This differs from the memorialized profile in two key ways.  First, these groups are impromptu, created by friends or loved ones after the individual has passed away, as a means of socializing with others that may have known the deceased.

Second, and I think more important, is that they are generally publicly accessible, whereas memorialized profiles are only accessible to those that were previously confirmed friends on Facebook.

What this public accessibility means is that people who may only have just joined Facebook, or old friends that may have lost touch can participate in the memorials.  These users would be locked out of the memorialized profile page, which, in a very real way, defeats the purpose of calling it a “memorial” at all.

Here’s one example of a Facebook group created as a memorial to a deceased user:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=175462972576&v=wall

According the The Guardian, it seems that Facebook actually has a mechanism for dealing with profiles of the dead.

“‘When someone leaves us, they don’t leave our memories or our social network. To reflect that reality, we created the idea of ‘memorialised’ profiles as a place where people can save and share their memories of those who’ve passed,’ explained Max Kelly, Facebook head of security, on the company’s blog.

But what does it mean, that an account gets ‘memorialised’? The contact information and status updates are removed, and the profile is set private. No one can log into it any more. Only Facebook friends can locate the profile via search and leave posts on the wall for remembrance.“

Apparently, this mechanism isn’t well known,  or perhaps well implemented, since Facebook is still recommending that people re-connect with dead friends.

Of course, there is a simple solution to the problem of … expired … accounts on social media networks.

If you plan to have birth date data in a user’s profile, build in a data structure that allows you to note the death date as well, and ensure there is a mechanism for a friend or family member to update the account with death information.  Furthermore, integrate the idea that a user might pass away from the beginning of the design process.

It also might be beneficial to check new entries to the Social Security Death Index or a similar publicly query-able data source to get information on those who have died that may have been member of the site.  Sure, that adds administrative overhead, but if you are saving your clients even a little bit of grief in the long run, it’s a worthwhile investment of resources, I think.

Should this be standard operating procedure for all social media sites?  Feel free to discuss the idea in the comments.

Here are some things they said that I find especially interesting:

My interviewees don’t use social media, such as Facebook, to memorialize people. One person said it would be “weird” to see a memorial page there, and on first thought I think so too. My interviewees talked about wanting to remember someone in a more private way, and I’m interested to know if this is a generational thing, or something else.

My interviewees are also unanimously opposed to paying to read archived obituaries, sign guest books, or pay for online obituary services, including paying to have a journalist write an obituary for them. One even expressed disgust at the monetization of the grieving process. I also tend to agree with them, but I don’t agree with putting online content behind pay walls, in general.

Similarly, they were critical of advertising on memorial Web sites. Some thought there shouldn’t be advertising, while others thought it should only be for charities.

I’m really interested to see how my interviews compare to interviews the rest of our group did, and when I find out, I’ll report back.