Arrays for Social Media

[vote539]

I don't know about you, but on some social media sites like GitHub I have multiple accounts: some for personal use and some for business use. If my usernames were thing1 and thing2, then in the current schema, I could do:

profiles: {
    drSeussPersonal: "thing1"
    drSeussBusiness: "thing2"
}

But this could lead to issues for parsers that look specifically for certain profile keys like "github" or "stackOverflow". A better solution might be something like:

profiles: {
    drSeuss: ["thing1", "thing2"]
}

We could even make them objects.

profiles: {
    drSeuss: [{
        username: "thing1",
        summary: "For my boring personal projects"
    }, {
        username: "thing2",
        summary: "For my sexy business projects"
    }]
}

Just a thought.

[wdoekes]

But if you're sending a resume to an employer, would you add that "personal" social media account⸮

This same question has been raised in #27 about "work" email versus "personal" one.

[jayzalowitz]

Some people have multiple social accounts per service. That being said there is usually a most important in this context. My typical opinion is 1 per service is fine, but this is probably an ok thing to do.

[shea256]

One way to allow multiple accounts per service would be to do something like this:

{
    "twitter": "ryaneshea",
    "twitter.work": "onenameio"
}

That way, there is an implicit default (the entry with the key "twitter") AND there are multiple accounts that have all been indicated to be "twitter" accounts. And their labels are built right into the keys.

[osg]

Backing up a second, which Twitter account is most important for you to share with any given recipient.

I vote for reducing complexity here.

[jayzalowitz]

There is a possiblity for allowing additional detail with a network.more
detail and allowing more than one if it is unique but the first one should
default to primary means of contact.

That being said I agree with reducing complexity here.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Ursula Kallio [email protected]
wrote:

Backing up a second, which Twitter account is most important for you to
share with any given recipient.

I vote for reducing complexity here.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#57 (comment)
.

[DonDebonair]

I vote for reduction of complexity, a.k.a. allowing only one entry per Social Medium.

[ocram]

@opensourcegrrrl and @dandydev +1

[stp-ip]

One per medium seems reasonable. If any addition, my vote would go to the "twitter" as default and "twitter.work" as addition proposition.

[aloisdg]

I vote for reducing complexity here.

[olivif]

+1 to what @stp-ip said

[olivif]

Seems like we agree on KISS here. Closing for now, feel free to re-open 😄

[chrisdotcode]

I like "twitter.work", "email.personal", etc. But let's document it somewhere somehow.

Re-opening as a reminder.

[chrisdotcode]

Actually, account names are just strings, so you can do something like "Work Twitter".

[stp-ip]

No change to the schema required. Just documentation on how it is possible.

[thomasdavis]

It's too uncommon to either support or document, but as @stp-ip said, it is still supported if those who wish to build it, do.