I think you are right! I have a restrictive and slightly polemical (perhaps also superficial) idea of what "social media" are. On the other hand, I guess I might as well have deserved your comment if I had sent the above implication by e-mail, or through smoke signals.

JJJCR, you might consider posting a link that works on Linux on a Linux forum..

What is the goal of the survey? That kind of information you should be able to get easily without surveys, from publicly available data.

The OP's form worked for me: score 1 for CentOS and Opera! Personally, I don't consider this forum to be "social media". To me that means places where people can talk about anything or, more usually, nothing. Fine for The Donald, but I've got a life!

In spite of the CentOS success cited by David. I like what Mara opined, and this also based upon JJJCR's note that they are using an Excel form.

I too am not comfortable with links that appear to be unknowns and agree you should've just asked your questions in the thread.

Agree also that while there are social aspects to LQ and similar sites, that perhaps the original intent was for things like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter users.

One early Spring day where the weather patterns made it warmer and clearer than average, it was about the first day you catch people biking, walking, running outside, far more than normal around here. I saw a couple walking hand in hand, heads down, their opposing hands holding phones that they were looking at. Had to restrain myself from saying something best left unsaid. They were obviously busy talking anyways ...

@OP: cool idea, but your choice of site just doesn't work. (keeps reloading blank, on atm iTablet)

: Pick another website, surveymonkey or ?better? (any LQ'er know one? No js feasible? LQ seems to work without javascript, kudos to Jeremy!!!)
Edit #1: add (not delete=remove current content) new info, then also post below.
Or, as suggested, add to #1, the idea of just posting response, but I like anon.

I was trying to respond: the only (semi)SocialMedia I use is LQ,
(it replaced CL.org) recreationally, and like crossword puzzles

this intrigued me, so i looked it up.
i thought, let's see if the definition of social media differentiates between a forum and, say, facebook.
turns out it does (kindof): i'd say there's more than 1 point that does not apply to LQ or similar forum.

Hmmmm.... 1: web 2: posts 3: LQprofiles 4: I'm ?relating? with ondoho
But, yes, my trying to include 4.connecting... is probably stretching it too far.

GREAT links!!! OhMyGosh: all the 'social network' psych buzzwords
reminds of my recent excursion into 'cloud computing' buzzwords

of course, the term "web 2.0" also "introduces challenges of definition", but i'd say LQ is Web 1.x

I'm sorry. My reply sucks and I wish I had put more care into crafting it something a little more constructive. I hope you accept my apology.

I actually was and still am curious about what might be the defining features of a social media platform versus forums and other mediums. After two decades of using the web everything starts to look more or less like every other forum I've used since. That doesn't stop me from being wrong about what is and isn't social media, though.

The Social Media page on Wikipedia is an interesting read. I think #2 is a definite feature of a social media platform.

Some of those others kind of/sort of apply to LQ, but I think that's just because LQ seems to have every feature. LQ is bloated! People don't join LQ because it has a blog feature. Though, maybe I wish they did because I certainly like reading blogs. Neither do people join LQ just to read all of the posts by a single user, even though you can do such a thing to a degree.

It's probably not worth all of the time I've spent thinking about a definition for this. I also feel bad for derailing another thread on LQ.

Why do you say that? This thread is about social media, isn't it? Don't see how you de-railed it.

Myk267, post #7 was totally ok.
it introduced controversy.
in my book that's a good thing - creates discussion - and not derailing anything.
no need to apologize.

You don't have to apologize: I was not being sarcastic, because your post really had a point. In fact I think the buzzword "social media" itself is to blame, because it is vague and, if taken literally, could as well be applied to e-mail, telephone, ham radio, all the way down to smoke signals. As I mentioned, I have a restrictive, slightly polemical, and of course arbitrary idea of what to consider as "social media", as I suspect that the term became mainstream only after the advent of FB, Twitter et al.