If offline storage and realtime collaboration is the next step in social computing (as Google, Microsoft, and Adobe seem to believe), then Facebook’s move offline is as logical as it is revolutionary.

But Facebook’s biggest strength in their move offline is actually what I found to be particularly frustrating when testing the product.

Facebook’s “social graph” (their international multi-terabyte database of every person alive, who that person knows, who the people that person knows know, and on and on) is very possibly the coffin nail in their offline toolbox to all possible competitors, but I found the offline implementation of this proprietary technology to be particularly perplexing when offline.

For instance, at a marketing conference last weekend while alpha testing the product, I had the chance to meet a certain well-known marketer and blogger.  We really hit it off, but when the time came to decide the status of our new relationship, I had to first ask her to be my friend.  Then she had to tell the graph how she knew me (”worked together” seemed to be the most accurate response) before we were able to continue our discussion.

Later that night when I came home, I had more marketers and bloggers knocking on my door insisting that I “might know” them.  I was intrigued, so I went through the social process with them, too (I asked to be their friend, they alerted the database to our new connection, and we began to talk shop).

Everything seems pretty fine if a bit difficult to get used to.  Over the past few days when I’ve grabbed post-work drinks at the local tavern with colleagues and friends, the new offline database keeps sending interns who offer to buy me drinks if I fill out a simple survey.

Early adopter as I am, I agree, the drinks are ordered as promised, and after only one or two rounds of werewolf invitations (these come in sealed envelopes and presented by the bouncer), I am able to get back to the lovely post-work conversation.

All in all, it seems like it will prove to be a very powerful and unique service, albeit most “normal people” (not-so-early adopters) might struggle to become used to it.

The blogosphere is buzzing today over the valuations of many online social networks and what kind of validity these premoney valuations actually have.

In essence, the arguments break down as such:

1. We should value social networks in relation to the cash sale of Myspace
2. We should value social networks in relation to the premoney valuation of Facebook
3. We should value social networks in relation to corporate giant LinkedIn

However, Techfaux is again one step ahead of your other news sources.

Today we sat down with Kevin Numans of Goldmun Sahks and discussed a revolutionary new way to evaluate social networks.  His theory?  Juicy Fruit.

Why should Juicy Fruit be the foundation of reference for social network value?  “Easy,” says Numans.  “Juicy Fruit has made more money than all of those social networks combined.  You need to base reference variables on the foundation of a large, proven number in order to obtain accuracy with any sample statistic.”

Seems fair enough, since Juicy Fruit was recently purchased by Warren Buffet for the amount of $23 billion dollars.

Below are two of Numans’ presentation slides (click to enlarge) illustrating both previously-sold and premoney social networks, in accordance to their relationship to what he’s calling Juicyfruitality.

This graph depicts the value of a previously-sold Twhirl according to the laws of Juicyfruitality:

And here’s a side-by-side comparison of social networking giant Facebook and market leader Juicyfruit: