Phil Friedman

4 years ago · 13 min. reading time · visibility 0 ·

chat Contact the author

thumb_up Relevant message Comment

Busting Myths About View Counts... And Other Engagement Metrics

Busting Myths About View Counts... And Other Engagement MetricsSOME CONSIDER VIEW COUNTS THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL, WHILE OTHERS DISCOUNT THEM ENTIRELY... BUT NEITHER APPROACH IS ENTIRELY CORRECT...

Preface:  For the record, I didn't start this discussion. It was started by those who make fantastic statements about view counts and other engagement metrics, as well as the relative merits of various digital self-publishing platforms.

In fact, I began to write this article more than eight months ago. But I put it aside several times because I wasn't sure I wanted to deal with the flood of consternation I expected it would generate.

Unfortunately, it seems that, once an idea for an article grabs me, I just can't leave it alone. Never mind any potential negative reaction it might conjure up. Add the fact numerous SM marketing people continue to make what I saw as radically unsupportable claims about how the stats "prove" that one platform is heads and shoulders above the others. And the topic kept drawing my attention like a nasty mosquito bite.

Consequently, I returned to my draft, time and time again, until it became clear the only way to scratch the itch was to complete the piece.

Please understand, I have no dog in the hunt to find the "best" social media self-publishing platform. And that my sole interest here is as a writer, and lies in gaining a better understanding of how the different platforms measure up against one another.


Engagement. Reach. Views. Visits. Clicks. Impressions. Likes. Relevants. Shares. Comments.

All these terms are commonly used by those who own, manage and market various social media platforms, in particular, those which incorporate a digital self-publishing sub-platform.

These terms comprise part of their respective marketing campaigns to attract or recruit writers and others to those platforms.

It might, therefore, seem a straightforward matter to compare social media platforms, using at least some of these expressions as metrics. But it isn't.

5bf6538c.jpg

The problem with view counts or "eyeballs" is that writers and readers don't really know what they represent. And social media platforms generally won't tell us...

Does a "view" register only when someone reads an article? Or does a view register when they simply scroll over it as they scan their feed?

If a view registers upon an article being scanned, is there a minimum amount of pause-time needed to trigger it? Or does a view register when the platform simply puts that post into a reader's feed?

I don't really know, do you? Does anyone, other than those running social media platforms?

But if we don't know what constitutes a "view", then we certainly cannot as so many writers and bloggers are wont to do   compare views or eyeballs or reads counts between platforms, with any reasonable expectation of figuring out where the best ROI is being achieved.

Does that mean view stats are entirely meaningless?

I think not. For even if view stats do not have a directly comparable numerical value to be used between platforms, they can and do form the basis for a non-dimensional numerical "coefficient" of exposure or reach, intra-platform.

Provided that, independent of their meaning, they are generated and tracked in an internally consistent manner on a given social media platform.

cfdc9138.jpg

For example, consider the stats compiled by LinkedIn for the article designated above. (If you're curious about the article itself, you can read it by clicking on the image.)

Note that these stats show 843 of what LI now calls, in one place, "visits" and, in another place, "clicks". 

Does that mean the post was read by 843 people? Not on your life.

Does it mean that 843 people scrolled over the article in their respective general feeds? Or does it mean that LI put it into the feeds of 843 people?

No and no.

When it comes to view counts and eyeballs, what we "know" is pretty much only the sum total what we don't know... and what social media moguls won't tell us...

Recently, LI began also to refer to views as "clicks." Which seems to imply that now the view counts reflect the number of times a LinkedIn member of members opens an article.

97d3a16d.jpg

But whether it means that for sure, I haven't a clue. Because, despite having asked LI the question numerous times, LI management remains publicly mute on the subject.

Indeed, so does the management of beBee, as well as that of Medium, Niume, Facebook, and the other platforms. Nobody in charge apparently wants to discuss what they're actually saying when they tell you that some post of yours has 1,500 or 150 "views". And if I were of a cynical bent, I might conclude that they seek purposely to obfuscate and confuse.

Nevertheless, I suggest as long as methodology remains consistent intra-platform,  we can reasonably infer that a greater number of "views" is indicative of a higher number of potential readers to which the article has been exposed...

In other words, more views registered on a given platform means greater Reach on that particular platform.


736f3fcf.jpg

Keep in mind, however, it does not say anything about the comparison inter-platform between, for example, LinkedIn and beBee. Such comparisons, which depend on knowing the true distribution of a post, will have to await a full disclosure by the management of the respective platforms as to the meaning of Views.

It's Official: beBee Producer Crushes Linkedin Pulse for Engagement

Title of a Buzz on beBee, April, 2017


"Engagement" is another term that is continually bandied about, yet remains ill-defined.

Part of the difficulty in measuring "Engagement" is that most social media platforms report a variety of stats such as Likes, Comments, and Shares, but vary widely in how they relate these categories to one another and to Reach (exposure to readers).

The beBee buzz cited above suggests that a measurement of Engagement can be attained by adding the Views, Likes (Relevants) and Comments accruing to a given post, then dividing by the number of the author's Followers on the platform involved.

For example, one article ("the Example Post") cited above accumulated on LinkedIn, 161 Views, 41 Likes, and 1 Comment. And therefore, according to this calculation:

Engagement = (161 + 41 + 1) / 29,600 = 0.7%.

When that same article appeared on beBee, it accumulated 3,100 Views, 54 Likes (Relevants), and 21 Comments.

Engagement = (3,100 + 54 + 21) / 1,188 =  267.0%

Thus, it  appears as though Engagement on beBee, for the Example Post, is 392 times greater than on LinkedIn.

Which would indeed be startling, if it made any sense and were true. But it doesn't... and it isn't...

2e6d3cc6.jpg

In the first place, it doesn't make a lot of sense to use the View Count as an element in the ratio primarily because, as outlined above, we don't know what a "view" really is, nor do we know if views are treated consistently from platform to platform. And when, in fact, there is every reason to suspect they are not.

Which immediately invalidates any platform-to-platform comparison of Engagement ratios if those ratios incorporate View Counts as an element.

Beyond that, there is a strong alternative explanation for the wide variance in the comparative Engagement ratios in the case cited. Which is that the 29,600 followers are what are known as "social followers". That is people who are acquired as followers not because they like and want to read the author's posts, but rather because they reciprocated, as a social media courtesy, when the author followed them, and for the most part, couldn't give less of a damn about what the author publishes.

One might make the argument that the followers on beBee are more likely to be engaged readers than on LinkedIn but that argument is completely independent of trying to use the respective numbers of followers in some sort of inter-platform comparison of Engagement...

Instead, I suggest to you that there is a better way to gain a handle on Engagement, which is with what I call the "Sharpe Coefficient"...

The Sharpe Coefficient of Engagement was suggested several years ago on LinkedIn by Gary Sharpe


3e2d28f0.jpg

Yet, just to be clear, I am certainly not an apologist for LinkedIn. Nor, for that matter, any other social media platform. In fact, I've been an outspoken critic of algorithmic control of content distribution, as well as the way in which LinkedIn treated more accurately, mistreated  independent writers whom it had actually invited to "publish on LinkedIn".

For those who may not know, LI promised that, in exchange for the contributed content of those writers, it would back them up with support for building their own individual networks of followers (readers). Then LI, arbitrarily and without notice, effectively abandoned those independent writers after they had contributed in a major way to the growth of the LI platform by contributing a massive amount of content.

d59986a8.jpg


"Arrogant Control Is Not Leadership on Social Media, or Anywhere Else"



70a33a4e.jpg

"Take Your Algorithm and Shove It !"

 




We cannot just ignore the 800 lb. gorillas (plural) in the room when it comes to achieving Reach and Engagement for one's writing and self-publishing...

LinkedIn reputedly had 467 million user-members as at the close of the third quarter, 2016.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274050/quarterly-numbers-of-linkedin-members/  )

If even as few as 50% of those listed are active on a monthly basis (MAUs), that means LinkedIn has ready access to an audience of more than 200 Million readers.

Of course, that is not to say LI's algorithm allows an independent writer or blogger unfettered access to more than just a minuscule portion of that audience. But there is simply no comparison between the potential Reach presented by LinkedIn and that offered by Medium, Niume, beBee, or other digital self-publishing platforms.

Now, Facebook is a different matter entirely.

As of the first quarter 2017, Facebook reportedly has 1.94 Billion MAUs.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/

Based on MAUs alone, to assert, without further qualification, that " ... beBee Producer Crushes Linkedin Pulse for Engagement ... " strains the limits of credulity.

Much more so, if a similar claim were to be made in respect of Facebook.


fb11b803.jpg

Beyond that, it's also important in this context to recognize that LinkedIn by Microsoft may, in fact, be walking back some of the disastrous changes LI made post-January, 2015.

Consider, for instance, the notice I recently received about stats on a piece of mine that seems to have gotten some "long-tail" play of late. (See figure 3 above.) And compare this to the results racked up on beBee for exactly the same article. (See figure 4 below.)


86943f04.jpg

One of the interesting facets of this particular comparison is that the article received nominally equal numbers of Views on LinkedIn and beBee respectively.

We still don't know what that really means, if anything, because we don't really know what constitutes a View on either of the two platforms involved.  But the similarity of nominal Reach at least eliminates one point about which to quibble.

Anyway, notice the results for Engagement as calculated according to the Sharpe Coefficient:

BeBee:  Sharpe Engagement = [(25 Likes x 1) + (19 Comments x 2)] / 2,300 Views = 0.03

LinkedIn:  Sharpe Engagement = [(164 Likes x 1) + (47 Comments x 2)] / 2,394 Views = 0.11

Which means that in this particular case, the level of Engagement achieved by the same article was approximately 4 times greater on LinkedIn than on beBee...

Granted, this is only a single example and cannot be generalized without first considering a much larger sampling.

Nevertheless, on its own, it still argues very strongly against making any generalizations until the management of the various social media platforms become more forthcoming as to the meanings of their various metrics, and in particular, Views.


4982a1e5.jpg

To my mind, in this age of "Branding" and "Authenticity", it seems advisable for social media platforms to keep their marketing hounds on a short leash perhaps even muzzle them when it comes to advancing fantastic claims about the superiority of one platform over another vis a vis Engagement and Reach. 

21861781.jpg


So, why not try something new for a change? Perhaps, the facts?
Which include:

1) Most SM platforms artificially control the distribution of articles and posts entirely by an algorithm and do not deliver content produced by writers, bloggers, and other members consistently to the self-elected friends, connections, followers or readers of those writers, bloggers, and other members. This group of SM platforms includes LinkedIn and Facebook.

2) Currently, only beBee ownership and management have made a public commitment in print to distributing 100% of a writer's articles and blogs to 100% of that writer's Followers 100% of the time. This alone constitutes a strong reason for a writer and self-publisher to include beBee as a primary vehicle in his or her arsenal of social media springboards.

3) Only one SM self-publishing platform I know of regularly promotes the work of its active writers and bloggers off-site on Twitter... beBee.

https://www.bebee.com/producer/@john-white/bebee-is-taking-member-content-sharing-to-the-next-level  )

4) No SM self-publishing platform I know of makes sharing a post or a blog easy to as many competing platforms as beBee does. LinkedIn enables a writer to share to Twitter, and if your Twitter is linked to Facebook, that puts the post there as well. But beBee provides the capability to share off-site to LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.


cc4f71e4.jpg

Earlier in this discussion, I said that I did not have a dog in the hunt for the best social media platform for digital self-publishing. You're probably now questioning whether I really meant what I said.  Well, I did... and I do.

I'm simply using this recap of facts about beBee to illustrate the folly of making unrestrained marketing claims on behalf of a platform for example, that beBee "crushes" LinkedIn for Engagement  when those claims cannot be supported by any reasonable interpretation of the available metrics. And even more so when there are genuinely solid and strong reasons for preferring beBee to the other platforms, including LinkedIn.


It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently...

Warren Buffet

Every time a fantastic, unsupportable claim is made by a marketer, in-house or outsourced,  on behalf of a given platform and knocked down, the platform's general credibility suffers and its brand is damaged.

So, why not just drop the spin and simply tell the truth?

Hey, Mr. Platform Owner,  why not just tell us all how you count "Views" or eyeballs?

Why not, indeed?

Certainly, that would blow a gale of fresh air through all the extant stale bull chips about Engagement and related "metrics" presently dropped on social media.   Phil Friedman


Postscript:  This is very likely the last post concerning beBee and social media I will ever publish on beBee. Which I'm confident will come as good news to some.

By my count, I've done more than a dozen articles on the general topic of social media under my solo byline and maybe another four or five as part of the HE SAID HE SAID  series that I've co-authored with Jim Murray  for more than two years and 27 installments to date, starting on LinkedIn and continuing here on beBee. 

Fact is, I think I've said just about everything I have to say about the topic of social media. At this point, I seriously doubt that anything I have said or have left to say will have any affect on those who steadfastly cling to their illusions (or delusions). Or upon those who speak in one breath about "authenticity" while in another spin their representation of the facts to their own marketing-driven ends.

I started out about a decade ago not understanding anything about social media and taking everything and everyone at face value. Now, after much activity and thought and study, I've ended up understanding just a little and believing just about nobody, especially not anyone who is in the business of social media.

Except, that is, for a few people  who are a lot smarter than I about social media, and whom I trust to speak the truth with acumen and accuracy, some of whom are mentioned below under "Suggested Additional  Reading".

What I've witnessed over the last decade or so is the accumulation of vast fortunes by a number of those in the business of social media, whilst at the same time, I've watched the wanton squandering of the ever so high potential social media held for worldwide engagement and free exchange of ideas and opinions. And truth be told, I am feeling more than just a bit weary about it these days.

Which is why I am planning to return the focus of my writing to my core offline activity of marine sector technical and business consulting.

Fair winds and safe harbors.     PLF


Suggested Additional Reading:


Signposts to the Imminent Diminution of LinkedIn Groups and Professional Networking, Samantha Bailey, Data Analyst, LinkedIn, February, 2017


The Agony and Ecstasy of Social Media Writing, Milos Djukic, LinkedIn, September, 2014


BeBee is Taking Member Content Sharing to the Next Level, John White, beBee, April, 2017


BeBee At the Crossroads: Wrapping Up This Series, Phil Friedman, beBee, April, 2017


Organic Reach on Social Media is Declining, Javier Camara Rica, beBee, March, 2017


The 5 Advantages of Blogging Through beBee's Publishing Platform, Juan Imaz, beBee, April, 2017


Does Social Media Have a Future — Or Is It Just a Stepping Stone to the Next Big Thing?, Don Kerr, et. al., beBee, September, 2016


Is It Time For a Friendectomy?  Kevin Pashuk, beBee, March, 2017


Author's Notes:  If you enjoyed this post and would like to receive notifications of my writing on a regular basis, simply click the [FOLLOW] button on my beBee profile. Better yet, elect there to follow my blog by email. As a writer-friend of mine says, you can always change your mind later.


As well, feel free to "like" and "share" this post and my other articles — whether on beBee, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, or Google+, provided only that you credit me properly as the author, and include a live link to my original post.


About me, Phil Friedman:  With 30 some years background in the marine industry, I've worn numerous hats — as a yacht designer, boat builder, marine operations and business manager, marine industry consultant, marine marketing and communications specialist, yachting magazine writer and editor, yacht surveyor, and marine industry educator. I am also trained and experienced in interest-based negotiation and mediation.

In a previous life, I was formally trained as an academic philosopher and taught logic and philosophy at university.


Before writing comes thinking (The optional-to-read pitch)

As a professional writer, editor, university educator, and speaker, with more than 1,000 print and digital publications, I've recently launched an online program for enhancing your expository writing: learn2engage — With Confidence. My mission is to help writers and would-be writers improve their thought and writing, master the logic of discussion, and strengthen their ability to deal with disagreement.


709610d6.jpg

For more information, click on the image immediately above. Or to schedule an appointment for a free 1/2-hour consult or to sit in on one of our online group sessions, email: info@learn2engage.org. I look forward to speaking with you soon. 

5a5d11ee.jpg

0f990546.jpg

#SOCIALMEDIA #BEBEE #SOCIALMEDIAENGAGEMENT #SOCIALMEDIAMETRICS #LINKEDIN #SOCIALMEDIAPLATFORMS #SELF-PUBLISHINGPLATFORMS #BEBEEVSLINKEDIN #MEDIUM #NIUME #FACEBOOK

thumb_up Relevant message Comment
Comments
Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #124

#166
#166 Milos > "... Also all my activities in social media and networks, including beBee, are voluntary in its character ... For me, promises about the future compensations are just a promise, until a legal contract is signed. Until then, everything is on voluntary basis and there is no need for an official disclosure." In this article, I simply remarked that assessing the relative levels of engagement between various social media platforms is made more complicated by the use by one or more of the platforms of "Affiliate Marketers" whose assigned duties include commenting on and sharing articles published on the platform, as well as endorsing and promoting the platform elsewhere on social media. Here is some of the backup for my assertions: 1) The explicitly stated expectation of performance: BeBee Ambassador Program - Terms and Conditions https://www.bebee.com/producer/@javierbebee/bebee-ambassador-program-terms-and-conditions 2) The promise of monetary consideration in exchange for performance: How much will the equity of our beBee Ambassadors be worth? https://www.bebee.com/producer/@juan-imaz/how-much-will-the-equity-of-our-bebee-ambassadors-be-worth 3) A basic definition of a “contract” in U.S., Canadian, and British law – all derived from British common law. (I do not pretend to know anything about Serbian law, but remind you that beBee USA is an American corporation doing business in the US and therefore governed by US law. “A contract in its most basic definition is nothing more than a legally enforceable promise … These legally enforceable promises may be in writing or oral. Either way, the formation of a legally binding contract requires two basic elements, consideration and mutual assent.” ― National Paralegal College, http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/contracts/Consideration/IntroductionAndConsideration.asp Continued… Pt II

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #123

#166
Milos – Pt II 4) Concerning disclosure, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission actually has rules about bloggers and other endorsers on social media and the Internet. Of course, these apply only in the U.S., but again beBee USA is a U.S. corporation doing businrss in the U.S. and so is governed by these rules. According to the FTC “… when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other ‘word of mouth’ marketers … connections that consumers would not expect ― must be disclosed.” https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2009/10/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials 5) Concerning the demand for specific marketing services in exchange for the promised compensation… By email 3/25/17: “Dear Phil We are removing you and others from our list ambassadors. I am sorry but we need more help from your side. We need to have heavily promoters. As I always said it is not permanent and you can get it again anytime. I wish you all the best. Many thanks for your support and have a great weekend. Javier” Milos, I have personally always believed that if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck. Please understand that I use the term “Affiliate Marketer” NOT in any pejorative, but only as a factual descriptor in the pursuit of clarity with respect to levels of Engagement. And I certainly have never had any intention to denigrate any of your personal activities on social media. For I greatly respect you as a fellow writer and see you at times as a model for social media behavior. But with all due respect, I do not understand why, if the shoe doesn’t fit, one would spend so much effort in trying to wear it. Or, for that matter, not wear it. As it is a simple matter simply to repudiate any interest current or future in accepting monetary compensation now or in future for one’s efforts, in this case, on behalf of beBee. My best to you. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #122

#165
I understand you Phil. Permanently (full time) employed social workers, teachers and professors outside SM are adequately paid usually for their work. So they have time and a certain obligation to deal with volunteer activities in order to benefit the wider social community, especially the academic staff and university professors. You see, recently I get started with participating in Pay it Forward Day as a volunteer, since Serbia is still not listed as a country that is involved. Pay it Forward Day has spread to over 80 countries inspiring over 5 million acts of kindness. For most of my social and part-time professional activities, like: scholarly peer review, professional peer review, peer review in scientific journals, activities in organizations like Center for Open Science - Framework, Kudos Innovations, 8 Serbian and international professional-scientific organizations and activities in EU civil & social organizations like EuroScience, EUSurvey, Interreg Europe, Research Data Alliance (RDA) infrastructure that promotes data-sharing and research, RDA in Serbia National Group, REIsearch platform created by Atomium - European Institute for Science, Media and Democracy, all initiated by the European Commission, I was not paid. I'm a volunteer. Also all my activities in social media and networks, including beBee, are voluntary in its character. I receive my salary for professors' activities from Government of the Republic of Serbia and for the participation in R&D projects funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia and for projects organized and funded by the European Commission. For me, promises about the future compensations are just a promise, until a legal contract is signed. Until then, everything is on voluntary basis and there is no need for an official disclosure.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #121

#164
I never do, Milos. I just cannot help being skeptical of those who accept monetary compensation or the promise of same for doing what they are claiming is a selfless kindness. BTW, I did not intend to introduce a discussion of religion by my comment about good deeds. I only meant to indicate the the concept has been pretty well defined for more than 2,000 years. And that the meaning of "good deed" excludes something that one is monetarily compensated to do or for which one is promised future compensation. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #120

#163
Phil, Never underestimate the kindness of strangers. Religious beliefs are beyond the scope of this discussion. Cheers and good night, my friend.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #119

#159
Milos, thank you for this citation. It is a great find because it offers, I think, deep insight into the conceptual and moral bankruptcy of LinkedIn's Influencer marketing program. Cheers and good night, my friend.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #118

#158
Phil, Now we are talking, as always I'm not inclined toward the assertion of a universal truth, ever. Advisory Editorial Board that suggests policy and direction is also not required in the case of SM publishing. Please check #157 and #159. Just my two cents. If we can't agree, It is also good. Thanks in advance. Cheers and good night.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #117

#154
Milos, I am not sure how this saying applies in the case in question. But let me point out that a good deed is usually taken to be an act performed for no other reason than to do something from the goodness of one's heart or out of a sense of service to one's fellow or community. Indeed, the religion in which I was raised holds that the best and purest kind of good deed (a Mitzvah) is done not only without any benefit accruing to the do-er, but without even notice or acknowledgement by others. To my mind, as soon as payment or promise of payment for the performance of a deed enters the picture, the term "good deed" immediately and absolutely ceases to apply from that moment forward. And so does whatever lesson might be implied by the expression "No good deed ever goes unpunished". Thank you for joining the conversation. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #116

#154
Milos, I am not sure how this saying applies in the case in question. But let me point out that a good deed is usually taken to be an act performed for not other reason that to do something from the goodness of one's heart or out of a sense of service to one's fellow or community. Indeed, the religion in which I was raised holds that the best and purest of good deeds (a Mitzvah) are done not only without any benefit accruing to the do-er, but without even notice or acknowledgement by others. To my mind, as soon as payment or promise of payment for the performance of a deed enters the picture, the term "good deed" immediately and absolutely ceases to apply from that moment forward. And so does whatever lesson might be implied by the expression "No good deed ever goes unpunished". Thank you for joining the conversation. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #115

"WOLF: There's been a lot of talk about your algorithm (for targeting news). Can you shed a little light on how your target what people want to read based on their clicks? ROTH: It has a lot to do with who you told us you are. Once you put your profile into LinkedIn, you give us certain insights into what you're interested in. We know what companies you worked for, what industries those companies are in, what your network looks like. There are all these signals that great algorithms can use to understand what your world might look like. WOLF: LinkedIn launched their influencer program last fall. How do you define an influencer? ROTH: To back up, the idea of the influencer program was 'can you get the smartest people in business, non-profit, philanthropy, anyone who is driving the professional conversation, can you get them writing original content on LinkedIn and make them followable?' WOLF: How do you tell someone like Richard Branson he's a terrible writer? (ed. note: this may be obvious, but this question was for illustrative purposes; Roth didn't suggest anyone is a poor writer). ROTH: Here it's about helping these influencers understand what would make their post work better. We give them data and the data really helps make the decision. We see an 80% improvement in click through rate when an image is attached to a post." - from "Meet Dan Roth, The Man Behind LinkedIn's Drive to Become a Media Powerhouse" by Michael Wolf on forbes.com https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelwolf/2013/02/28/meet-dan-roth-the-man-behind-linkedins-drive-to-become-a-media-powerhouse/#43cee3ac6a91

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #114

#156
Milos > "Hence, both Editorial (Advisory) Board and Editorial Staff are not welcome in the case of SM publishing." Milos, with all due respect, is your statement an expression of your opinion or the assertion of a universal truth? Please forgive me if I assume that you are expressing an opinion here, not asserting an immutable verity. Beyond that, your citation of the Peer Review Policy of Elsevier misses the point. Of course, a "peer review" board by definition evaluates manuscripts for acceptance or rejection for publication. However, just as much by definition, an ADVISORY board advises and suggests policy and direction, but does not dictate, deal in day-to-day decisions, or have a vote in the workings of an organization. An Advisory Board is NOT the same as a Board of Directors. Moreover, Editors, Senior Editors, and Editor-in-Chief are NOT members of an Advisory editorial Board, but usually members of the Editorial STAFF -- although in the case of voluntary editorial duties, such may be part of a "Peer Review" process performed by what is sometimes called a "Peer Review Board" but never an "Advisory Editorial Board." If you continue to focus solely on the nature of "Peer Review" as it pertains to academic and scientific publishing, I amafraid that you will not grasp what I mean by "Advisory Editorial Board". Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #113

#155
"Anyone who has ever published a news story can tell you that it’s nice to have readers. That’s why every day, editors from dozens of the Web’s most reputable, highly trafficked business publications — Bloomberg, Business Insider, Quartz, to name just a few — pitch Dan Roth with their best, most timely stories. Roth and his team scour the pitches, looking to aggregate those most likely to resonate with their own audience of 86 million U.S. visitors. A vast majority of the 7,000 posts that will go up on Roth’s site that day will be “edited” by machines, not humans, and targeted to the users most likely to read them: Managers will be served stories about leadership, pig farmers stories about pork belly prices. But precious few stories will be hand-selected by Roth and his editors. These will be placed prominently, yielding hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of referral visits." - from "How Dan Roth became the most powerful editor in business publishing" by John McDermott on digiday.com https://digiday.com/media/dan-roth-became-powerful-editor-business-publishing/

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #112

Phil, to keep things clear, review process of submitted manuscripts by the editorial board, or (editorial) advisory board means to evaluate manuscript: Peer Review Policy and Publication Times (from Elsevier -- https://www.journals.elsevier.com/social-science-and-medicine/policies/peer-review-policy-and-publication-times) 1. Initial manuscript evaluation All new submissions are screened for completeness and adherence to the Guide for Authors. Those that pass are then assigned to a Senior Editor for consideration for sending for peer review. Authors of manuscripts rejected at initial evaluation stage will normally be informed within 1 week of receipt. 2. Senior Editor evaluation "When assigned a new submission, the Senior Editor will decide if it warrants peer review or if it should be rejected without review." 3. The final decision and time to publication The Senior Editor is responsible for the decision to reject or recommend the manuscript for publication. This decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees. Hence, both Editorial (Advisory) Board and Editorial Staff are not welcome in the case of SM publishing.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #111

#151
Milos, to keep things clear, LinkedIn has an Editorial Staff, but no Editorial Board that I know of. An Editorial Board generally functions in an advisory capacity, whereas an Editorial Staff, especially senior members such as the Executive Editor and the Editor-in-Chief, generally control on a day-to-day basis what appears in the publication. Editorial Board (from Elsevier -- https://www.elsevier.com/editors/editorial-boards ) Most journals operate under the guidance of an editorial board, providing expert advice on content, attracting new authors and encouraging submissions. The editorial board, or (editorial) advisory board, is a team of experts in the journal's field. Editorial board members: Review submitted manuscripts Advise on journal policy and scope Identify topics for special issues, which they may guest edit Attract new authors and submissions Editorial Staff (from Cambridge Dictionary -- http://www.dictionarist.com/editorial+staff) A group of employees responsible for the preparation of a publication The suggestion I've made in respect of beBee is for an Editorial Advisory Board, not for an Editorial Staff. I agree that having an editorial staff who controls what gets published and what gets exposure, etc. is inconsistent with the objectives of digital self-publishing -- which I like to call Volkspublishing. Cheers! https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/lessons-learned-from-publishing-in-the-shadow-of-the-linkedin-algorithm https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140812045207-58518848-a-writer-s-commune-with-the-oracle-publishing-in-the-shadow-of-the-linkedin-algorithm Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #110

#153
Phil, "No good deed goes unpunished." again... It is as simple as that. Cheers, my friend. "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: When Being Helpful Is Just a Headache" by Michael Hess on cbsnews.com http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished-when-being-helpful-is-just-a-headache/

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #109

#151
I agree, Milos, but when it comes to Affiliate-Marketing, I believe both in full disclosure of the monetary-relationship and in calling something what it is. As I said, if anyone objects to being, as you say, "labeled" an Affiliate Marketer, let that person state that he or she will not accept now or in future monetary compensation or other valuable consideration for his or her social media activities, including sharing and recommending articles. It is as simple as that. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #108

#150
Phil, Thank you for the speedy reply. Best Regards, Milos

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #107

#145
You are very welcome Phil. And that's the key difference between beBee and LinkedIn publihing platform: beBee publishing platform: 1. no algorithm, 2. no editorial board, 3. no manipulation with exposure of articles. LinedIn publishing platform: 1. highly-sophisticated algorithms (plural), editorial board and manipulation with featured articles on Li channels, 3 highly-sophisticated manipulation with an exposure of articles in feed. "Apples to oranges". #LETTHEAUDIENCEDECIDE and let's help each other (writers) with our comments, sharing, criticism, praise and discussions without any kind of labeling.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #106

#148
Sorry, Milos, but while I agree with you on many issues concerning social media, I cannot agree with your broad statement that sharing of articles has been "... incorrectly characterized by some users as an "affiliate marketing". It's not marketing. it is mutual support between writers." There is a major difference between 1) the sharing of articles by readers and fellow-writers because the sharers deem the articles worthwhile, and 2) the sharing activities by a defined group that has been promised a monetary equity share in the SM company in exchange for the performance of specifically defined duties that include such sharing and promotion. The second case is what is known as Affilliate-Marketing not only because of the structure of the relationship, but also because it involves a promise of by the SM company of monetary compensation for performance of duties that officially include sharing. I know that you and others will argue that you are only doing what you would otherwise -- which argument might carry some weight if it also involved a formal renunciation of any claim to monetary compensation in the future. Thank you for joining the conversation. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #105

#139
Yes, Deborah, spot on. I've been suggesting to beBee for quite some time now that it create an expedited method to port entire groups wholesale over to beBee from LinkedIn. I think a significant number of well-run and popular groups with active loyal members would jump at the chance. Especially since the expectation is that LI by MS will soon dump groups in the trash. Perhaps, if you and several other LI group owners add your voices to mine, Javier \ud83d\udc1d beBee will take some note.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #104

#142
"I couldn't agree with you more dear Donna-Luisa Eversley. Sharing of quality articles by other members is an extremely important activity within the SM publishing platform. This is a recognition for the efforts made by writers and creators of quality content on social media. Recently, this activity is incorrectly characterized by some users as an "affiliate marketing". It's not marketing. it is mutual support between writers. "There are some folks I go back and share again, because the post stays with me and I feel like helping it move" - Donna-Luisa Eversley Me too Donna. Thank you very much :)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #103

#142
Thank you, D-L, for both the support and the kind words. My best to you... and cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #102

#144
John Marrett > "Until the day that something like the Alliance for Audited Media (used to be know as the Audit Bureau of Circulation) actually creates and enforces a way to audit views on social media, views will mean whatever the publisher wants them to mean. And they can change them without explanation." Precisely, John, and one of my points -- although mine is not as eloquently expressed. As to the rest of what you say, you are right on the money. Thanks for joining the conversation. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #101

#140
Thank you, Milos, for the link. To be sure, no algorithm is going to be free of human-introduced bias, whether that bias is purposely introduced or subconsciously so. The only way to be 100% free of bias is to embrace fully organic networking and distribution. Facilitate people connecting with and following whom they wish, and use that networking to distribute 100% of the posts to 100% of such connections and followers 100% of the time. Engagement will then be based on #LETTHEAUDIENCEDECIDE . Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #100

#141
I understand that D-L and I see clearly the rationale behind your parameters for each type of contact. However, the problem remains that we have no idea how the various platforms treat these concepts or how they register the instances. Because none of the platform management will tell us that. I would point out to all who will now say that they keep this all secret to stop people from gaming the system, that is a pile of bull chips. As we're not talking about an algorithm that determines distribution and reach before the fact, but measures of engagement used to tally the contacts that occur AFTER the fact -- and which are affected only by how readers react to a post. Thank you, Donna-Luisa Eversley, for jining the conversation and engaging.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #99

"The algorithmic control is the highest level of manipulation within the mechanics and mechanisms of SM manipulation. Algorithm will soon be labeled as a "dark age" of social media" - M. Djukic A must read. AI and algorithms in social media: "The long-term consequences will be [fewer] people having more and more power over things in a very un-transparent and unaccountable way." Artice: "Holding AI to account: will algorithms ever be free from bias if they're created by humans? By Matt Burgess on wired.co.uk http://www.wired.co.uk/article/creating-transparent-ai-algorithms-machine-learning?sf72773354=1

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #98

#137
Deborah, LinkedIn has long pursued an "Influencer"-based marketing program. Unfortunately for independent writers on LI, many of them began to develop large, actively-engaged followings that started to rival those of the LI-designated Influencers. Especially when you considered that the work of indie writers was only exposed to a minuscule portion of the vast population which was exposed to the work of said designated Influencers. Result was that LinkedIn tweaked its algorithm to choke down distribution of work published by indie writers to their self-elected connections and followers, in I believe, a blatant attempt to maintain the illusion that its Influencer marketing program was working. Which it was not. And in fact, the largest membership boost LI experienced was following the introduction of its long-post self-publishing sub-platform which. with the strong growth of groups, provided more than 200 million additional members. (As I read the timeline against the membership graphs.) https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/the-ethical-and-functional-bankruptcy-of-influencer-marketing I know, I also hate it when people cite their own articles. But this is the fastest way for me to comment in detail. I am sure that your views and experience as the owner of a LinkedIn group of significant size would be valuable for people to read here on beBee. Please feel free to cite anything you may have written on the topic. Thanks for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #97

#135
Deborah, I feel your pain. I am the owner of two groups on LInkedIn, one a marine industry specific group with about 750 members, almost all industry professionals, and the other a writers' support group with just over 200 members, all active writers and self-publishers. And I help manage another industry-specific group that has about 7,000 members. The discussions in those groups used to be simply great, with ideas and information openly shared and brilliant contacts made 'round the world from time to time. A lot of work went into building and maintaining those groups and to nurturing the conversations. All of which the pre-MS LinkedIn threw under the bus. However, I do know why. It was because LI wanted to control distribution and networking in support of its own marketing and Influencer programs, and the larger, stronger groups represented a conduit for distribution of articles and posts that operated independently of LI's algorithmic "throttle". https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/groups-linkedin-beginning-end-phil-friedman My weariness comes in seeing beBee (which I at one time considered the last Great Hope to a user-centric digital self-publishing platform) pass by the opportunity to replace LinkedIn as the top player in the industry in the area of professional and industry groups (hives). For as I've said many times, properly run groups are the key to growing the platform by leaps and bounds -- for a number of reasons. I hope you feel better soon. Have a beer, send me tab. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #96

#132
Michael, first, I apologize for leaning into you a little earlier.. it was not justified because your disagreement is always honest and open, without hidden agenda. Unlike some others here today who have it in mind to pick some undisclosed bone. As to LinkedIn, I don't really have a "strategy". Mostly because it is a master of indifferent stonewalling. My references to what I see as a legal and ethical travesty is more than anything else an ongoing protest such as the one I still carry on over the Vietnam war -- a useless instance of military adventurism, not worth the loss of even a single drop of blood. Or my age-old protest against Racism in the US. Or the Trumpist Idiocy over universal health care for the Nation. It's me tilting at windmills, ala Don Quixote. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #95

#127
Martina, of course, you can ask someone who likes fishing to explain why. But that is not the form of the question that you asked, nor is it the form in which I rephrased the question. The question you asked is, in effect, a demand for the fisherman to JUSTIFY why he likes to fish -- which is a completely different request. Moreover, it is a question that implies there may be something wrong with his predilection to fishing and, indeed, that it needs to be justified. Which it doesn't. When I publish something on social media, I feel obliged to reply to questions and comments concerning what I've published. I generally try to do so in as civil and non-confrontational manner as possible. But that is not always possible, as in this case. For I am at a loss as to why you think I or anyone else is obligated to justify to you spending time on social media. And I find the challenge both arrogant and rude. Still, I'm used to that, given my publishing history on social media, including LinkedIn and beBee. So to put the matter to rest I'll respond. Cont... Pt II

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #94

#127
Martina - Pt II I write and publish sometimes for pay and sometimes without pay, but for other reasons. I've written and published more than 1,000 articles for pay. And since this has come up before in discussion with trolls who have, for whatever unfathomable reason, chosen to attack what I do, I have an overview available of my history as a paid writer and editor. See: https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/i-ll-show-you-mine-then-you-show-me-yours I write and self-publish on social media for a number of reasons: 1) As part of a program to market the services of my core offline business in marine industry technical and business consulting. See: https://www.bebee.com/content/1339769/1206007 http://www.yachtbuildadvisor.com 2) As part of my efforts to showcase and market my paid writing and editing and generate leads and contacts for paid writing and ghost-writing gigs. See: https://www.bebee.com/content/1040863/978769 3) As part of my self-imposed program to maintain my writing and editing skills through fairly constant exercise and practice. I also write, publish, read, and engage on social media because I enjoy the mental stimulation and believe the brain/mind is like a muscle, it needs to be exercised in order to stay fit. What I don't do is worry about those who don't like what I write or have to say. To them, and to you, I simply say it is your prerogative not to like or think much of what I write or of me. And if you don't please feel free to scroll on by or turn the page. Have a good life. And goodby. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #93

#127
Martina, of course, you can ask someone who likes fishing to explain why. But that is not the form of the question that you asked, nor is it the form in which I rephrased the question. The question you asked is, in effect, a demand for the fisherman to JUSTIFY why he likes to fish -- which is a completely different request. Moreover, it is a question that implies there may be something wrong with his predilection to fishing and, indeed, that it needs to be justified. Which it doesn't. When I publish something on social media, I feel obliged to reply to questions and comments concerning what I've published. I generally try to do so in as civil and non-confrontational manner as possible. But that is not always possible, as in this case. For I am at a loss as to why you think I or anyone else is obligated to justify to you spending time on social media. And I find the challenge both arrogant and rude. Still, I'm used to that, given my publishing history on social media, including LinkedIn and beBee. So to put the matter to rest I'll respond. I write and publish sometimes for pay and sometimes without pay, but for other reasons. I've written and published more than 1,000 articles for pay. And since this has come up before in discussion with trolls who have, for whatever unfathomable reason, chosen to attack what I do, I have an overview available of my history as a paid writer and editor. See: https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/i-ll-show-you-mine-then-you-show-me-yours I write and self-publish on social media for a number of reasons: 1) As part of a program to market the services of my core offline business in marine industry technical and business consulting. See: https://www.bebee.com/content/1339769/1206007 http://www.yachtbuildadvisor.com 2) As part of my efforts to showcase and market my paid writing and editing and generate leads and contacts for paid writing and ghost-writing gigs.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #92

#125
Michael, reading cometh before questioning. 1) My comment about justification was in answer to a question why someone would choose to spend so much time publishing on social media. To me, that's like asking why someone would spend so much time fishing or why a Kiwi would spend time jumping off a bridge at the end of a giant rubber band. 2) The answer is simple. Cost. There is enough in the concept that a couple of class-action guns took the time to review my package on the matter. But in both instances the opinion was that too much investment would be required to get the action off the ground. Although the feeling was we could probably get past any defense motion for summary judgment and to trial. But that all takes a lot of upfront money, as does getting certified to represent the class. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #91

#123
Thank you, Todd, for your exceedingly kind words and support. I agree with you about the importance of comments in judging level of engagement. The problem with weighting comments more than shares is that too many comments are of the variety "Great post!". And the "quality" of comments is hard to capture quantitatively. With a share, someone has to put their own imprimatur on the post, that is, recommend it publicly. So that is why I personally (and Gary Sharpe, as well) felt it should receive the highest weighting. BTW, this is not my "Swan Song" on beBee. What I said was "This is very likely the last post concerning beBee and social media I will ever publish on beBee." I plan to continue publishing my small-business related and marine industry writings, as well as my more personal pieces. I am just no longer going to expend any energy in the hope that beBee will find a better "way" than thus far displayed on competing social media. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #90

#116
Bravo, Jerry, you put your finger right on it. The various managements of social media platforms do not want to share with us the details of how they arrive at view counts, let alone standardize across platforms on how view counts are to be calculated. The reason for that reluctance is that the view counts function in many cases as an attraction to new users who are hoping to gain Reach (exposure) -- whether that is to build an audience for one's writing or to target a population for marketing activities. On LinkedIn, when complaints were made by independent writers about being treated unequally in terms of exposure, as compared to LI's appointed "Influencers", the answer from LI Editorial was "It doesn't matter how many people you reach, what's important is reach the few 'right' people." Which never made any sense to me because the greater the number of people to which your writing or marketing is exposed, the higher the probability you will reach the "right" people. As any marketer worth his or her salt knows, in most cases, it's a numbers game. A lot of "social media marketing" -- marketing ON social media, not the marketing OF social media -- is to my mind a shell game. And one indication of that is when social media marketers start talking about ROI as being the number of click-throughs. Egads! That's not ROI. Sales are ultimately the only truly meaningful ROI for any and all marketing. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #89

#116
Bravo, Jerry, you put your finger right on it. The various managements of social media platforms do not want to share with us the details of how they arrive at view counts, let alone standardize across platforms on how it is to be one, precisely because the view counts function in many cases as an attraction to new users hoping to gain Reach (exposure) -- whether that is to build an audience for one's writing or to target a population for marketing activities. On LinkedIn, when complaints were made by independent writers about being treated unequally in terms of exposure, as compared to LI's appointed "Influencers", the answer from LI Editorial was "It doesn't matter how many people you reach, what's important is reach the few 'right' people." Which never made any sense to me because the greater the number of people to which your writing or marketing is exposed, the higher the probability you will reach the "right" people. As any marketer worth his or her salt knows, in most cases, it's a numbers game. A lot of "social media marketing" -- marketing ON social media, not the marketing OF social media -- is to my mind a shell game. And one indication of that is when social media marketers start talking about ROI as being the number of click-throughs. Egad! That's not ROI. Sales are ultimately the ROI for any and all marketing. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #88

#118
Martina, there is little point in you and I continuing to discuss this because apparently, you have not read what I've written. Contrary to what you assert, nowhere have I questioned the point of posting on LinkedIn. If anything, I've cautioned against accepting that claim and argued that the selection of which platforms to use is much more complicated than some marketing people would have us users believe. I wish you well. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #87

#114
Martina, I see what you are saying. What I don't understand is why some people enter into conversations on social media only to question the value of doing so. I once knew a fellow who was in the habit of asking a provocative question. Then after engaging in a discussion of some length with someone who tried to politely answer him, would close the conversation with, "Well, it doesn't really matter, anyway." The entire gambit appeared designed to set up the opportunity to adopt a pose of superiority. For if it weren't, he would not have asked the question in the first place. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Jerry Fletcher

Jerry Fletcher

4 years ago #86

Phil, I come at the social media unicorn from a different angle but agree with you completely. The ongoing tests of what works and what doesn't to sell products on line via pay per click or via "search hope" will quickly tell you that getting "eyes on" anything is just the first step and that your probable sales will be a very small percentage of that (usually under 1%). Obviously, the more people that "see something" the better off you are. That 's why the secrecy around the numbers on social media. It is not the only game in town and some of us have gone back to direct mail and gotten greater returns. I don't even consider the "bright shiny object" claims any more. I recommend testing to my clients measured on the ROI of the offer.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #85

#108
John, I consider the negative checks a badge of honor. For each one means I've drawn out one more cowardly shadow troll. My best to you. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #84

#112
Thank you, Don. I hope you and Kate and the kids are enjoying a great Mother's Day. My best to youvall. Cheers!

don kerr

don kerr

4 years ago #83

Phil Friedman You know me and stats - I surely don't have a clue. This is though, a great piece and very helpful from my perspective in attempting to bring clarity and insight into a contentious area. I appreciate your efforts - as always.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #82

#110
Martina, if you truly believe that, why do you bother with social media? Or any form of communication? Why do all the great writers bother? You are free to care or not. As I am free to continue ranting about the cynicism of those who control social media platforms. You do not need to justify what interests you or not. And I do not need to justify what occupies my focus. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #81

#107
No, Martina. We don't become parties to "all these implied contracts online". I did not say that because we don't. There are specific elements that must be present in a situation for a legally binding contract to be constituted. One of those is the passing of "consideration" between the parties. Simply, for example, using Facebook does not create a contract. Which is why FB's T&C apply and can be changed without notice by the company. The same is true of those who used LinkedIn. However, LI made a separate offer to approximately 25,000 authors. It invited them to "publish on LinkedIn" and in return for their content (which LI used to more than double the MAUs it later sold at $62 each to MS) promised to provide certain services in return. LinkedIn took the content (which, in the case of published professional authors such as I, has a definite market value) and then reneged on what it promised in return. I have laid out all the details of the argument in the article(s) to which I referred you earlier. I am not "mad" about it -- at least no "madder" than I am about the situation with healthcare in the US or about our current political situation. But as a Beezer and as one member of the dynamic duo of rant, "Grumpy and Grouchy", I have an obligation not to just say "Oh, well." At least to not let the moguls of social media sweep such cynical BS completely under the rug.

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #80

#105
"teaching university and college students, I found it much more effective to give them the respect of treating them as intelligent, capable adults." This is exactly what I meant. Me too ! Phil Friedman.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #79

#100
Louise, I agree with you about dealing with children children. But in eight years of teaching university and college students, I found it much more effective to give them the respect of treating them as intelligent, capable adults. An approach that generated much positive feedback from my students. My objection, like yours, to the negative button is 1) that it's use is not accompanied by any explanation and 2) that being anonymous it is ripe for abuse. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #78

#103
You are more than welcome Milos Djukic Do itashimashite !

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #77

#91
Thank you Louise Smith.

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #76

Phil Friedman I am relatively new to SM and have been at loathe to embrace it for it's obvious proclivities. Now I am thinking of moving to online counselling and have great consternation, wondering if I need to learn about the SM marketing skills and the numerous software programs available. So I found this buzz to have some very pertinent info. Thankyou Louise

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #75

#100
:)

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #74

Phil Friedman Until I read this post, it didn't register with me that there is a negative comment button ! This is the first post where I have noticed it. I think that it is very very undesirable. As said in these comments, if you want to have a vibrant community online, positive feedback is essential. If you hit the negative comment button and don't give feedback or reasoning why - again what's the point. I never have and never will use it ! I have taught children with IQs that were so low that they were immeasurable to students with MENSA capability. They are all humans who deserve to be treated with dignity. There was always some small thing that I could do to make their lives more enjoyable and fulfilling. It's not rocket science !

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #73

#88
Martina, A lot ofbusinesses do things all the time that they shouldn't be doing. That is what keeps civil litigtion lawyers driving expensive cars. The question is whether the promises of social media platforms form part of a legal contract, which itself can be implicit, rather than explicit, and still be legally binding. In the case of LinkedIn, my contention in "Arrogant Control Is Not Leadership on Social Media, Or Anywhere Else", I argue that when, in LinkedIn's own words, it "invited writers to publish on LinkedIn", an implicit, but nevertheless legal contract was formed because the writers' work that changed hands constituted "consideration" and that, therefore, all of the elements required for a legal contract were constituted. This, of course, is my personal view, and I am not a lawyer. Although my view has, in fact, been supported by several lawyers who looked at the situation. Keep in mind, though, as in any contractual situation, enforcement of the terms of the contract often becomes iffy because of the high cost of litigation. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/arrogant-control-leadership-social-media-anywhere-else-phil-friedman

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #72

Phil Friedman I would like you and everyone to know that if I commit to reading a post, I read all of it including the comments. I also try to write something that is somewhat meaningful in a comment. Otherwise what's the point.

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #71

#68
You can also buy "ethical" shares or "fair trade" coffee ! Not much difference between the two - they both get consumed eventually.

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #70

#65
It's not ! That's why oil spills, rainforest logging, wildlife extinction etc happens. Who has enough $ to take big corporations to court to account !

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #69

#62
WOW Milos Djukic What a great comment ! I have never thought about that a majority of SM users could have self responsibility and therefore self regulation ! As a psychologist, both self responsibility and self regulation are extremely important concepts I try to teach my clients. I have quite a lot of Rehab clients and usu they bust if they can't grasp and facilitate these concepts for themselves independently.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #68

#89
Sorry, Michael, but beBee USA is incorporated and operates in the U.S. Not saying that it is doing anything actionable, but if it were, the practical issue would be whether beBee USA had any assets which could be attacked within US jurisdiction. BUT PLEASE, EVERYONE, this particular part of the thread has moved very far afield and should NOT in any way be taken as involving any allegation that beBee is doing anything it shouldn't be doing. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #67

#85
Phil, You can always stay "closer than you think" :) For example, I still believe in Santa Claus. Lucky me. I am unsuccessful with or without social media.

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #66

#21
Yes I think writers that appeal to shallow readers on the whole on any SM platform do better. It's directly related to intelligence. 3/4 of the population are slightly above average to below average and they are the mainstream readers. So to sell to them, the content needs to be pitched at them. I often start reading a post with an enticing headline only to think "what is this really about?" and usu it's "NOT MUCH !" (present company excluded of course)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #65

#78
Well I do. The info graphic shows steps to follow that end in being "a success". What else do you think that is saying? If you do all those things, you might have a small chance at being a success or not at all? You might argue, I suppose, that no moderately intelligent person would believe the Promise -- and so it is only as puffery -- but to say that the promise is not even implied... well, let's just agree to disagree on that one.

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #64

#6
Yes I rarely see posts in my LI feed by 1st degree connections that I want to read ! It's annoying because I used to.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #63

#80
Phil, Please do not forget that some social media companies are not from US.

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #62

#4
What I find puzzling is that my posts on LI are often read "way more" (my type of maths) by my 2nd degree network than 1st and just recently I noticed I have a 3rd degree network?

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #61

#78
Very true Michael O'Neil and I agree with you.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #60

#70
Michael, in US law a certain level of what is known as advertising "puffery" is allowed. However, it is left to the courts to determine if, in a given case, that level has been exceeded and representations have been made that are de facto part of the sales contract. Cheers!

Louise Smith

Louise Smith

4 years ago #59

#3
Yes I was proud of myself that I got to the end all in one go ! Don't give me test on the content though... I struggled through 6 Semester subjects of Psyc stats but this maths is altogether different.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #58

#71
But there are no results for users reviews :)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #57

#71
Phil, LinkedIn Employee Reviews on indeed.com :): https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Linkedin/reviews

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #56

#71
Phil, Elsevier Employee Reviews on indeed.com: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Elsevier/reviews

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #55

#71
Phil, My experiences are different from yours in the case of Elsevier. Cheers.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #54

#69
Milos, I am sympathetic to what you are saying. But I worked as an Editor for a few years for Cahners Publishing when it was a division of Reed Elsevier, and my faith in corporate social responsibility was not boosted by the experience. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #53

#65
Phil, I didn't notice that there is something similar (Elsevier) in the case of social media.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #52

#60
Phil, The next evolutionary step in marketing is socially responsible marketing as a new paradigm for sustainable development and prosperity. There are indications that this is true, because I carefully follow corporate marketing in some areas. The example is Elsevier company, now a part of the RELX group as one of the world's major providers of scientific, technical, and medical information. Elsevier - corporate responsibility: https://www.elsevier.com/about/corporate-responsibility RELX Group 2015 Corporate Responsibility Report: http://www.relx.com/corporateresponsibility/Documents/cr-reports/cr-report-2015.pdf

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #51

#65
Phil, It is relatively easy and the self-similarity concept should be adopted. For a new courage and innovation, human interactions are essential ingredient. The basis is a complete freedom of expression and critical thinking without any insults and maliciousness. In its essence, real influence and affectivity should be always a two-way street. On social network it is impossible to separate business from personal. They are intertwined within a complex adaptive system, such as social network and that is a prerequisite for sustainable development and profit growth, If you have not cared for your customers and users, it’s personal, but above all the business need. Business is personal. Only then, the conflict between social responsibility and corporate profit-making will not happen. People are not fools. Social media are driven mainly by Millennials. As a professor who is in constant contact with Millennials i could say that there is nobody to give them a nice and subtle, because it is not fashionable. Yet they have no time for dreams about social responsibility .Their god is a profit (corporate culture only) and that's just fine. But dreams must first materialize in our minds. When social media becomes self-sufficient and highly introverted system, that is the announcement of inevitable stagnation.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #50

#61
Michael, for the record, and for the person who from the shadows of anonymity registered a dislike of my comment #63 below, consider the following example of a marketing promise of success: http://tinyurl.com/k7hopp9 Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #49

#62
The question, Milos, is where does "social responsibility" overlap with "corporate activity".The article you cite gives some examples. But the next question is when social responsibility conflicts with corporate profitmaking, how is that conflict resolved? See my reply to Michael below, #63. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #48

#60
Or maybe "The Critique of Pure Reason" by I. Kant :)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #47

#61
Michael> "Their [sic] is no guarantee, there are no promises." Sorry, but often promises are made, as they were by LinkedIn, and as they have been by beBee. If what you mean is that there are no guarantees in life that those who make promises will keep them, I agree. But that does not take anyone in business or otherwise off the hook for making a good faith effort to keep their promises and live up to their representations. Obviously, no platform can reasonably promise success to a user. Although the fact is that such platforms, including LinkedIn and beBee, do just that in their marketing materials multiple times daily. Don't you read, for example, all the marketing posts about achieving success by building your personal brand? But I agree that it is neither sensible nor reasonable to expect that a platform can, in and by itself, deliver "success" to a user. However, it is within the power of a platform to deliver on its promises concerning the distribution of posts and articles to a writer's followers. It is within the power of a platform to deliver on its promises concerning maintaining its specified roster of services when it seeks to entice writers and bloggers and other users to invest a significant number of hours in providing the content around which the platform builds its image. To assert otherwise is to trash the legal concept of a contract and the obligation to perform on the terms of such an agreement. IMO. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #46

#60
Phil, For me this is nothing more than how to encourage socially responsible behavior, since social responsibility is a form of self-regulation. It is an integral part of the self-similarity concept. "Examples of Social Responsibility Strategies" by Susan S. Davis on smallbusiness.chron.com http://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-social-responsibility-strategies-10633.html

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #45

#59
Milos, that it is not surprising does not mean it should not be spoken of -- although there are those who would prefer that it not be. Thank you for speaking clearly on the matter. I think that where "communities" form online, we tend to forget that the media are still private, for-profit enterprises. And should be anticipated to act as such. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #44

#56
Phil, None of this is surprising, as long as we are talking about social media. We naive users used to think it's fun, but actually it is not. "Social media benefits the owners of these media" - Jeroen Haan, LI user. I would like to express in this way, which otherwise I often use: There's no business like socila media (and marketing - "new item") business. The show must go on, with or without us. It is a mechanism.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #43

#55
That's okay, Michael, I can't count beyond two anyway. :-) Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #42

#54
Michael,the core values of honesty and transparency in the online statistics lie in evaluating not the current ROI, but the potential ROI over the longer term, and whether the effort invested now has a reasonable probability of showing returns in the longer term. Because if one is writing and publishing on a social media platform as part of a marketing strategy and program, one has to evaluate whether the platform will deliver later what it promises now. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #41

#53
Michael, that was precisely the strategy of The Wiener and The Whopper. What was reprehensible in my book was their cynical reneging on the implicit contract they made with the writers they specifically invited to "publish on LinkedIn" in exchange for promised support for those writers to build and maintain their own individual networks of readers and followers. As I said in the postscript to this piece, "I started out about a decade ago not understanding anything about social media and taking everything and everyone at face value. Now, after much activity and thought and study, I've ended up understanding just a little and believing just about nobody, especially not anyone who is in the business of social media." Make no mistake amidst all the camaraderie. Your value as an MAU was set by the sale of LinkedIn to MS at US$ 62.00. To social media moguls, MAUs are commodities. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #40

#50
John, you need to grow a thicker skin. I've made it abundantly clear that I consider the use of the negative button to be at the same level as pond scum. Anonymous and petty trolling. I offset those checks as soon and as to as great a degree as I can. And challenge those who feel that way to come out into the open and say so. But that's all I can do. Don't give the coward(s) involved the satisfaction of getting your goat. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #39

#48
Michael, thanks for the thoughtful comment. Here are some of my answers. 1) What's in it for them is loyal support as consumers of their "product". 2) No, because there is insufficent data available to compare ROI of online activity vs offline when it comes to generating offline business. 4) No, but I did at one point suggest that a controlling interest (about 30% of outstanding shares) in LI be bought by its users -- and I have suggested to Javier and Juan a couple of times that they float a stock issue for users. Re "Who actually has the ability to change the situation?" -- That's pretty obvious, Michael, we all do. And my comment is a call to action, not a question or a whining complaint. There is nothing utopian about thinking that social media has (or had) the potential to connect people worldwide. Perhaps, naive to think a significant number of people would care beyond finding a larger audience for their selfies, but utopian? No. There is no blurring of my two "core" needs. I am fully cognizant of and acknowledge the distinctness of those two different core needs. One has to do with marketing, the other to do with self-expression. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #38

#40
Thank you, Franci, for reading and sharing this post. I appreciate your support, which is always kind and fair. But if I were you, I wouldn't waste my time "trying to fully understand how the view counts work". You can't do it, because nobody in social media management -- not at LinkedIn, beBee, Niume, Medium, or Facebook will say how they count or calculate "views". To my mind it has to do with undermining any ability to compare platforms or call to task any of the fantastic marketing claims they make. Hey guys, let me repeat for the umpteenth time, what constitutes a "view" or read or eyeball in your system? On social media, where illusion and delusion are the orders of the day, a teeny bit of transparency would, I submit, go a long way to solidify user-loyalty.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #37

#43
Thank you, Migdalia, for reading and commenting. Opinions and feelings without data are often delusions, while data without analysis is useless. My main point here is don't make wild marketing claims that cannot be supported by the available data. And by the way, let me renew my call for all social media owners and managers to simply tell us honestly what constitutes a "view" in each of their respective systems. Huh, guys? What is so difficult about answering that question?

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #36

#41
Jim, with all due respect, as I said in the piece, stats are not misleading, but what people do with them can be. Personally, I abhor the dislike button, as you refer to it. It open the way to the worst kind of trolling -- the anonymous kind. Actually, i would prefer like to go away as well, with only comments and shares remaining. And for me, the place where the rubber really meets the road is when a post results in the addition of followers. But that's me. Most writers love the view counts, even when deep in their guts they know views are a pile of bull chips. Thanks for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Franci 🐝Eugenia Hoffman, beBee Brand Ambassador

Whew! Phil Friedman's comment especially his statement "Bottom line. Page views, engagement whatever...it's all about being out there consistently with interesting stuff that reflects who you are and you will build a following and who knows what happens after that."

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #34

#36
Well, I'm having a couple of Irish ales and a chuckle or two over the latest goings on with the world's Chief Twit. Why don't you have a couple on me, and send me the tab. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #33

#35
John, I did not include the full list because I figured anyone interested after following one or two of the links that I did supply would find their way to your other articles. However, I am pleased that you have supplied the full list. Thanks for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #32

#33
I'm with you..signed Grouchy

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #31

#30
Jim Murray, I like your comment.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #30

#30
Jim, I am pleased to hear that your online writing is generating opportunity in the offline world. For some, including me, that is a major part of the reason to write and publish online. As to your question why it all bothers me so much, I guess its because I feel a kinship with the online community of writers and self-publishers -- guys like you and the other Beezers, Paul Walters. Beyond that, I guess it's also like not being able to get past all the B.S. that Trump continues to hand out. It's a matter of self-respect not to overlook it. (Yea, I know the analogy is stretching it a bit. See my reply #32 to Pascal below.) Oh yeah, and finally, part of it has to do with the code of being Grumpy and Grouchy. :-) Cheers

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #29

#29
You make good points, Pascal, and I agree that ultimately a writer has to take responsibility for his or her own distribution. However, in order to play properly on the field, one has to understand the landscape. And in the case of social media, not be mislead by marketing blarney. One of the biggest problems I had with the self-publishing platform on LinkedIn was (is) that it was misrepresented by LI when the company sought to use it to lever up its membership by quantum leaps. Some might say to just get past that. But that's like telling me to get past all of Trump's B.S. (Obviously, the analogy is a bit overdrawn, but gets, I think, the point across.) Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #28

#28
Thank you Siraj for reading and for the kind words. Social Media has always had the potential to be something truly beneficial for us all, but we've allowed those who run the business of social media to manipulate and control us. (If you doubt that, read more about the gamification of social media platforms.) At the very least, we need to stop drinking the Kool Aid and ask for the facts. Cheers!

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #27

Well I'm glad you got that out of your system. But I for one don't really get why this is such a big concern to you. By your own admission, you do just fine here and you do just fine on LinkedIn by your own personal definition of 'fine'. Me too.The majority of stuff you write tends to attract a lot of attention and comment (aka engagement), probably more than you wish you had to respond to sometimes. Digital media, especially social media is filled with individualized definitions of gratification and effectiveness. I personally don't care any more if I'm pulling big numbers or views. I'm more interested in the fact that I have spent years developing my 'personal brand' and that the people who get me read me. Same with the He Said He Said. Without sounding arrogant we have, in just two years, build a very popular brand, just by having on line conversations. I'm thrilled about that. But I'm pretty sure it will never actually be monetized. Just like my other posts. But, I have recently been accepted as a writer for the most popular business pub in my area, based on the posts I have written here and over in the Lumpy Kingdom. And that, my dear amigo, has a much better chance of monetizing itself than anything I do on line. Bottom line. Page views, engagement whatever...it's all about being out there consistently with interesting stuff that reflects who you are and you will build a following and who knows what happens after that. Digital marketing was designed to benefit digital marketers at the expense of our time and energy. In one sense you could say it's all bullshit. In another way you could say, hey, I've got a platform and an audience and I'm a happy camper. I'll take door number two. Good post Phil.

Pascal Derrien

Pascal Derrien

4 years ago #26

a lot of home truth in this article whether one agrees or not the pointers are truly thought provoking, as Jim Murray said once you have to promote yourself. For me it is finding solutions on how to propose articles to a potential readership for example I don't tag but I share an article numerous times within 24 hours otherwise I know it wont be seen nobody is going to come and rescue you no matter what platform it is now beBee makes it easier

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #25

#25
Very true Phil. You are an excellent writer in both systems.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #24

#23
I agree with you! Have a great evening, Phil, my precious friend :) Goliath will definitely stay silent, as always. Götterdämmerung.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #23

#24
Milos, you are correct if you mean the "performance" of writers in one system cannot be compared to the "performance" of writers in another system. You are also correct if you mean the "performance" of a post in one system cannot be accurately compared to the "performance" of that post in another system, if the either 1) one is algorithmically controlled and the other based on organic networking, or 2) if both systems are algorithmically controlled, but the algorithms are different. However, that does NOT mean the SYSTEMS can't be compared and evaluated against one another. That is what ethics is all about. Determining which way is the better. Personally, I would choose organic distribution every time, because my own success or failure would then be based solely on how good a writer I was, not on whether I could somehow curry favor with someone who could boost my posts to receiving exposure to many millions of readers, whether or not it was a good piece.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #22

#21
Phil, You just give a reason why they can not be compared. One option is correct and another is manipulation. This is the reason why it can not be compared. A poor or shallow writer might actually do better, but it is still a poor writer. It's a kind of "magic" of mainstream SM, apparent truth and selective promotion of people and content. Sorry too Phil.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #21

#18
Milos, I am not out to beat up the child. If anything, I am trying to get David to see that the key to conquering Goliath is to choose the correct battleground and weapon. And not be drawn into a fight on terms David cannot win. In this post, I actually lay out several strong points, on the basis of which beBee can stand its ground because the ground is solid. And I argue that it is folly to challenge Goliath by wading off into the quicksand. To express it in biblical terms. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #20

#18
Milos, I am not out to beat up the child. If anything, I am trying to get David to see that the key to conquering Goliath is to choose the correct battleground and weapon. And not be drawn into a fight on terms David cannot win. In this post, I actually lay out several strong points, on the basis of which beBee can stand its ground because the ground is solid. And I argue that it is follow to try to challenge Goliath by wading off into the quicksand. To express it in biblical terms.Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #19

#5
Milos > "There is no way to make comparisons between social media with and without algorithmic control." I disagree strongly. In systems with algorithmic control, distribution (Reach) is autocratic and arbitrary. In systems that are base on and true to organic networking,distribution (Reach) is based on the readership a given writer establishes for him- or herself. The latter system is, to my mind, superior, hand down. That does not mean that a writer will always fare better under a system of organic distribution. For if he or she is a poor writer, whatever that means, he or she might fare worse is dependent upon winning readers as fans. And a poor or shallow writer might actually do better in an algorithmic system, if the algorithm favors him or her. Which is what was happening on LinkedIn vis a vis its Influencers. Sorry for the out-of-order replies. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #18

#12
Phil, I have never believed in marketing as a truth, it is important to qualify intention.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #17

#15
Milos, I am not saying that the observed radical decrease in "views" on LinkedIn was due to re-defining what a view is. Not at all. As you well know, I argues over and over again that it was clearly due to a manipulation of the algorithm in order to return results that better supported the investment LI had in its failed Influencer system. But that is not my point in this post. My point here is that while we know not really what a "view" or even a "click" on LinkedIn is, we also have no idea what a "view" on beBee is. What is clear, however, that the majority of "engagement" on beBee USA comes from within a relatively small circle (140 members or less) of incentivized affiliated marketing operatives. That is something pointed out by John Vaughan in more than one of his posts, and is a matter of simply taking a look at the comments and tallying the stats on them. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #16

#12
Phil, I am fighter for truth. Searching for the truth about SM is more like the myth of Sisyphus. I highly appreciate your commitment to truth. Do not hit the "child", but "Goliath" (mainstream SM). It's absolutely incomparable (circles in sand and NASA).

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #15

#14
Paul \, I am not sure what "gaming the system" would look like for a writer/author if the defining characteristic of the system is organic networking and distribution, and simply distributes a writers product to those who follow the writer and in so doing ask to see his or her work when it appears. In such a system, I suppose some writers would seek to write on topics that generated the highest responses, but that is true for a high percentage of all forms of publishing. I don't see achieving popularity as gaming the system, do you? I think of it more like tricking the LI algorithm into seeing one of your posts as "trending" and by so doing causing it to distribute it to 100 million LI members, by blast-Tweeting and retweeting links to the post. Back on LinkedIn, there is a lot of system gaming going on, because the system is artificially constrictive. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #14

#12
NoE in Fractals Forever is the most important :)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #13

"Recently, LI began also to refer to views as "clicks." Which seems to imply that now the view counts reflect the number of times a LinkedIn member of members opens an article." - P.F. Phil Friedman, Do you believe in magic? Then, "You're closer than you think" :) No, decrease od views is the consequence of algorithm, influencer marketing, death of Pulse for all underprivileged writers, manipulation with exposure and "editorial board".

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #12

#11
PS Milos, I wonder how you would react if a made claims about a new alloy being impervious to Hydrogen embrittlement,and you could see clearly that those claims were at best mistaken and at worst, outright false. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #11

#11
Milos, this post is not really about beBee vs LinkedIn. It is about honesty and integrity versus spin and bull chips. Thanks for readingandcommenting... and for seeking to spread the idea of an NoE. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #10

"The future is all about what you do next and we’re excited to help you get there. Ready for your moonshot? You're closer than you think". (www.linkedin.com/CloserThanYouThink)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #9

#7
Quo Video stultus haberet, dicere fas out.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #8

The algorithmic control is the highest level of manipulation within the mechanics and mechanisms of SM manipulation. Accordingly, the circles in sand are more like a child's play. LinkedIn: "You're Closer Than You Think" Fortunately, almost.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #7

#3
Yea, Paul, I know it's really long. But you probably have never read one of Samantha Bailey's posts on the problems over at LinkedIn. As a professional writer, I think you can understand how, as a piece like this, begins to grow, you want to let it go and walk away. The ROI (for any definition of ROI) is not likely to be high enough to justify the effort or the aggravation of incurring the wrath of those who resent one's pissing on their parade. And believe me, over the last six months, I left this piece, time and time again. But then a beBee cheerleader would say something patently ridiculous, and the itch on an unreachable part of my back would start up again. And I would go back to the piece. Until, finally, I decided the only way to close the door on it was to finish it. Just to be clear, one of the main themes of the piece is that it makes no sense to use spin when you have strong objective reasons on your side. Thanks for wading through the piece, and for commenting. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #6

“Noli, obsecro, istum disturbare”.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #5

#4
Actually, Paul, I think you and I agree for the most part. But with all due respect, it would be easy for the ownership and management of each and every one of the social media platforms, including LinkedIn and beBee, to simply tell us what constituted a "view" in their respective systems. That they refuse to do so, only confirms for me the likelihood that they want to play with the numbers. As to "trying to measure the unmeasurable", I don't think so. What I've said is that the lack of definition for "views" makes it impossible to compare results platform to platform. Which makes the claim that "beBee crushes LinkedIn" unsupported and unsupportable. It also makes it silly to include the "views" as an Engagement stat as was done in a beBee marketing post -- precisely because we have no idea how it is arrived at -- notwithstanding you guess. Finally, I did not ignore the algorithms in play in the background. What I said is that on LinkedIn the algorithm determines the level of reach, whereas on beBee, declarations of affinity (organic networking) determine who sees what. At least, that is the case nominally. I am not sure it is actually working that way because I am a year later still not seeing all of, say, @Jim Murray's posts even though I follow him and am a member of several hives in which he shares his posts. But that is a different question altogether. My point is that, in the post, I actually emphasize that one of the strongest points in favor of beBee -- something that uniquely differentiates it -- is the fact the organic networking operates to determine Reach. My question is why not emphasize that point, rather that construct some totally B.S. comparison of Engagement stats to show that beBee "crushes" LinkedIn? Thank you for reading and taking the time to comment. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #4

Phil Friedman, This article is very complex and requires my detailed analysis. For the beginning: Fractals Forever :) Both In the field of SM mechanisms and marine sector technical and business consulting. Everywhere. There is no difference. Algorithm will soon be labeled as a "dark age" of social media There is no way to make comparisons between social media with and without algorithmic control.

Paul Walters

Paul Walters

4 years ago #3

Phil Friedman whew ! that was a mouthful to chew and swallow !! Thanks though, a lot to contemplate

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #2

Also mentioned in this article: Javier \ud83d\udc1d beBee,

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #1

Authors mentioned in this article: Jim Murray