commit: 6b2ca8a - #414 (2014-03-05 12:54:44 -0500)
It looks like some of your quoted tweets are missing, and you definitely should have let an editor look at it. How does this have 6 upvotes?
Just had a look at it again - no tweets are missing. Maybe I should let everything checked by an editor, but as far as I am concerned, I like to publish unedited posts from time to time. In this case - my feeling was, that it is stronger in raw form. And as I said in the post - don't upvote it if you don't like it ;)
The quoted tweets from @mikecbetts and @_NateBerg have no words. Here's a screenshot: http://i.imm.io/14uEe.png. Besides, you've made 8 upvotes since December and seven of them are to the above domain. You're clearly here for one purpose.
The Tweets are in the next paragraph, the actual tweet references my account (@jogebauer).
Ah, apologies for the confusion. Reads kind of funny that way for someone unfamiliar with you, the author. I thought there were four different replies to the question, not just the two. Embedding the tweets, besides making the post look better, would have made it more clear. Here's the rest of the conversation for anyone else interested: https://twitter.com/mikecbetts/status/322668644486217728
I will keep that in mind - and format better next.
Interesting topic and the start to what could be a great discussion. I agree with you about the distribution of content revolves around content that is "shareable" more so than it being around quality. What I've found, personally, is that I have to spend time curating the people I follow and/or connect with, and through this I can acquire great content and not just share-worthy content. Of course, that's personal and doesn't tap into what's best for the public as a whole, which is ironic because social media is not meant to be about the individual but rather everyone. Ok, that fried my brain, I'm signing off, it's 18h00 and I should not be online anymore :D
I agree with you and I guess you have found the perfect strategy for yourself. As I said in the end of the article: I do not blame social media platforms - it is up to us to solve this.
The point is, that social media made a promise about delivering the perfect content quality indicators, and at the moment it fails to deliver. That is why search engines are using social signals in their algorithms now. But are social signals real quality indicators?
"Content only gets seen if someone famous talks about it."
I disagree. Content can be seen by many - whether or not it gets picked up by someone with tens of thousands of followers. Sure - MORE will see it if it's talked about by someone "famous", but it's not required to be seen.
I think the "shareable" vs. "good" content is worth further discussion. The incentivization (I think I just made up that word) of shareable doesn't necessarily mean it's inspiring stuff that's actually worth reading.
Jonathon Colman wrote a call-to-arms along these lines that's certainly worth reading if you haven't yet: http://www.jonathoncolman.org/2012/11/26/we-can-do-better-than-this/
Sorry for the late reply and thank you for weighing in.
You are of course right that content may be seen by many even if it does not get picked up by someone famous. I admit it, I am guilty of dramatizing the situation a little.
Current situation is that a lot of people are trying to get the attention of so called influencers via social media to get a slight bit of their fame shine on themselves. A lot of articles, guides and list posts state that this is a good strategy for getting successful in social media yourself. Sharing posts by Joe Pulizzi (sometimes without reading) gives us more retweets instantly then sharing our own. I have once seen a tweet by Jeff Bullas about his latest post on his blog being instantly retweeted within seconds not just once but at least 20 times.
Yes, there are those of us that actually read content posted by people that are no influencers (yet). But the percentage is not increasing. I had a discussion with Steve Olenski on G+ about this post about this and he stated that he constantly "digs through the crap to get to the gold."
Few of us do.
You are right though: I should not have used the word "famous". I should have used "influencer". Famous is someone who is known to everyone, but we social media folks seem to use "influencer" for people that are famous in our circles.
Thank you for sharing the article, I just put it into my reading list!