make friends that way. So some of us out there with lots of friends aren't padding, we just are friendly, and enjoy the games that FB has to offer.

I am with Facebook. Anyone who wants to add 200+ friends a day is a spammer in my book. Also, if I'm the 201st person someone wants to add as a friend, I don't mind waiting an extra day or two (or never) for that invite.

I currently have 400+ friends on facebook. 90% is from college. A lot of them I was genuinely friends with or at least knew rather well through another friend. There is also a large group from highschool on there. My Most currently added friends, from LA where I live now, totals at around 7 or 8. Oh, and about 15-20 from work related stuff (conference, etc). Of these 400+ people I talk to maybe 15 on any sort of regular basis. I've thought about weeding out people I don't talk to as much, but everyone I come to I think of how I actually know them and don't want to delete them... even though maybe I should.

For a long time I took pride in have less than 100 friends on there. That is long since gone and I need to clean house.

half the friends whores you see on facebook are joining add me groups to be able to add freinds and power in facebook games, i have proof of someone that hired an indian data entry center to create 20,000 accounts to be able to win an online game.

Not at all insightful, especially when the author lists no alternatives. "Misguided and hypocritical"? Hyperbole.

If the author understood more about the Internet and the problems of all such sites, he would understand the problem of automated spamming and how that can destroy a site by frustrating users.

The idea that a site should be designed to meet the needs of less than .01% of the users who want to mass add friends is misguided. The site needs to prioritize a good experience for its users.

Anyone who uses facebook, myspace, etc is insecure. Whether you be a "friend padder" or not. The fact that you have general acquaintances on your list proves you are a hypocrite. These sites are pathetic and their huge popularity does not give me a good impression of our society.

What's the big freaking hurry? Who cares if it takes longer than one day to add all the friends you want? You won't be able to have a meaningful dialogue with all of them in that timespan anyway.

I had the same experience just the other day. I decided to try and get to know some of my friends friends and got the same warning message that said that I would be kicked off the site for spam.

If asking friends of my friends to be my friends is such a bad thing, then why am I allowed to see who my friends are friends with in the first place?

This method of spam control that Facebook uses is the equivalent of being invited to a party by someone you just met, but having them tell you that although you are invited to the party, you are not allowed to speak to anyone, nor make any new friends while at the party.

It is bad enough that some people feel like social outcasts when they try to meet people face to face. Facebook is not helping anybody by encouraging the kind of snobbery that will erode people's confidence when sitting at home in front of their computer.

I have only 60 or so friends on my list and I know every single one of them. I don't see the point of adding a bunch of strangers. I'm not on there looking for a date. I'm on there to keep in touch with people I don't get to see anymore because they live far away.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The many being all of us who would like to discourage spamming on facebook, and the few being you one or two people who come to facebook with hundreds of friends and can't be bothered to take a little time and add them in smaller, spaced-out chunks.

I don't know but I think Facebook is crazy. To be honest, I don't think there's no such thing as social gathering sites but to be fair, people do in fact have friends, family members or relatives, even girlfriend(s), co-workers, etc and I do that's a valid question put forth but I guess when you wanna meet friends or interact, then is cool. I don't know but don't you think it makes a difference? For crying out loud, relationships get strain when contact is not involve, let alone getting your own hierarchy ain't that bad, I guess...

I think there's more important things to worry about.. and write about on CNN than rather or not you can add xx amount of facebook users in record speed on your friends list. Maybe there should be more focus on things that matter.. like.. I don't know.. the economy? The kid that looks like he's 8 years old that has a baby with his girlfriend? Maybe focus on social and economic issues that are more disturbing by the day.

Perhaps I am a friend padder, but for different reasons. Facebook is a networking site, so I seek out people whom I think would be beneficial to network with I too have hit that wall and been warned about excessive networking. I don't get it tho. If it is supposed to be helping me to network and connect with people, why does it set limits?

I have also noticed limits on sending messages. I have been told that "it is not intended for chatting" and that i should be using the chat feature for repeated back and forth conversations. The problem here is that in this particular case, it was a conversation with 10 other people – not exactly practical to use chat in this situation.

This brings me to one issue i have with their anti-spam argument. There is a function to send messages to groups of people, which is fine. However, once you have been included in this message, there is no way to opt out of the conversation. I have been added to conversations that i really didnt need to see everyones response to, but I have to just wait it out until everyone is bored with the topic or also gets tired of the bulk messages. I have submitted comments and recommendations to facebook about this issue, but have not seen any changes, nor have i received any kind of feedback.

but, despite all of those issues, i still think it is the best networking site on the internet (over slow loading myspace, hi5, linkedin, etc). and i do enjoy the play social games that allow you to do good around the world while killing time on the computer. (myfarm, african safari, and the "lil" gardens, etc to name a few).

I agree with the limitation of friending - at some point it has to be spammy. However, I wouldn't write off large friend lists as padding or showing off, or anything having to do with self-esteem.

I think a large appeal of Facebook is the ability to see and be seen. In that regard, large scale adding of half-acquaintances could be more about checking out pictures and general info than about showing off.

Stalkerish? Sure. Popularity contest? I don't think so.

It's Facebook's site. They let us use it for free. If they want to turn it into a 24 hour broadcast of whoopi goldberg movies, they can. just use it, and learn to live with what they see fit. if you don't like it, make your own site.

I started using Facebook as a means to share photos and communicate with a few friends and family. We live in the midwest and most of our family is on the east coast. I have noticed some folks with hundreds of listed friends. I am happy with the 13 on my list. It could grow to twenty by end of year but I am in no rush. I have my own set of rules on who I would want in my Facebook as I share photos of my son. As for the question- I will always had a low number of friends but I think if others want to be more open that is their choice.

Social Networking sites (regardless of which one it is) are a massive waste of time. They're the online equivalent to one of those lame high school parties we've all been to where people drink cheap beer out of plastic cups. People are saying this blog post was unworthy. To that I say it once again proves how completely idiotic the youth of America has become.

I have a personal rule that limits me to one page of friends. I could have more, but when I go over the limit I delete the friends that I haven't spoken to in years. This recently angered an old friend who didn't make the cut, but made me realize that if she was going to take Facebook that seriously, I probably didn't want her on my friends list anyway...

I think a limit is a good thing, I'd hate to be bombarded with friends request like I was in the early days of MySpace. I find that generally FaceBook is a more mature social networking site than MySpace so to have 600 to 1000 friends seems hard to swallow. I have found old friends I have not talked to in years and have added about 60 or so distant relatives that I would never have known. Still my total is 81 and I don't use the site for business networking so my address book is not loaded in here.

Who cares? If you are truly that concerned over the Facebook's rules, you really need to get a life – one in which you actually meet and talk to people in the flesh, and not just add them to your Facebook wall like so many JPEG trophy heads.

For one person adding friends 180 in one sitting is WAY generous. No one person could keep up with that many friends total. Plus, it's how many friend requests an account sends out, NOT how many you can gain. So, if you have "fans" by the hundreds, they should have no problem adding at their leisure.

I just recently trimmed down my facebook friend list from 500+ to 300+. And I can say that I do not really know all of those 300 people–some of them I've met on FB (suggested by friends or by FB itself). I realized that I don't need to know factoids and updates from people I don't really know and don't give a sh*t about.

I think Brandon's comment that it's "misguided and hypocritical" to limit the number of friends someone can add in a short period is way off base and betrays a lack of knowledge of how websites, and the internet itself operate. On any given day, thousands of "web-crawler" programs are roving through webpages all over the internet trying to collect personal data – some do it simply to send you annoying, but harmless, spam solicitations others for worse reasons. A moderately computer literate high schooler could – unchecked – create a fake member of facebook or myspace, and then run a program that scours the various pages collecting data, sending friend requests and, eventually, sending spam messages (or worse) through the channel.

Websites are nothing more than a series of mathematical calculations and instructions that can create an image, send a message or store data. On a site like facebook, where interactivity with other members is the essential purpose, the programmers need to put protections in place to prevent web crawler programs from using the forums improperly. Sometimes it's as simple as making a site visitor sign in by copying deformed or obscure letter sequences contained in a graphic such programs have difficulty reading. But often the only way to tell whether activity is being done by a real human or an automated program is the speed and frequency at which its doing so. If you want to say Facebook set its threshold for making that decision too low – maybe you have a point. But to suggest they shouldn't do it at all is absurd.

I was recently removed from facebook, because they accused me of sending too many friend requests in too short a time, despite being warned.
Thing is, I hadn't even sent out any friend requests! Probably 10 or so tops in the past 6 months! And I never recieved any warning either! They unfairly removed me from the site for something I didn't do, and when I wrote an email to facebook support in order to get to the bottom of this they were no help at all. Just sent me generic responses and didn't seem to be even reading what I was trying to tell them.

Now I can't get my facebook back, even though I never did anything but use it to talk to my friends from home!

Maybe Facebook doesn't need to show how many friends it's users have. it's a useless statistic, so why display it?

What about bands, companies, or organizations who want to find their supporters?

Most people I have listed as friends on Facebook, I don't even like. I started pruning people out not long ago – but then they started noticing.

Is this really an issue? Real relationships are what is important. If someone adds too many friends too quickly then I question how many are real friends anyway. Find something important to report on.

you guys simply do not seem to get the big picture. one who adds friends so rapidly, they are probably about 99 percent likely to be a spammer/phisher. and folks on myspace who add friends indiscriminately, they have a much higher level of likelihood of adding someone who is devious that will "comment" on their page leaving malicious code. not only that, many are phished this way stealing passwords, etc. when the account has been breached, it will send out messages to the account users friends and those friends will trust the message and link included thinking it is from their friend... then that friend gets phished and their account information stolen and the cycle continues with their account being hijacked sending out fraudulant messages with malicious code to their friends.... by facebook blocking the amount of friends you can add at once, this significantly cuts down on this type of fraud.

The more FB friends you add, the more dangerous it gets. After two FB hacks, the second of which destroyed my hard drive, I gave up my FB account, even though I had 1,200 "friends". Do I miss FB? Well, I don't miss the events invitations, the updates, the spoofing of come-ons, etc. In fact, I think it was a total waste of time.

I think limiting how many friend requests you can send out isn't hypocritical, it's common sense. Anyone that has any of the social networking sites knows the amount of spam sent can make you want to delete your account completely. At least they are trying to do something about that.
Why in the world would anyone send 180 friend requests in an hour? That's not padding, that's just desperate.

Facebook has helped people track down old friends that they haven't heard from for a while, and most of us just say hi, catch up, and have a few laughs. An old friend I found through Facebook said that collecting Facebook friends is like collecting CD's, we don't necessarily listen to all of them all the time, but it's nice to know they're there. A 20 year old with a thousand friends is laughable, but I was impressed that over 600,000 people acknowledged Captain Sully Sullenberger on Facebook after the Miracle on the Hudson. It's just a tool, to be used ... or abused.

Who possibly cares how many or how fast people have "friends" on Facebook

Gotta love the folks that come in here and say, "I don't care about Facebook!", yet take minutes out of their day to say so. Hmmmm...almost as neurotic as the friend padding, IMHO.

My rule is... if you aren't my friend in real life, you don't get to be my friend in cyber life...

I'm glad Facebook does this; the deluge of friend invites on MySpace is what made me quit MySpace.

I just started using facebook about a month ago. I use it to keep touch with old friends and out of state relatives. That takes up about 20 friends. I also use it to keep touch with business associates to share ideas, which amounts to about 150 "friends". I do see what appears to be friend padding, but it is a useful tool also.

Boooo, Facebook sucks and so does Twitter, Youtube and so on...if you think you're gonna go far in life with that, HA...

No, I think Facebook has it right. I'm not sure I even know 200 people, let alone know 200 people well enough to add them as a friend. I recently removed as friends some folks that I realized I didn't really know that well or care about. I'm not interested in collecting people, I'm interested in being able to keep in touch with the folks I DO care about.

Who cares? Our economy is a wreck and people are worrying about facebook.That is ridiculous!

well, as for the last part of the artice, it takes a lot longer than a few hours to FIND over 200 friends, I have 276 friends and it has taken me 2 YEARS to find them all...

Your FaceBook will be referenced, psychological potential analized
Correlated with known Terrorists, before you are allowed
Make shure you remember every friend, consistent with RFID logging

It says the feature is there to prevent spamming or whatever. If you really are going to freak out if you dont add all your 398 friends within the next hour I think you have probably more important problems to deal with.

I ran into this limit myself, and got the warning. It struck me as asinine, as I was adding friends that Facebook had suggested for me. In the end analysis, however, I had to admit that setting speed limits make some sense. It doesn't take too long for their monitoring gauge to reset so you can add more friends, and it does tend to limit people who might be adding friends at random. Facebook seems to be trying to tread an honest line between allowing people to network with their circles, and still protect the privacy of its clients – and it's not an easy job.

I have about 595 friends at the moment. I don't add anyone lightly either. I consider it for a bit, and what it means to have or not have someone as a friend.

As a youth group leader, I have close to 300 or more people that I know because of the youth group. I have a few from education, and a few friends of friends that were in my social circles at different times in the last 10 years.

I also have a large family, so that adds a lot in the way of cousins and things.

The there's my work in the entertainment industry, where I know people in different fields of work as well as from all over the country that I've actually met face to face.

It's amazing that I can, with this many friends, say that I've met in person at least 95% of them and at most 98%. I know for a fact that there are a few that I've never met personally, but that number is very small.

However, adding 180 instantly? I don't know about that. This was a build up over time. I think when I joined, I immediately friended about 50.

I think that this is an excellent idea. This web site was designed to network with people not harvest names as quickly as possible. It is the process of interacting that makes Facebook valuable. Like catching up with old aquaintances or former coworkers. Instead, many people merely see it for its value as a place with a large volume of names for them to use for their own agendas. This is one of the far less serious risks that Facebook users are exposed to but it is still a great example of how people view others on the web.

I'm still trying to figure out why people bother with having so many "friends" on these websites. Do people really give a damn about what these 'friends' did over the weekend, about how baskets their little brat made at their basketball game, about their golf score last weekend, about who they broke up with and who they're now sleeping with? Chances are, people who have more than a couple dozen (or even more than 10, for that matter) "friends" on these sites probably know very little about these people and have very little contact with them. Sure, "Facebook is a way of keeping up contact with them." But to what end? So you can gossip about them? So you can try to outdo whatever they post? So you can make yourself feel like a better person than you really are by pretending to give a damn about some you never see on a regular basis and never bother to call or send a card to? People toss the word 'friend' around far too flagrantly. A 'friend' is not some one you make by simply clicking on a "Yes" button. A friend is not the cousin of your border-line alcoholic college roommate whom you met once but wanted to sleep with. A friend is not your boss or coworker who politely lies to you when you ask them what they did last weekend, because deep down, they don't care enough to have that conversation with you. Those people don't know what 'friends' are. Your friends are the kind of people who offer you a place to stay when you're traveling, they ask to help you move despite that they despise the chore, they send you leads on jobs when you get laid off, they call out of concern because your voice 'didn't sound right' the last time you spoke over the phone. People, get some REAL friends.

The limit makes sense, because break it down: 180 friends in 1 hour (sixty minutes). That means you add people at an average of one person every 20 seconds. I believe if you actually care who is on that Facebook site, it would take more than twenty seconds to evaluate and invite. Think if you had twenty second conversation before determining stuff at home or at work that may let a psycho into your midsts. Sounds stupid in reality, doesn't it?

I play Mafia Wars. Due to the nature of the game, I had to "Friend" more than 1,500 Facebookers to contend. If the third party applications are misaligned with Facebook's rules, they need to work that out.

I know this is a dead thread but I have to say something to Bruce:

You have apparently missed a paradigm change that occurred after your high-waisted slacks and penny loafers went out of style and after your hair turned grey: WE LIVE IN A CONNECTED WORLD.

That device in your pocket you so desperately want to "just call people" does a lot more and text messages are only the beginning. While waiting for the train you may patiently wait, looking around the station, but for the "younger generation" with their "head up their butts" we are engaging the world around us contacting friends, reading CNN (and Facebook) and its all happening in a blink, during the time you wasted gazing at the tiles in the station.

Because of this new level of connectivity, tools (yes, tools, not entertainment pieces or popularity metrics) have arisen to help connected people keep in touch with the vast number of people they are care about and are able to connect with on a momentary basis. Facebook does have a legitimate purpose.

And on not caring what other people think: I'm sorry you're so horribly misguided. That statement is never true about anyone, period. in you attack on Facebook and the people who peaceably use it you seek to lower their perceived value (which consciously or unconsciously) you calculated would raise your own value. You have disproved your one of your premises as someone who could even offer comment on this topic.

Please, o please, Bruce, don't resort to this "younger generation" bandwagon when you see a problem with society. We in the "younger generation" are a dynamic range of humanity, just like the people you graduated with. Some are idiots, some geniuses, and many in between and sideways from the continuum. Please resist ever putting humanity in a box.

It is quite possible that someone really knows that many people and would be able to genuinely add that many people in less than 1 hour. If they first joined Facebook, and first decide to add say some close friends that have bee long established on Facebook (family, high school friends, elementary, college sorority sister, co-worker), then from those friends start adding all their aquiantances that they genuinely know too, even if its someone they lent an eraser to in grade 3 or someone they say hi to at the water cooler every day – it quickly adds up. Think of how many people you've met in your life. Some people are naturally extroverted and have a warm personality, and if like people, and have a good memory for people and names, they probably could genuinenly add that many people in less than two hours.