This paper by Elizabeth L. Angeli from State University investigates four distributed articles that investigate results from an examination led on online (Web) and logged off (non-Web) connections and their relationship to Computer-mediated intervened correspondence (CMC). Angeli is very well qualified to write an article on this issue and is well acquainted since she was at department of psychology and State University and is now at the department of English at Purdue University. The articles, not withstanding, differ in their definitions and employments of CMC. Concentrating on the levels of intimacy, closeness, distinctive correspondence modalities, and the recurrence of utilization of CMC. Steward and Kraut (2002) propose that face-to-face (FtF) communications are more compelling than CMC, characterized and utilized as "email," in making emotions of closeness or closeness. Different articles characterize CMC diversely and, in this way, offer distinctive results. This paper analyzes Cummings, Steward, and Kraut's (2002) research in connection to three other exploration articles to recommend that all types of CMC should be examined to completely see how CMC impacts online and disconnected from the web connections and how it effects relationships. Keywords: computer-mediated communication, face-to-face communication Summary In Cummings et al's. (2002) synopsis article investigating three experimental studies on online social connections, it was observed that CMC, particularly email, was less viable than FtF contact in making and keeping up close social connections. Two of the three checked on studies concentrating on correspondence in non-Web and Web connections interceded by FtF, telephone, or email modalities found that the recurrence of each modality's utilization was altogether connected to the quality of the specific relationship (Cummings et al., 2002). FtF and telephone anticipated the quality of the relationship best correspondence, as members evaluated email as a sub-par method for looking after individual connections when contrasted with FtF and telephone contacts (Cummings et al., 2002). Cummings et al. (2002) looked into an extra study led in 1