Although instigated by a comic, the now annual event has gained some resonance.

I, for one, am old enough to recall the real meaning of the word “friend” and know that having any more than six real friends is a right pain.

Before email, mobiles and social networks, friends were really high maintenance. Organising nights out, drinking with them on regularly basis, then in later life, having them round for dinner, pretending you liked their new spouse and remembering the names of their kids etc. was a commitment best not duplicated above double figures.

I’d actually postulate that the number of real friends a person can maintain is a function of their liver’s capacity to regenerate. The average Facebooker has 130 ‘friends’  - which is clearly beyond the capacity or the any human renal organ.

Facebook knows this too and has created functions to allow us to separate friends, acquaintances and people we don’t actually recall meeting.

You can ‘unsubscribe’ people from your newsfeeds and effectively never hear from them again, save the embarrassment of ‘unfriending’. I call this “tidying up my Facebook newsfeed” which should indeed be an annual event for everyone.

Unfortunately, I’ve fallen behind with Twitter.  The noise from those I’ve politely “Followed” back is completely blocking out the tweets from those I want to read.

As a rule, I need to unfollow anyone who tweets about food more than once. I have a similar intolerance to Tweets of babies and allegedly cute pet pictures.  But mainly people who don’t consider their wider audience and Tweet about things irrelevant to me – like how great their social life is (see six friend rule above).

I’d like to suggest a simple solution called “Unfollow Friday” (#UFF).

Traditionally Friday has been the day to recommend Tweeters, (#FollowFriday or #FF for short).  However using the #UFF tag we can collectively remove the boring, the unfunny and the self-deluded, from our timelines for the collective good of Twitter.

Ever wondered what happens to your Facebook profile when you die?’

Don’t worry, I’m in good health, my morbid fascination is prompted by Facebook’s, soon to be released ‘TimeLine’ feature, currently in Beta.

TimeLine produces a sort of scrapbook of everything that has happened to you since you joined Facebook, at the press of a button.

To see a chronology of your life, automatically generated, is a spooky reminder of just how much data is kept about our online activity and is more than a bit creepy.

Prior to the invention of social media, you needed to write an actual book to leave a lasting mark on the records of humanity. But now we all leave digital footprints online that may last longer than those left by the dinosaurs in the prehistoric mud!

Not just active social media users either. I’d bet that everyone alive today, with or without their knowledge, appears somewhere or other in a YouTube clip or uploaded photograph.

And every columnist or a blogger who pens an opinion, however misguided, is now digitally entombed with their words.  In fact, if you are reading this online and its 2050, I’ve just proved my point from the grave!

Even when you ‘checked-out’ for the last time your digital assets can still be of value.  You could have a cool domain name or a following on Twitter large enough to be of commercial interest!

As a member of the .com generation and likely to kick the e-bucket first, I may need to consider this in my will. Who will I leave my Avatar to and who will inherit my eBay sellers rating?

More importantly, how will I change my Facebook status to “dead” after the event, assuming there is no WiFi access where I’m going?

Turns out Facebook will do it for me on request from my next of kin. After seeing the paperwork (proving someone is dead is still an offline process) they will “memorialise” my profile.  This means only existing ‘friends’ can read and post eulogies to my Wall, and presumably be able to see my TimeLine; a lasting epitaph, of every ‘like’, LOL and OMG I ever posted.

One month after its launch and still no invite to join Google Plus!

Its hard to believe, I know, that a key online influencer like me has been left out of the party, but it seems I’m persona non grata at Google.

Google’s latest attempt at creating a social network to rival Facebook appears to be off to a flying start with 25m users signed up so far – yet no one has thought to invite me!

Apparently Lady Gaga is on there along with Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Oprah Winfrey and even William Shatner who is presumably now exploring cyberspace, the final frontier.

The G+ project as it’s known, is currently an invite-only social network. Only people already on G+ can invite others to join which, by accident or genius, has turned into a brilliant marketing ploy.

Google’s last two attempts to create a social network, Wave and Buzz, petered out quickly, some say through lack of truly innovative features. However, Google has worked out that “celebrity acquisition” is key to success this time.

But which of the celebs already acquired are actually posting for themselves or indeed phony? I’ve been told that Jesus Christ turned up as a user, prompting Google to only allow real names on the network, although it’s not clear how they will be validated (It’s notoriously hard to prove you’re the messiah).

At this point I would have liked to review the network itself; its clever friend Circles, Hangout and Huddle concepts designed to make our online social lives easier – but as you now know, I’m NFI, and have no access.

Weather G+ succeeds in toppling Facebook, without my help, is yet to be decided. Facebook took 3 years to reach 25m users, Twitter took only 30 months, yet despite being invite-only G+ has passed this milestone in a few short weeks and could be here to stay.

So if you are one of the chosen few, I’d really appreciate an invite?

Sadly my newfound popularity cannot be attributed to increase in wealth or influence or in deed cosmetic surgery but a recent resurgence of the business networking website.

Usually, when LinkedIn informs me someone has updated their profile, I assume they are looking for a new job, but now it seems people are discovered the wealth of business opportunity LinkedIn can provide and have other reasons for optimising their profiles.

LinkedIn has actually been around longer than Facebook and Twitter but never made it big until now.

This, in part, is due to a raft of new features that mirror the most popular functions of the other big social networks.  For instance you can now “post” statuses, like you can on Facebook  and  “follow” people and companies like you can on Twitter.

It could be that the current surge in LinkedIn usage is down to the publicity surrounding its successful float last May or perhaps LinkedIn has finally managed to appeal to a the raft of diehard tie wearing social media marketing sceptics.

Most business people are now convinced that social media marketing can work for brands targeting consumers (B2C), but few consider it as an effective B2B marketing channel – until now that is.

However “in-bound” marketing strategies are now all the rage (as is the term) and being found on LinkedIn is central to most of them.

Interestingly, as LinkedIn usage rockets Facebook usage is plateauing. Which should come as a surprise given saturation had to come sooner or later in the US and UK, but Facebook wouldn’t be the first social network to have its bubble burst by mass migration.

It could be that social networkers have just matured or perhaps it just my peers and I that are getting too old for Facebook. Its often been said that cool kids don’t want to be on the same social networks as their parents. Perhaps it parents now, who don’t want that either!

I have since been to confession at the Birmingham Apple store to be absolved of my guilt.

A “fondleslab”, for those not down with the kids, describes any portable touch screen device so beloved by its owner that it is incessantly fondled in public.

I swapped the faithful fag packet and lighter combination (which served a similar social purpose) for an iPhone a few years ago, but now, to keep down with the kids, I need an iPad 2.

But it occurred to me that my unquestioned loyalty to Apple needed questioning.

Why did I want to pay over the odds for a hard-to-get-hold-of tablet when there were a plethora of cheaper Android alternatives on the market?

Android is an open source mobile software platform donated by Google to the smartphone world, now adopted by most major phone manufacturers.

The more cynical looked for an ulterior motive than altruism and found one when it was discovered that Android allowed phones to be track via the WiFi connections they made and helped Google to deliver location-based advertising services.

It is reported that if you have an Android phone, Google knows where you are to within 89 feet of where you are sat.

Then it turns out that my iPhone was recording the same location data (for Apple’s own permission-based location services) and due to a bug, anyone clever enough could access a year’s worth of my movements.

Of course the platform with the better social media applications will be triumphant – you knew the S&M word would have to popup sooner or later, didn’t you?

Some surveys report that more than 50 per cent of social networking is now done on the move and the take-up of mobile-specific features such as FourSquare and Facebook “check-ins” suggest few have a problem divulging their location.

I understand this is an exciting development for brands wanting to engage in context of location, but personally don’t want anyone to know were I’m when I’m fondling a slab.

Resisting the temptation to explain why they are not and possibly send this column down an un-publishable route, I must clarify that it is Facebook ‘likes’, for their clients fan pages, they are after.

According to the poll, undertaken by digital media pundit Mashable, an overwhelming number of marketers consider social media to be integral to their strategies and 70% plan to increase their social media budget by more than 10% this year.

The primary social media marketing objective, amongst the top US brands that took part, was is to increase Facebook “likes”.

Given that, thanks to mass media, politics is now just a popularity pole, perhaps the UK could setup a much more cost effective alternative voting (AV) system than currently being proposed by the Liberals.

Whichever local candidate has the most Facebook ‘likes’ on Election Day get to the seat in Westminster?

You may be interested (as you’re still reading this) to note that currently the Labour Party Page have 99K likes, the Liberal’s 93K and Conservative a whopping 136K which, in my opinion giving them a clear mandate to govern!

But I digress, if only to illustrate that ‘likes’ are no real measure of approval or real brand engagement.  Facebook now provide many more sophisticated insights such as  ‘interactions’ and ‘active users’ to indicate if you’re really getting through to your audiences.

Recently Facebook improved the capability of brands to interact with their consumers on its social network. Yet it also reduced the chance of fans reading their messages.  Now, by default, users only see posts from brands and people for that matter, who they regularly interact with. (Many are campaign to get this changed!)

So soliciting input from ‘fans’ is more important the building large database of ‘likes’.

Like real life, counting the number of likes/friends you have on Facebook, is not a real measure of success, or so I keep telling myself!

By adding new features to its business pages, Facebook now allows brand to participate more interactively with their fans and other business pages.

But in this uber social online world, is hiding behind a brand a good thing?

Considering Facebook was invented for Harvard student use only and spent much of it formative years preventing commercial entities from using it services, these new brand friendly features show how far it has come from its origins.

Many users threatened to leave Facebook when it introduced banner advertising back in 2007, but now this “social advertising” is accepted as a necessary evil needed to fund the free service.

Essentially brand can now use Facebook on more equal terms with users, leaving comments and ‘Likes’ on users profile walls and other business pages.

Note: they cannot initiate posts on profile walls; they can only comment/like on existing posts and users can prevent this from happening by adjusting there security setting – but few people will.

This means, businesses can now proactively use Facebook, participating in conversations it thinks are relevant to its products/services in an attempt to raise brand awareness.

But who wants to have a conversation with a brand?  Not me!

One of the business benefits of using social media is that it allows consumers to penetrate large, often faceless organizations and deal directly with individualswithin them.  Empowering your staff to us social media to interact with consumers is a powerful way to build customer loyalty.

Thanks to social media the old adage that “people do business with people” has never been more accurate. So I would recommend signing any comments you make on behalf of your brand personally.

Facebook have made many other changes, both cosmetic and functional, to its business pages, so now would be good time to review your Facebook marketing strategy.

One that stood out was an article by Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian about turning the internet off. Or more to the point, how it is never off these days causing ADHD, civil war and neurotic children.

Perhaps you can relate to a lot of what Freedland says. I can!

I watch TV now with one eye on the iPhone or the laptop. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, blogs, forums – updates, updates, updates! Refreshing constantly. And for what? What do I actually expect? It has become, not a necessity, but a habit.

Why is this so?

Maybe it’s because every now and again something rewarding happens that makes us keep coming back for more. We are Pavlov’s dogs. A new friend request, an invitation to an event, a fascinating blog, an interesting new business connection or just someone commenting on or retweeting something we’ve written.

It truly is addictive stuff. Freedland categorises people in his article by how much they use the internet. I use the internet and social media every day, often for most of the day. It’s my business – literally – so this is no surprise. However, social media strategy and marketing besides (yes, I did just say that!) I have found myself becoming more and more distracted from other personal things I used to enjoy, for example reading a good book.

I have found myself reading in bed (as I’ve always done) and after even one page my mind might start to wander, shifting slightly into a zombie-like state… “I must check Facebook. I must refresh Twitter”. And so I do and then get drawn into something else. Five minutes later I stop myself. “Just read your book and relax”.

And then… and then… I will read about something I absolutely have to research on Google or Wikipedia. Not tomorrow or a more convenient later date but now, right NOW. So I stop reading again and spend half an hour reading about the history of the Battle of Waterloo. All very interesting, but it would never have been enough “pre-social media” to have interrupted my beloved reading.

Am I addicted? Is it wrong? Never mind those children, it’s making adults neurotic too!

However, I think the tide is turning. This obsession is a relatively new thing, especially considering the use of smartphones meaning that we’re always “connected” and available for comment.

I have already taken steps to manage this offline/online life balance and I know that many more people are doing it too. As ever, humans adapt and it takes time for that to happen. We are perhaps “growing up” in our interaction with social media.

So it was great to read Freedland’s article because it’s part of the narrative of the evolution of the internet, social media and how we communicate with each other in the 21^st century.

The internet and social media is no longer a fad, it’s a way of life. Like anything else we have to find a place where it fits naturally in our lives.

I have recently noticed a worrying phenomenon – the less I tweet the more followers I get.

I’ll admit, my profile picture, like everyone else, is a tad flattering and taken a long time ago, but I’m pretty sure it’s not my aesthetics that is pulling in followers.

Yet it can’t be my wisdom because whenever I actually open my mouth and tweet unfollows seem to result.

There are of course more traditional techniques to build your following, other than not tweeting.

The main three are:

• The ‘Follow-backs’ approach. Find people you want to follow you, follow them and hope they return the compliment.

Targets can be selected by geography, their interests or indeed the size of their own following.

• Using Twitter widgets on your other online asserts (websites, blogs and fan pages) to point existing audiences towards your twitter feed.
• By referral – getting mentioned or retweeted by those more famous than yourself. This mandates having an opinion that others value and indeed creating content of worth.

And it helps if you’re especially witty, attractive or are already famous.

But sadly I cannot attribute my success to any of the above.

It is, in fact, the increasing relighting of brands on follow-backs to boost their followers, rather than having anything interesting to say, that is the cause of the phenomenon.

Essentially I’m being followed by those who would wish me to read their tweets yet have no intention of ever reading mine.

I have therefore decided to only follow people I have met in real life (or are especially witty, or attractive or play international cricket) as a protest.

In return the #PIMIRFs (People I Met in Real-life First) usually follow me back but often get bored if I over tweet or meander from my specialism and unfollow.

The solution is to tweet only when you have something truly interesting to say – advice which I often fail to follow.