Categories
Uncategorized

So You Want Me To Switch To Google+?

So I got an invite a couple days ago to Google Plus, and generally, I’m pretty happy with it. I’m not leaving twitter any time soon, because I like it as an aggregator and a public discussion forum.

But I have been contemplating leaving Facebook for it. I was never really a big fan of Facebook in the first place. When it was really taking off, I would read about it– being a grad student in Boston, interested in technology and culture, I was really curious. But I couldn’t access it. The Winklevossian commitment to exclusivity that was baked into it from the start saw the school where I was doing my MA as not worthy of inclusion. I think UMass Boston students had Facebook opened up to their .edu addresses a couple weeks before it just opened to everyone and their grandma. I ended up only getting a Facebook account once I started TAing while working on my PhD coursework, as a way to try to put the names of some 150 students with faces. So while I’m a pretty frequent user of Facebook, I’ve never felt much fondness for it. I’d be glad to go.

So– you there, over at Google! You want me to switch over to Google+, and drop my Facebook account all together? I’m ripe for it, and I’m not asking much in return.

All I want is this: we need to start a real discussion about what DATA EXPORTABILITY looks like for social networks.

I know Google has a great record in terms of data exportability and open standards compared to any other tech company its size. And I know that, from the get-go, Google+ has come with a way to export your data in a fairly granular way, and that’s a good start. I want more, though. I want a discussion.

You see, Facebook has a way to export your data, too— go to Settings, and scroll down to Export Data. And at least Google gives us a human-readable, stable URL for this process.

And I believe Eric Schmidt when he says that he thinks there’s room for multiple Social Networking platforms, and that Google’s trying to play nicely with Facebook and Twitter. I believe that because Google’s model has long been to improve the overall internet experience, to keep people online more, so they keep coming back to Google and its ads, as opposed to Facebook’s walled-garden approach.

But again, all of this is not quite enough. We’re at a major turn, here. Integrating social will be a huge boon to Google in terms of personalized search and finding ways to leverage the social graph. And I’ll get on board right now. But in return I want a discussion to happen, here.

What do I want this discussion to look like? It’s pretty simple. I want Google to invite outsiders to the table to have an honest discussion about what users might be able to expect in return for granting Google access to their social graph. Our social data is going to help drive search– social is going to influence how much of that fabled “Google Juice” a site or a post might have. When will that weighting data fall under the company’s commitment to data exportability?

And when will that commitment lead to them using Google+ as a platform to help create open data standards for social? Because exportability without standards is of very limited utility. Once I can export my data and migrate it to another platform– maybe even one that could still interact with Google+– that’s when we’ve really got data exportability that means something.

Google has a good record with standards, and I think that this would undergird Schmidt’s point. I think it would be in their interest, as traditionally defined– keeping people on the net by making the internet better– and it could potentially force Facebook to rethink its closed approach or risk irrelevence.

So yeah, Google– let’s get this conversation started. I’m ready to switch.

Categories
Uncategorized

Facebook Fans Are Meaningless

In a meeting recently at work, we were talking about the use of social media, how to get people to come to the museum, and one person said something to the effect of, “Well, we all can agree that we want to have more followers.”

We all nodded in agreement. No matter the strategy, we all want to have more people “Like” (formerly “become a fan of”) our institutional Facebook page. The more people who do that, the more people see what’s going on, come to the museum, participate in building community, etc. Right? I mean, that’s the metric.

Then it hit me– No. It makes absolutely no difference how many people “Like” your Facebook page.


I’m overstating it slightly, but that’s what I thought at the time. My realization was– and this may be obvious to others– the number of people who “Like” your FB page is an essentially misleading, and almost meaningless metric.

But whether you’re a nonprofit museum, an activist organizer, a brand manager, or a guy with the most amazing Spin Doctors cover band you’ve ever seen, it’s the only metric you get.

The thing is, most of the time, nobody but first-time users visits your FB page. Most of the actual page traffic is going to be people just encountering what you have to offer on Facebook for the first time, exploring. After that, what really matters is not how many people Like your page, it’s how many people’s News Feeds you show up on.

The News Feed is the primary vehicle with which we explore the FB universe. It’s your firehose of information. But it’s not a firehose. At least it isn’t for many users. You see, Facebook defaults to “Top News,” not “Most Recent.” So for many users, the News Feed is curated for them by Facebook’s algorithms. And from what I can tell from some looking around, nobody seems to know much about those algorithms. Well, the engineer who designed News Feed just explains it by saying it’s a robot, but that just makes me feel talked down to.

Facebook has created the new Google Juice. Let’s call it FACEJUICE.


The beauty of FaceJuice is that it eliminates Search Engine Optimization, at least for the immediate future. You can game a search engine, at least somewhat, no matter how complex, as long as it behaves the same for every user. And while Google personalizes for those who log in, only a portion of their business is from users with accounts.

Basically everyone who uses Facebook, on the other hand, is tracked. They’re a member with an account. If you use it at home or at an internet cafe halfway across the globe, you’re going to log in before you get a really useful experience.

And because of that, the FaceJuice flows freely, the “robot” assigns value to every object a little differently, and Search Engine Optimization just can’t factor for every person. This is good for the individual user– it means that your news feed tends to be the most interesting, controversial, amusing, etc. posts from the people you interact with the most. It’s The Best Of Your Friends. And that’s nice. For the most part, nobody’s trying to game the system to sell you something.

And it works well for Facebook, because the only way to beat the system, to overcome the unpredictable rapids of FaceJuice, is to game the system by simply paying Facebook. Become an advertiser. Then, your FaceJuice doesn’t matter. You get guaranteed views, if not click throughs. And as an advertiser, you get more detailed metrics, analytic data, etc. So you can track if you’re actually connecting with the people you’re trying to sell to.


The one place where FaceJuice is not really an added value, but actually a major problem, is in group community building, organizing, and outreach for people who aren’t in it for the money, and don’t have the ad budget.

If you’re trying to organize a rally at city hall or promote your town’s local history museum, FaceJuice actively works against you, at least if you’re trying to use Facebook to get people interested and involved. You have no way of knowing how many of the people who “Like” your page actually get a given post. Or any of your posts. Probability would indicate that the more Fans you have, the more people’s News Feeds you’ll creep up onto, but there’s no way of knowing which posts are having the desired effect, getting the word out.

Did the last thing you posted on Facebook get zero responses because it wasn’t compelling to your followers, or because it was buried in FaceJuice? You have no way of knowing.

Since I’ve already brought up the Google comparison, let’s look at another part of the Googleverse– Youtube. Youtube has a nonprofit partnership program that adds value for nonprofits who want to use their platform to promote their causes, build their community, etc. Facebook seems to offer no such program. Although I’m sure they’re free to advertise.

All of this is all the more reason for nonprofits, organizers, and educators to not play in their garden. Right now Facebook is basically the only game in town– although that may not be true soon with the unveiling of Google Me and Diaspora. But even so, try to point as much of your content outside, so you can actually have analytics, and at least judge somewhat what the value of your participation on Facebook really is.

And stop counting Facebook fans. That number means nothing.

Categories
Uncategorized

Signs of the Times…

Facebook traffic (in terms of unique visitors) is down 10% while sales of Hormel Spam is up almost 10%.

Categories
Uncategorized

Facebook Anthem

In my last post, you may recall, I called Facebook “shallow,” and said that it was “becoming more and more about snapshot statements, ‘pokes,’ and applications that let you know whether your friends would rather be vampires or ninjas.” Well, it’s nice to know that not only does someone else have the same frustration about the proliferation of applications at the expense of communication on that site, but feels so strongly about it that they decided to produce a music video about it:

css.php