Phil Friedman

4 years ago · 6 min. reading time · visibility 0 ·

chat Contact the author

thumb_up Relevant message Comment

With a Little Help for My Friends...

With a Little Help for My Friends...

WHEREIN AN OUTSPOKEN ADVOCATE FOR beBee PRESENTS SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION...


I found out early on that the toughest comments came from those who cared most.

Michelle Williams in a comment to How Do You Really Build Engagement?  beBee vs beBee, No.3

My friend and fellow Beezer, Jim Murray, recently published a post, "A Brief And Kind Of Lopsided BeBee Conversation With Maria". In a comment to that piece, I disagreed with one of Jim's points.  And additionally raised a critical question concerning how beBee was calculating and tabulating "views".

As a result, I received two interesting private messages. One asked why I would, in the writer's words, "jump on Jim without first trying to resolve the issue in private."  The other asked why I felt "the need to be so critical of beBee."  That which follows here are the answers to those two questions, plus some other observations which I believe are relevant in this context and which may be beneficial to beBee going forward.



Although I correspond almost daily with Jim Murray whom I consider one of the strongest marketing voices among beBee Brand Ambassadors, save for Chief Ambassador, John WhiteI posted my "critical" comment without first discussing it first with him in a PM because I specifically did not want to "resolve" the matter quietly and privately.

Instead, I felt it more beneficial all around to air the question spontaneously and openly. For I believe that open discussion is essential to positive growth, and the avoidance of self-delusion.

Being a user or member of a social media platform should not be approached as being on a sports team, or worse, as a sports "fan"...
Phil Friedman in If I Do Say So Myself

It is perfectly understandable that beBee ownership, management, and staff feel enthusiastically loyal to their endeavor. It is also understandable that appointed beBee Brand Ambassadors who have been additionally incentivized by a promise of contingent future compensation should consider themselves and act as (in the words of a couple of them) loyal "cheerleaders".

It is not, however, reasonable, or for that matter productive, to expect the rest of us to remain uniformly and unquestioningly supportive of everything about this new and exciting social media platform.

One of the things that initially attracted me to beBee was Javier Rica's and Juan Imaz's concept of Affinity Networking, bolstered by their commitment to making beBee a platform on which everyone was welcome and could build a niche for him- or herself. A platform on which writers could build and maintain their own readerships. And a platform where readers and users could gather into self-organizing groups for the purpose of interacting based on common interests.

What I've found at times, however, is a confusion between commonality of interests and what is lauded as like-mindedness.

Affinity Networking is, I submit, much more complex than might at first appear. Certainly much more complex than considering the commonality of interest(s) that might bring two people together.

Consider again, if you will, the BeeZers  and what brought them together into a seriously tight-knit group on beBee.



Consider further how much more complex the relationships get if you double the number of people involved. Then double it again. And again. And ...  Well, I'm sure you get the idea about the geometric progression.

However, although the way that Affinity Networking actually works to bring people together in groups may be vastly complex, I suggest to you that the sweet spot the bullseye of any Venn diagrammatic analysis will be engagement.

Of course, I'm talking about authentic engagement, in which ideas and opinions are passed back and forth, and when people both listen to and care about what others have to say. For I believe strongly that the mortar of stable organic growth in Affinity Networking is conversation.

Conversation, however, isn't really what you see in many exchanges on beBee in particular, or on social media in general. Two or more people engaging in genuine conversation involves more than throwing generic honey-coated phrases past one another, like the sounds of horn whistles of two trains passing one another on separate tracks in the dark of night.



 Conversation Isn't Just Politely Waiting Your Turn to Speak



One of the things that has troubled me of late is what appears to be a growing intolerance to dissenting opinion even when it is expressed politely not to mention the overt characterization of it as negative. This has, for example, been significantly evident in some in the reactions of a number of bees to some of the posts published by experienced UX practitioner, John Vaughan, who is both a beBee user and a LinkedIn member.

Admittedly, John is not the most tactful of people. (John, you are free to upbraid me for that assessment, should you so desire.) However, his points are made in an entirely civil manner and, just as importantly, he accepts and answers critical comments consistently and without complaint. Yet, some of John's analytic work published here on beBee has within my eyeshot been labeled "trollish" --- which it is most certainly not.

Why is this? My best guess is that we are being infected on beBee by team-fan spirit. And we are falling into thinking of beBee as "our hometown team". Which would not necessarily be a bad thing... unless we allow it to elicit the kind of behavior we've come to expect from some sports fans, as well as some true believers in other spheres.

And on this particular topic, I shall say no more, except that if you would like to judge for yourself, I'd recommend taking a look at a couple of John's other posts as well:

"The Mirror : Oct.12, 2016 : Trends"

"The Emperor's New Clothes : Epilog"

That said, I'd like to wrap this piece up with a suggestion to beBee concerning marketing.

I do not pretend to be a marketing gurualthough I have worked on and managed numerous marketing campaigns in regard to a variety of businesses, both my own and those of others.

Neither do I pretend to be a social media gurualthough I have been writing and blogging online for more than ten years (on my own websites, as well as on those of others) and active on social media per se since for more than five.

Consequently, that which follows is only an expression of my best-considered opinion, and not represented in any way to be "The Truth".


The beBee  cheerleaders should stop positioning the platform directly opposite LinkedIn in the market... unless they are prepared to verbally duke it out on the facts and merits of the inevitable comparison(s).

Phil Friedman in If I Do Say So Myself
Indeed, even if they (and beBee) are so prepared, they (and beBee) need to be willing to take the counter-punches.  And make no mistake; there will be counter-punches that land. As that is the nature of social media.

My question is why invite the verbal fisticuffs in the first place? BeBee has a seriously large number of differentiating features and positives. So, why not take the high road by emphasizing and marketing those, rather than devolving into the same kind of senseless picayune skirmishes that constantly crop up between MAC and PC users?

The high road is paved with frankness and honesty. It is clear of exaggeration and spin. And it is free of defensiveness and name-calling. It also follows the way of open and frank discussion and expression of ideas and opinions. Without recrimination.

There is any number of sound and powerful arguments in favor of beBee taking a strong position among the major social media platforms. And there is a large number of credible independent writers and users on beBee who can and are ready to make the case to followers and connections they have built up on other platforms. My suggestion is to let them do so, by seeing what they are doing for the positive that  it is, not for what you may think of negative, just because it is not honey coated.  Phil Friedman


Afterword:  An article like this always runs the danger of sounding preachy. I assure you that it is not intended to be so. My objective here is to stimulate reflection and open exchange of ideas and opinions. I believe that ultimately the best way to build stable organic growth for beBee is to establish for it a reputation as being a place where where one can speak one's mind on substantive topics, and enter into meaningful conversations with other with whom one shares common interests. Consequently, whether you agree or disagree with what I've said, feel free to comment and voice your opinion. Vive Afinity Networking!


Author's Notes:   If you're interested in the topics touched upon in this post, you may find it interesting to read Kevin Pashuk's powerful post "I Don't Get No Respect".

And If you found this post interesting and worthwhile, and would like to receive notifications of my writings on a regular basis, click the [FOLLOW] button on my beBee profile. As a writer-friend of mine says, you can always change your mind later.

Should you be curious about some of my previous postings about the publishing platforms of both LinkedIn and beBee, you can take a look at some of the following:

"Building Engagement on Social Media"

"Affinity Networking Is On the Line"

"Arrogant Control Is Not Leadership on Social Media... Or Anywhere Else"

"Take Your Algorithm and Shove It!"

"View Count on Pulse Posts Headed to Oblivion"

"Publishing in the Shadow of the LinkedIn Oracle"

"Lessons Learned from Publishing in the Shadow of the LinkedIn Oracle"

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 FriedmanWith 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.


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.


To schedule an appointment for a free 1/2-hour consult email: info@learn2engage.org. I look forward to speaking with you soon.

                   Image Credits:  Phil Friedman,  FreeDigitalPhotos.com, and Google Images



#BEBEEVERSUSBEBEE #AFFINITYNETWORKING #BEBEE

thumb_up Relevant message Comment
Comments
Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

2 years ago #146

#281
Well, Jennifer, that is exceptionally gratifying to read and exceptionally kind of you to take the time to say it. To be honest, I was not always as "diplomatic" and quietly helpful as I am these days. (Okay, okay, all you beBees out there, knock off the uncontrolled sniggering!) And its taken years for some people on LinkedIn and beBee to get used to my style. Indeed, some never have. But I believe that I generally stay true to a quest to say it straight, the way I see it. Generally without malice and mostly with good intentions. Thank you for reading and commenting. And cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

3 years ago #145

#279
Allan, thank you for reading and for your kind words. Please do not hesitate to comment. It does not matter that your first language is not English. We will all understand. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #144

#274
Jim, I genuinely appreciate your kind words. I believe that part of the difference you perceive is due to differences between our respective styles. Your writings are primarily what I would call "blogs" -- freer-form, very personal expressions of how you feel about things and how you see the world. You make your readers feel alternatively happy, melancholy, angry, and so on. And you entertain them. All of which is influenced, I think, by your long background in advertising and marketing copywriting. And which is why your following is as large as it is, and why it is continuing to grow. In contrast, I tend to write what I think are more properly termed essays or articles. Influenced by my history in magazine writing and editing, and perhaps (for better or worse, I am not sure) by my several years in teaching at the college and university levels. Like you, I think I also tend to provoke people, but in a different way. In a way, that makes them, perhaps, "take me on." The differences between our styles, by the way, is what has made HE SAID HE SAID such a successful exercise, with 25 installments published and more to come, and a growing following. What is most remarkable, though, is HSHS does it without you and I doing lovey-dovey stuff back and forth, and without each of us constantly dousing the other in honey. Which is, for me, a very important point -- and one which, I believe, accounts for the fact that the range of our readers and commenters is relatively quite broad, not to mention the stats being consistently very strong. Keep punching, bud, I've got your six. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #143

#274
Jim, I genuinely appreciate your kind words. I believe that part of the difference you perceive is due to differences between our respective styles. Your writings are primarily what I would call "blogs" -- freer-form, very personal expressions of how you feel about things and how you see the world. You make your readers feel alternatively happy, melancholy, angry, and so on. And you entertain them. All of which is influenced, I think, by your long background in advertising and marketing copywriting. And which is why your following is as large as it is, and why it is continuing to grow. In contrast, I tend to write what I think are more properly termed essays or articles. Influenced by my history in magazine writing and editing, and perhaps (for better or worse, I am not sure) by my several years in teaching at the college and university levels. Like you, I think I also tend to provoke people, but in a different way. In a way, that makes them, perhaps, "take me on." The differences between our styles, by the way, is what has made HE SAID HE SAID such a successful exercise, with 25 installments published and more to come, and a growing following. What is most remarkable, though, is HSHS does it without you and I doing lovey-dovey stuff back and forth, and without each of us constantly dousing the other in honey. Which is, for me, a very important point -- and one which, I believe, accounts for the fact that the range of our readers and commenters is relatively quite broad, not to mention the stats being consistently very strong. Keep punching, bud, I've got your six. Cheers! That

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #142

After I read this I started to think about the comments I get on my posts and how most of them have to do with how much (or little) people enjoyed reading them> There is relatively little in the way of discussions being started. They are in fact merely two stroke exchanges. Maybe I just write the Kind of stuff that people find entertaining and feel no need to challenge me on. Or maybe, as you, I now believe, correctly point out, there just isn't a lot of it going on anywhere on social media. Don't get me wrong... I'm happy to have a sufficiently entertained audience. Maybe I'm just not being provocative enough. Although I though that certainly someone would take offense at an article entitled The Cynic's Guide To A-Holes. Good Post, Phil Friedman. I hope people read it a couple of times because there's a lot of high protein food for thought here.

Robert Cormack

Robert Cormack

4 years ago #141

"Brand building" seems to be the thing these days. I'm in the middle of an article called "Stop Worrying About Being Published" outlining what I went through. Should be a real turnoff to most aspiring writers (myself included) #269

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #140

#268
Robert, I take your point that "There comes a point when too much temerity becomes a turnoff—not that it isn't given with the best of intentions." Which is why --- personally being on "the cusp" of becoming crusty -- I now try to refrain from post critical comments on the posts of others, unless I know from prior experience that they welcome frank and open discussion. And I reserve my preaching and gadflying to my own posts, which can be ignored by anyone who is not interested in the kinds of discussions that my writing sometimes generates. Seems like a reasonable live and let live policy, right? Well, apparently not. For there are those who express discomfort with many of the things I publish in my own posts -- such as this one -- and say clearly that my work is "too negative". Ironically, a number of these are the same people who seem to love the 1,001 posts floating around about how valuable it is to "get out of your comfort zone". I agree with you when you imply, if not exactly say that most people are on social media to preen and strut. Certainly, that is the ethos that is intentionally propagated on LinkedIn, where one is told ad nauseum that the primary goal is to be seen and make oneself heard in the service of building one's "personal brand". The question that continues in my mind, however, is whether the goal is to "be on social media" or rather to use social media as a bridge to worldwide conversations. Cheers!

Robert Cormack

Robert Cormack

4 years ago #139

I don't disagree, Phil. We want to stay "on point" and hope others do as well. What raises concerns (or it certainly did on WriterBeat) were the number of crusty old men who wanted to let loose with invective. Being close the a "crusty old man" myself, I've tended to temper my comments, hoping people don't see me jumping from the cusp to the other side. There comes a point when too much temerity becomes a turnoff—not that it isn't given with the best of intentions. People don't tend to join social media sites to be scolded or lectured or told they're idiots. That's what I've found, anyway, and why I left WriteBeat. #267

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #138

#266
Robert Cormack > "... there's nothing wrong with civility but, I agree, it shouldn't be at the expense of expression and what someone believes. I want to hear different viewpoints, and I've left far more social media sites because nobody was saying anything (except compliments)..." Thank you, Robert, for reading and joining the conversation. And welcome to a pretty small and exclusive group of writers and other users here on beBee who are willing to say publicly that they value a genuine and open exchange of ideas, views, and opinions over an insipid river of meaningless, knee-jerk compliments, patting, and stroking. For the record, I personally do not mind sardonic comments on my posts or remarks, provided only that they are on-point and have some argumentative substance. For example, I don't mind someone telling me that I have my head where the sun never shines, as long as they back that up with reasons for disagreeing with what I'm saying. But I rarely go that far in my preaching about the value of dissent and disagreement because most people on social media recoil from anything other than the mildest of language... and instead always preface my exhortations to lively discussion with the "civility" qualifier. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Robert Cormack

Robert Cormack

4 years ago #137

If I can add something here, Phil. Last year about this time, WriterBeat asked if they could post one of my pieces. I agreed and was invited to share comments with their growing number of contributors. Thinking I was joining a community of like-minded writers and journalists, I found myself instead viciously attacked and called a "bozo" (also a knuckle dragger). I fought tooth and nail until a very, very intelligent woman (formerly with the state department), told me: "Don't worry, they're just letting off steam." Seems WriterBeat had a whole corral ready to call anyone a "bozo," which turned into a daily donnybrook of some truly weird and sometimes litigious comments. Funnily enough, after eight months of that, I didn't mind the name-calling so much (and I love to fight), but the essence of the comments kept degenerating (Bible thumpers are the worst). I think in answer to your post, Phil, there's nothing wrong with civility but, I agree, it shouldn't be at the expense of expression and what someone believes. I want to hear different viewpoints, and I've left far more social media sites because nobody was saying anything (except compliments). At the same time, I don't want to be abusive (or abused) either unless I deserve it (and I often do). If people have a problem with tone, it's like pornography, ignore it. Don't say it can't exist. There's room for everybody.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #136

#262
Karen, I respect everyone's right to speak. Unfortunately, some BS Buzzbees think that disagreeing is tantamount to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Of course, they never consider the case in which there actually IS a fire. Thank you for reading and commenting.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #135

#257
To clarify, Gerald, my point is that the weird of the world are welcome in the discussions attached to my posts. Since I do not ask anyone to be constrained by the Honey Bee Oath, but only not whine about reaping what they sow, pretty much everyone is welcome. Especially you. Watch for my soon upcoming philosophical post "On Forcing Perception to Fit Preconception".

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #134

#253
Karen, thank you for reading and commenting. You have, of course, the right to feel how you wish; however, weirdness (or being different) is not a prima facie reason for being excluded from my discussions. Otherwise I would lose Gerald Hecht. So Peter van Dorn is welcome to come to this party as he is. We may be "bees" here, but we are not the Honey Bee Mafia. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #133

#249
Peter, let me explain it by pointing to a piece I just published, "Vending Machines Are People Too" ( https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/vending-machines-are-people-too ) and a reply to some who commented about having "positive energy": "Thank you, Maria, for reading and commenting. My German is not good enough to answer in detail, but in English this is what I have to reply: I agree that it is a good thing to have positive energy in life. However, to me, positive energy is having the strength to face the negatives of life and keep going in the drive to make things better. Most of the talk on social media about "positive energy" strikes me as insipid and self-delusional. Being brave does not involve never knowing fear, but rather feeling fear yet doing what needs done in spite of that fear. So too, being positive does not involve mindlessly denying the existence of negatives in life, but rather recognizing fully those negatives, yet striving always to make things better. Cheers!" One does not need to delude oneself about mankind being awesome or even mostly good. One only needs to recognize that amidst the shit, there are worthwhile gems that simply need to be found and washed clean. Thinking that all of mankind and life is nasty and mean, is just as unrealistic as la-de-da-ing through it all, refusing to recognize any of the negatives. Both the unregenerate pessimist AND the Pollyanna-ish optimist are separated off from reality. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #132

#247
Peter, thank you for reading and commenting, and for sharing your thoughts with us. I believe that our concerns and deliberations may prove too mundane for your sensitivities, and recommend, perhaps, some appropriately uplifting reading to improve your mood --- maybe, the collected works of Martin Heidegger.

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #131

#240
Peter van Doorn - I agree with Phil Friedman - you only have to look at creative achievements in architecture, art, music and science to see how individuality is expressed. Yes innovation is sometimes grounded on someone else's work, but you can clearly see individuals working to improve their surroundings and learn more about the universe - either singly or as part of teams.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #130

#242
Thank you for reading and joining the conversation, Peter. It is your prerogative to believe you have "no need to think about my [your] life." I don't remember suggesting that there is such a need, but okay, I can live with your judgement on that. My main point here has been that I do not see value in aspiring to be "like-minded" and that affinity networking can, and should be based on commonality of interests, not on thinking like, and having the same values as the rest of one's affinity group. Not sure that we disagree about that. But if we do, perhaps we can just agree to disagree. My best to you. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #129

#236
Sorry, Peter, but with all due respect, saying that "Even those who do not want to belong, belong to the collective of those who do not want to belong" is simply not true. For the a collective based on like-mindendness is essentially quite different from a group of people who do not want to be part of such a collective, but who share no other common qualities, save that election. The paradigm Borg Collective in science fiction --- which by the way is best compared to either an ant colony or a bee hive, both of which border on being a multi-part UNIFIED organism, rather than a multiplicity of organisms --- moves and acts with a single mind. That is its distiguishing characteristic. But a group of non-like-minded individuals acting not in concern but independently of one another is an entirely different matter. And it does not follow that, because we can identify a group of non-collective members, that such members of that group are themselves members of a collective. Thanks for reading and commenting, and for contributing to the conversation.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #128

#238
Thank you, Peter, for the correction. You say, "one can not expect to be original OR different", but this is a very broad statement, and I do not see any evidence for its truth. The history of mankind is sufficiently long and complex to make it unlikely that one will be original or entirely different from all else that has passed before, but... so what? It does not follow from that, that we should strive to be like everyone else. For that would be like saying because I cannot aspire to be a world-class high jumper, I should simply accept being a slug. Oh, and BTW, quoting dictionary definitions is not really convincing of much because dictionaries are not prescriptive, but only descriptive compilations of approximately current usage... and they are subject to change over time as our use of language evolves. Thank you again for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #127

#236
sorry, but no. Diversity is not the same as originality. Nor is individuality identical with uniqueness. To conflate these is to confuse the issues. IMO.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #126

#233
No I don't, Gerald, I am generally too busy tending to the cleaning and preservation of the scrolls of Chung King.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #125

#231
Peter, I cannot answer your question because I personally believe we should revel in our differences. I have found that the strongest bonds are formed between people who embrace their respective differences, and who welcome diversity as the very spice of life. That is why I would not want to be part of the Borg collective. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #124

#229
One of the problems is that some politicos who claim to speak for freedom of expression employ bully tactics that disclose an underlying willing ness to shut down freedom of expression, once they have achieved ascendancy. A society's commitment to freedom, and it's necessar pre-condition, free expression, is its willingness to tolerate the expression of minority dissent. If a democracy devolves into a tyranny of the majority, it is no longer a free system. Peace and cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #123

#225
BRING IT ON, BAYOU BOY!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #122

#225
Bring it on,Bayou Boy!

don kerr

don kerr

4 years ago #121

#225
Are you on some new meds now Gerald Hecht? LMFAO!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #120

#223
I agree 200%, Claire, although I think perhaps the U.S. presidential campaign has irreversibly tarnished the image of "debate". How about a passionate discussion of ideas and opinions? Just kidding, as I seriously value your input. I know that you are a regular reader of my posts and the discussions they occasion. And I genuinely appreciate your interest and support, and value your contribution to the conversation. I hope that you will find occasion express your opinions further. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #119

Good Debate is always far more entertaining than a mutual admiration society!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #118

#221
Yes, Jim, and according to some just as meaningful. I am not so sure, though, about that assessment. Perhaps it is a conceit, but I see most of the light comments as, nevertheless, indicative of people reading and thin jining about what is being said. Cheers!

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #117

Christ on a Cracker, Phil Friedman, you have created a comment stream longer than my Walmart receipt.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #116

#217
"relationship" not "reflation ship" --- although given my core business, it is not wonder the autocorrector might have made that error. Shows you the danger of allowing the pinball machine to make decisions. :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #115

#217
Peter, it is easy to obfuscate and play obtuse. But you do not fool me into thinking you are. Cost/benefit ratio is a concept of a reflation ship between two variables that need, as you point out, to be defined. Usually, in a case like this, the cost is in dollars to the company for initial creation and ongoing operation, whilst the benefit is user satisfaction and resulting revenues. All not easy ultimately to determine, but pretty straightforward to define. Ditto for the rest. Thank you for joining the conversation.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #114

#212
the question,John, is who is the you? The average user? The power user? The platform ownership and management? With all due respect to Praveen, if his dissatisfaction with the noise in a long thread is mirrored in a major section of users, that is one thing. If not, that is quite a different situation. Of course, a UX expert for hire will have a tendency to opt for greater refinement, but that does not necessarily make business sense. There is always cost/benefit ratio to look at. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #113

#209
About this there is an abundance of literature that is also freely available online.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #112

#208
JV> "Sort of, but not really. I pointed out that beBee's linear/numeric way for displaying comments and LinkedIn's topic-parsed approach each have their own advantages - and that a superior interface would allow you to display Comments using either method. Also: The ability to display a Comment thread in chronological order, as well as last-to-first" Well, John, how about adding the ability to sort the comments into groups by one's favorite people (previously established in one's profile information? Also "silencing" those comments that annoy one or which do not fall into one's definition of like-minded? And how about adding the ability to be able to request (as we used to on LinkedIn groups) to be notified of new discussions and comments (or be able to opt out of said notifications on a selective basis? I am not sure where the point of more is not better gets to be, but certainly we could agree on a number of nice-to-have features that would not necessarily be cost or computing overhead feasible. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #111

#206
John, it would be good if we could all agree not to impute motives or emotional reactions to the others of us. There is nothing defensive in what I said. I am pointing out what I believe is an underlying assumption in believing that your analysis is worthwhile, namely, that the number of comments in a thread is reputed to have some significance. I understand Praveen Raj Gullepalli's point about a lot of banter being a potential distraction, but that actually harkens back to you point in another post that replies to comments are better grouped under the comments to which they are replies. As to you point 2), I disagree that there is always "value in putting a mass of obscure data into context." We could break down comments, for example, in terms of the five most frequently occurring words in a thread, which would be to elucidate what is among the most obscure of data. And it's value would be ... bubkas. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #110

For more details about the study of diffusion of memes (units of transmissible information), importance of community structure in the spreading of social contagions and virality prediction in social networks, please feel free to check this open access article: Lilian Weng, Filippo Menczer and Yong-Yeol Ahn, Virality Prediction and Community Structure in Social Networks, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS 3: 2522, DOI: 10.1038/srep02522 (http://www.uvm.edu/~cdanfort/csc-reading-group/weng-virality-nsr-2013.pdf) cc. John White, MBA

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #109

For more details about the study of diffusion of memes (units of transmissible information), importance of community structure in the spreading of social contagions and virality prediction in social networks, please feel free to check this open access article: Lilian Weng, Filippo Menczer and Yong-Yeol Ahn, Virality Prediction and Community Structure in Social Networks, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS 3: 2522, DOI: 10.1038/srep02522 (http://www.uvm.edu/~cdanfort/csc-reading-group/weng-virality-nsr-2013.pdf)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #108

#198
John Vaughan, Sometimes, one comment from an individual, which brings us a smile or a fresh idea, is worth more than the whole "virality" (number of comments, "engagement", "success", "popularity", length of thread comment, number of participants, agreement to disagreement ratio, number of views, number of shares, like" to "dislike" ratio or any other parameter...) in the social media world. The impact of each post or comment (even by the same person or a limited number of persons) can not be determined by standard quantitative measures, parameters or metrics. This can hardly be measured by any mathematical or statistical parameters. We never know who is reading our words, and whether it may be the basis for a future profitable engagement, friendship or mutual learning. For most writers it seems that high "virality" (whatever that means) of their posts in social media, tend to be, more or less, secret and most hidden desire. In this way, the "virality" concept becomes even more complex and enigmatic. All these are fascinating challenges of social networks - complex and adaptive chaotic systems.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #107

#198
John, what we come back to is this: Your analysis of how many correspondents made up this rather long (certainly far from the longest ever) comment thread is supposed, by your own words, to disclose that there are actually relatively few participants. So what? The only reason that analysis would be of concern to anyone is if they first assumed that the number of comments in the thread was indicative of something --- popularity of the post, level of engagement, or whatever. But for those of us who do not look for simple quantitative measures for things like "engagement", the number of comments is of no concern and not worthy of mention. So whether you leave the number at 201 or reparse comments into groups for repeat commenters and end up with only 30 effective comments, doesn't matter... certainly not to me. As I have said, I look for other measures of engagement and ?success", which are, fortunately or unfortunately, not readily quantifiable.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #106

#196
Mist rants, including mine, are based on pre-assumptions. In this case that the measured of quality are those which you set out. Conciseness is not one, for example, that I would adopt.!for human interaction is not concise. I am personally as devoted as any to rational exchange... But I recognize that sometime participants may joke around or engage in other "frivolous" behavior. Somewhat like stalling or idling moves in a game of chess. Again personall, one of the metrics of successful engagement that I use for a given post and discussion is how many people register and election to follow my posts as a result. And how many of the commenters attract me to following them in future. Sometimes that takes being a little less rigid as to the "conciseness" of the conversation. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #105

#193
The limit would only be meaningful in the shallow context of trying to quantify engagement so that people could rate themselves against others. To my mind antithetical to free discussion and expression. Should comments be limited to "positive"? To max length? To whatever else forces the conversation into predetermined form? I say no. For that is not far from algorithmic control of what is distributed and seen. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #104

#191
Thank you, John, for doing so. I should like to point out as well that their comment thread there, especially Karen Anne's responses, is as meaningful as the body of the article itself. Karen has given open voice to concerns that several others have expressed to me privately, in confidence. The presence of such open discussion on beBee is one of the things that are working to boost it to preeminence on the social media scene --- notwithstanding my criticism of the early Live Buzzes. :-)

John White, MBA

John White, MBA

4 years ago #103

#190
I will check it out, Phil. Thanks.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #102

All - I have read a post that, to my mind, represents a very important discussion in the context of this thread; and I highly recommend it: "Contemplation" by Karen Anne Kramer ~ CNN Women Leaders 2015 -- ( https://www.bebee.com/producer/@karen-anne-kramer/contemplation#c62 ). Thank you Karen for speaking out. I for one am proud to have you and your spunk present on beBee. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #101

#187
thank you, Praveen, for the kind words. I understand what your saying, but have to point out that it is not quite what I am saying. For me, it is not a matter of caring for a few vs caring for many. For me it is a matter of love and caring being manifested IN THE WORLD vs love and caring applied only as an ethereal concept pertaining to an abstract "humanity." It is a difference that drives the Jesuits of the Catholic Church, for example. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #100

#186
thank you, Franci, for being a good sport, and for speaking up. I knew that you would not be offended, but it does show one what those pluses and minuses are worth --- bubkas. Cheers!

Franci 🐝Eugenia Hoffman, beBee Brand Ambassador

#103
Hey Phil, someone didn't like your comment since it was negative when I saw it. So, to make it clear, I consider being referred to as "one tough broad" a compliment! No offense and cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #98

#179
Praveen, I am very reluctant personally to enter upon territory that has a religious flavor to it. Mostly because I have never taken Kierkegaard's leap of faith --- although I have to say that many people have suggested to me, at one time or another, to take a flying leap at the moon, and other things. I do have to say, however, with all due respect to your beliefs, that I think that looking "at all with the same eyes" might be a source of much of the evil that is present in the world. For to do so is to overlook or conflate vast variances in behavior. Thank you, as always, for reading and commenting with such care and sincerity. My best to you.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #97

#173
Personally, this seems to me of concern ONLY if you take the number of comments to be some sort of metric for the quality or popularity of the post. Simple quantitative tabulations on social media never provide an accurate picture for judgment of anything, at least not to my mind.

Franci 🐝Eugenia Hoffman, beBee Brand Ambassador

#153
I can't believe someone would give you a negative. ⚡️🌪💥

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #95

#174
Aurorasa, there is also no problem sharing either way, if one is logged in. I have noticed that occasionally a share to LinkedIn from beBee gets mangled and the resulting link on LI does not work. But I am not sure on whose end, LI or beBee the problem lies. I would say that, in general, I see no eidence of action on LinkedIn's part to prevent LI members from shring posts from, or links to beBee on LinkedIn.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #94

#180
That could be true in a case where the mask is not itself a clear and open spoof. I am moved also to point out that "affront" is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure that Donald Trump takes affront at many of the satirical characterizations of him, but I say, if the show fits....

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #93

#171
Sometimes, Praveen, the literary use of a pseudonym is used for reasons other than deception or to hide. For example, Samuel T. Clemens did not want his work as a newspaper reporter confused with his literary work as Mark Twain. Since Clemens appeared in public lecturing as Mark Twain, there could be no deception. In the case of my favorite satirist the use of a pseudonym is to avoid having satirical and political posts mixed up and confused with the author's professional industry-related publications. This has been all laid out in public. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #92

#113
Arorasa, I agree about the remark seen recently on LI that "... you can share from beBee but not from LI ...". It is not helpful. More importantly, it is false. I regularly post links on each platform to articles on the other platform, and so took the time to test those links (after having signed out of both platforms). And the links work in both directions. I think, however, that without being a member of the hosting platform, or without signing in, you cannot post a comment on the article in question. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #91

#165
Gerald, you are correct that it is insane (although exceedingly crafty in its manipulative deception). However, the watchword of many internet-based moguls is that, when the reality does not conform to quantification and automation, create a new reality that does. Then sell that reality to users as the only one. Hmmm.... sounds like the mantra of political candidates, as well. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #90

#164
Praveen, from the Wisdom of Chung King, Second Scroll, circa 650 AD, "Those who profess to love all in general, fail to love anyone in particular." Gerald Hecht has seen the scrolls for himself.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #89

#155
Because, Gerald, you didn't seem to understand the greater significance of + and - clicks in establishing truth by popularity. Consider this, if you will: The goal of every major social media platform appears to be to automate as much as possible control of the platform. But genuine qualitative measures are not fundamentally quantitative, while algorithmic evaluation is by necessity and nature quantitative. So the social media moguls convince us social media habitues that popularity and "trending" are directly and proportionally related to quality, and then substitute popularity (which is measurable by vote and, therefore, quantitative) for concepts of quality and truth. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #88

#159
Phil, I expect your like ASAP :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #87

#152
Gee, Milos, you really mean to tell me that truth is not determined by popular vote? That is a relief. :-)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #86

#157
Just kidding Gerald :-)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #85

#153
Somehow, I knew that you are "highly negative person" Gerald Hecht 🦄 :-) Welcome to the club!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #84

#148
No, not at all Gerald Hecht. "Wishing someone a happy holiday is itself a positive emotional act designed to make others feel good and to raise holiday cheer.” - Adam D. I. Kramer from Adam D. I. Kramer, An unobtrusive behavioral model of ‘‘gross national happiness’’. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM Press. 2010. pp. 287-290 (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1753369)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #83

#151
Phil Friedman, + and - box GUI/haptic controls tells nothing about whether comment is true or false.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #82

#145
According to some commenters present on this thread, they for voting whether you like or dislike the comment on which they appear, and thereby establish which comments are true and which are false by a popularity vote. Gerald, how long been on social media, dude?

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #81

#146
Next level - "Level 42 - Lessons In Love" :-)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #80

#146
Really, I can't believe Phil Friedman :-)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #79

#144
Thank you Gerald Hecht.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #78

#143
Milos Djukic > " I like disagreement because it forces both sides to question their own opinions. It is the pursuit of truth. " Milos, in the words of my favorite TV-series detective, Rick Hunter, "Works for me." :-)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #77

#138
Phil Friedman, You're a free man. I like disagreement because it forces both sides to question their own opinions. It is the pursuit of truth. Cheers, my friend!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #76

#133
Milos > "...nobody needs "permission" to be kind, cooperative or highly critical about anything, even if someone considers such activities as an inappropriate - shallow, or as a negative sign of the authenticity." Milos, I agree entirely with you on this point. Nobody needs permission to be kind. However, one of the things I learned during my time as an academic is that being uncritical and shallowly positive is not always, indeed is often not being kind. Or truly caring, for that matter. Which is why I began this post with a quote from Michele Williams, who interestingly is also an academic. Where I think you and I may differ is over whether social media activity is an end in itself. I do not believe it is, and see it only as a means for communication and intellectual exchange. At least in its highest and best use. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #75

Thank you for your reply Peter! "I do not live in beBee. Hell no. I am here to discover ideas, fresh, strange views. I get them rarely in real life." - Peter van Doorn - I fully agree with you. I see each interaction as part of a wider pattern of events that will leaad to a new opportunity for mutual innovations. Speech and writing are not the same. The latter is a shortcut to the unconscious.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #74

#118
Milos > "Engagement is disagreement while approval is sign of fakeness or vice versa?" Of course not, Milos. Moreover, I have never said that it is --- or vice vera. What I have argued is that knee-jerk rejection of the legitimacy of rational disagreement, coupled with the consistent use of shallow, generic purportedly "positive" comments, is intellectually insipid. Who am I to say that? Just me. For it is my opinion and my right to say it. Who am I to try to prevent other people from engaging in such Insipidipity? Nobody --- for I do not, and would not try to stop anyone from expressing whatever they feel they want to express (within the reasonable bounds of civility and social responsibility, for example, as long as their expression does not involve yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. To put it in an earthier vernacular, everyone is free to generate whatever bull chips they choose. But by the same token, please don't tell me not to call a pile of bull chips a pile of bull chips, when I run across a pile of bull chips. Cheers, my friend!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #73

#134
I agree, let's see Gerald Hecht, my friend :) Maybe unicorn 🦄 will give us some clue.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #72

#126
Phil, I will point out once again, that nobody needs "permission" to be kind, cooperative or highly critical about anything, even if someone considers such activities as an inappropriate - shallow, or as a negative sign of the authenticity. This is just an unnecessary elitism and labeling. Opinions vary widely in social networks. They are respectable stances, but not the last word. In a social network no one has the last word, because it means that someone has power over others. Since mediocrity is an inherent characteristic of everyone's creations, the written word is the most powerful weapon in the hands of those who strive for truth. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. Maybe my writer's voice is blatantly trivial to capture someone's attention or imagination. Sometimes, one comment from an individual, which brings us a smile or a fresh idea, is worth more than the "whole world". And that is healthy engagement, non-elitism and "non-clique" approach.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #71

#125
Gerald, an emoji bot is still a bot. 📡Artificial un-intelligence 💡 is symptomatic of algorithms that are, and always will be at base two-value logic 🔛sorting trees, irrespective of the incorporation of self-adjusting feedback loops. 🔙 For human intelligence displays multi-value logic 👝🔊🎎🎓 that has to date not in any significant way been captured by the gurus of AI. 👎👏🐭🐜

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #70

#123
John, you must take care not to lose your sense of humor, and especially not to be short with your friends and defenders. My point is not that UX is unimportant, but rather that it must be combined with a driving philosophy and defined objectives that rise above crass commercial interests alone --- if, that is, a social media platform is to be more than just a pinball machine on steroids. Whether your suggestion would move a platform in that direction is an open question for me. As I believe that adopting and nurturing the right ethos is just as, if not more important. Sorry if that bruises your UX toes, but there it is. Someone asked me recently why some of my posts clearly generate a high level of engagement. The answer is, I think, not so much because of the interest in topic or disruptive approach, but more because of they help create (at least momentarily) an ethos of open and candid expression and exchange of opinion. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #69

#126
Thank you Phil Friedman!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #68

#116
Milos, of course it doesn't. But you query distorts the issue. No single comment can be judged to be authentic or not simpliciter. One has to judge from a sufficient sample from a single commenter or defined group of commenters --- or perhaps from the entire parent group, in which case we are talking about the platform's overall ethos. Negative authenticity is indicated, for example, when the same commenter posts numerous very generic comments that show no evidence of being generated after a reading of the posts they are applied to. Similarly when a clique of commenters consistently post such perfectly generic comments. The differentiating characteristic is NOT positivity (pretend or real), but shallowness and a completely generic nature. So much so, that the comments in question could easily have been generated by a bot. If you challenge me to produce verbatim examples, I will --- although that will put us both at risk for being accused of being trolls or elitists. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #67

“Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice, and the exercise of choice, a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.” - Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826). A great man deserves no less.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #66

Engagement is disagreement while approval is sign of fakeness or vice versa? Let the audience decide.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #65

Does that mean that every highly critical feedback is a sign of fakeness or maybe authenticity? Of course not. Reductio ad absurdum, Phil Friedman.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #64

#113
Exactly. Does that mean that every benevolent and positive feedback is a sign of fakeness? Of course not.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #63

But what nonsense is this :) Thank you Phil Friedman - "A generic not so honey-coated phrase" by Milos Djukic ? Let the audience decide...Mr No-Muzak.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #62

Interesting post. Thank you Phil Friedman - "A generic honey-coated phrase" by Milos Djukic ? Let the audience decide...Mr No-Muzak.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #61

#102
"JV> It's a sweet sentiment that will play well on beBee (no big surprise, especially given the context of Phil's article) ... but not necessarily accurate or well justified by evidence. Have I been un-tactful ..... again?" - John Vaughan MDJ> Some of us have perfected the art of disagreements long time ago at LinkedIn (Writers4Writers Group on LI). As a result, we realised that a significant shift towards cognitive skills is possible and can be defined as: “Successful people are not always friendly, patient and calm, but great social people are.” or “Try to masterly transform your words into the correct and effective forms while still retaining the authenticity of self expression.” or "Nice words and iron door opens - a nice word does not need to be only agreement or approval.” Certainly on social media, attention and popularity of our writing is not something entirely unpleasant. An important extrinsic motivation is based on the external support: readership attention, comments, confrontation of opinions, tactful criticism and praise. Unfortunately, many people today have a tendency to unconsciously replace authenticity with arrogance, selfishness or boredom. That is a "sweet sentiment", that will play well on beBee rather than (or) anywhere else.

Michael D. Davis

Michael D. Davis

4 years ago #60

Oh ow! Touche' my friend. (Yes...I got it.)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #59

#102
Not at all John Vaughan. Thank you. I am more prone to self-criticism. Self-confidence is particularly difficult for people who feel things deeply. We are our own conscience, if so discomfort is always transient in nature. Unfortunately, any further need for deeper analysis or search for the substance within some important topics is very often generally neglected in social media. A little bit of idealism never hurts. Some of the characteristics of today's social media writing: - Lightweight pastime, nothing more. - Nicely packed, colorful and controversial nonsense. - Amateurism of a painless white noise information..

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #58

#102
Not at all John Vaughan. Thank you. I am more prone to self-criticism. Self-confidence is particularly difficult for people who feel things deeply. We are our own conscience, if so discomfort is always transient in nature. Unfortunately, any further need for deeper analysis or search for the substance within some important topics is very often generally neglected in social media. A little bit of idealism never hurts. Some of the characteristics of today's social media writing: - Lightweight pastime, nothing more. - Nicely packed, colorful and controversial nonsense. - Amateurism of a painless white.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #57

#101
Michael, trading quips with you can certainly be punishing.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #56

#97
Thank you, Franci, for those wise words. If I may say so with absolutely no offense intended in this day and age, you strike me as one tough broad. Hey Donald, don't come around here if you value your family jewels! (Just sayin' it like we used to, on a giddy Friday evening, on Writers4Writers on LinkedIn... as some of you may remember.)

Michael D. Davis

Michael D. Davis

4 years ago #55

#98
Well Phil, when it reigns it pours. (In reference to that throne you make mention of my friend)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #54

#99
John, you are twisting my words. Let's just say that as a social media platform, any social media platform, employs more gaming gimmicks to keep the hamsters running on their wheels, the closer that platform grows to be nothing more than a glorified pinball machine.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #53

#96
Thank you, Michael, for reading and commenting. Do you know what a Honey Pot is when all the honey is gone? A Thunder Mug. :-) Just sayin' that one needs to be careful with metaphors.

Franci 🐝Eugenia Hoffman, beBee Brand Ambassador

#87
Agreed Phil Friedman, it can be much more. To clarify my comment "Take social media for what it is and enjoy it", my intent is there will be good and not so good, So improve it, enjoy it and for those that are thin skinned, perhaps it is not for them.

Michael D. Davis

Michael D. Davis

4 years ago #51

Thanks Phil. Your ideas and comments are always welcome in my "Honey Pot". (Okay, okay...just keeping with the theme here. No need to read any negative connotation into that last remark. I don't need to be labelled as the perpetrator of any honey pot storm here.) ; )

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #50

ANYWHERE ELSE my friend Gerald Hecht :)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #49

#89
Gerald, I have to admit that it does trouble me somewhat to be labeled "respectful". Makes me feel a bit as though I'm losing my edge. Next thing Trumpites will be showing up at my door wanting me to relinquish my Wobblies card. :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #48

#76
Yes, Gerald, bringing it back from Hong Kong at the end of this month. Private viewings to follow.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #47

#85
thank you, Franci, for reading and commenting. I understand and agree to an extent with what you say about personal perspective playing a large role, bi I cannot "take social media for what it is..." because I believe it could be so much more. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #46

#85
Franci Eugenia Hoffman, I like your balanced and human approach. Discussions and even disagreements have much more sense here on beBee than anywhere else.

Franci 🐝Eugenia Hoffman, beBee Brand Ambassador

You’ve done it again, Phil Friedman. An airing of thoughts in a well-written and respectful piece. I agree with your article – all of it. The question is did I agree with it on my terms? And did another reader agree with it on their terms? No one processes what they read the same way, and not all of the people are going to be pleased all of the time. Authentic and well thought out articles, and meaningful and genuine comments are what I like to see, and for the most part, I find this on beBee. Comments that are disrespectful and/or two faced are a waste of my time. No matter if you write a post or make a comment, own it and make it worthwhile. Take social media for what it is and enjoy it.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #44

#75
Milos Djukic is the ugliest fractal troll :) Phil Friedman, For some unknown reason, I still believe in your honesty, caring and goodwill. Please do not ask me why.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #43

#72
Karen, welcome to the club. All of us who have struggled on LinkedIn and now beBee with this question eagerly await your contribution to the answer. And that ain't bull chips. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #42

#70
Karen, thank you for reading, and for the kind words. I personally believe that social media and the networks we build on it can be so much more than what they have been to date. If only we can get to the point of seeking genuine engagement, in preference to just visibility. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #41

#68
John, I am always pleased to have your comments and distinguished viewpoint. And your observations concerning UX are fascinating. However, I am reminded upon reflection that a pin ball machine with a perfect UX is still a pin ball machine. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #40

#67
Milos, thank you for the kind words. I too believe heavily in trust and community. Which is why you and I have remained online friends and comrades for several years. I just find it difficult to trust people who are mostly pretense, as evidenced by consistently posting comments on articles that disclose they have never even read that upon which they are commenting. Others who pay lip service to "Affinity Networking" then work hard to eliminate diversity and enforce like-mindedness. And not to be forgotten, those beacons of free expression who consider anyone who questions or disagrees, however civilly, a "troll". As you well know, honesty, caring and goodwill precede trust. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #39

cc. Javier beBee.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #38

Phil Friedman, You are great beBee/LinkedIn advocate marketer and also very capable and almost exclusively a personal ambassador. I never thought that anyone could think that you hate beBee or LinkedIn. Thank you for your valuable assistance. Yet philosophy which provides stable organic growth for beBee and the most of the other members, including also personal branders and ambassadors is "Helping Others Help Themselves". As long as someone's pen carries a personal touch and insight, there is a hope that an expression will be recognized as а valid, even if it was alternative, obscure or even quite unusual. Steven E. Barkan and George J. Bryjak have pointed out in their book titled: "Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A Sociological View" that according to the Labeling theory: "People who are labeled deviant become more likely to commit deviance because they were so labeled". The learning process requires dealing with opposing views, as well as with personal deviance and deviance of the others in an ethical, altruistic way. Of course, respect and kindness in expressing opposing opinions are certainly welcome. Offensive people are often insecure. It is important to communicate with people and to assist them. It is important to build successful relationships and trust. It is important to respect other people's opinions. It is important to ... follow our true nature. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #37

Phil Friedman, You are great beBee/LinkedIn advocate marketer and also very capable and almost exclusively a personal ambassador. I never thought that anyone could think that you hate beBee or LinkedIn. Thank you for your valuable assistance. Yet philosophy which provides stable organic growth for beBee and the most of the other members, including also personal branders and ambassadors is "Helping Others Help Themselves". As long as someone's pen carries a personal touch and insight, there is a hope that an expression will be recognized as а valid, even if it was alternative, obscure or even quite unusual. Steven E. Barkan, George J. Bryjak have pointed out in his book titled "Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A Sociological View" that according to the Labeling theory: "People who are labeled deviant become more likely to commit deviance because they were so labeled. The learning process requires dealing with opposing views, as well as with personal deviance and deviance of other in an ethical, altruistic way. Of course, respect and kindness are certainly welcome. Offensive people are often insecure. It is important to communicate with people and to assist them. It is important to build successful relationships and trust. It is important to respect other people's opinions. It is important to ... follow our true nature. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #36

#59
Gerald, of all the issues surrounding social media and beBee, registering and tallying likes and dislikes strike me as being among the least important. For the last time I looked, being the most popular doesn't make you right. Accumulating "relevants" on beBee seems to me to be significant because readers are usually expressing a judgement that something is worthwhile reading. And comments are valuable, to my mind, because one of the core objectives is conversation. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #35

#58
Jared, you and I are apparently talking past each other, and so should probably agree to disagree at this point. You say that you live by the principle that, "if you wouldn't say it to the person, don't say it about them to others." However, that is not what we have been talking about. Nothing I've published has said anything about any specific person to others. If I say, for example, that the overall quality of U.S.-made automobiles lags behind that of Korean-manufactured product, that does not mean I've said something about Joe Smith, a UAW member in Flint, Michigan. Even if, for whatever reason, Joe Smith decides that he is being spoken about and decides to take offense. In my experience, that is a confusion and frequent fiction fomented by those who seek to quash all forms of disagreement and dissenting expression on social media. Notwithstanding what Steven R. Covey may believe or say. Thanks again. And cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #34

#51
Absolutely, Gerald. The fact that Affinity is complex and different from "like-mindedness" is simple, as well as true. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #33

#49
Jared, there is one other point I think relevant to your comments, if I may. You say you do not like to make fun of people. Neither do I, and moreover, I never do --- except, as many who know me will attest, when I engage in self-deprecating humor. Indeed, I try never to criticize people either, but only their statements and opinions, when I feel it is appropriate. In the case of buzzes, the funning was about the product, not the people. And had I tried it cold, my live buzzes would have been even worse. The problem we all face on social media is to separate what we do and say from who we are. And sometimes we need to laugh at ourselves. Thank you again for your contribution to the conversation.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #32

#47
thank you, Jared, for contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way. I look forward to reading more of your writing, and to seeing you live buzzes. Keep smiling. And cheers!

Dean Owen

Dean Owen

4 years ago #31

#45
I hope you haven't been too discouraged from doing your first live buzz @Jared. Looking forward to it! :)

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #30

#42
Phil Friedman...The irony was deliberate.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #29

#41
Pardon me for saying so, Jim, but "tomato" is an ironic choice of word in the contemporary context of Trumpist attitude toward women. Where is Damon Runyon when we need him?

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #28

#31
No. Its a compliment Phil Friedman. Cherish it. I don't throw these things around like tomatoes at a Trump rally. LOL.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #27

#38
thank you, Michele, for reading and taking the time to comment. I think you and I agree that diversity and a tolerance for dissenting opinion are signs of strength and stability. Whereas an insistence on adherence to a PC main party line signals lack of self-confidence --- something that is common on social media, where much is built of smoke that threatens to blow away with the first fresh breeze of open expression. My apologies for the overly "literary" metaphor. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #26

#38
thank you, Michele, for reading and taking the time to comment. I think you and I agree that there is strength and stability in diversity and tolerance for a wide variety of opinion. When it comes to ideas and opinions, my experience of the world is that a perceived need to have all adhere to a PC party line signals a lack of self-confidence. Which is common on social media, where so much is built of smoke that threaten to blow away with the first fresh breeze of reality and truth. My apologies for the overly literary metaphor. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #25

#34
Thank you Chas for reading and commenting. I do not disagree about problems with the Ambassador program. The main one being it creates, in my perception, a beBee-sanctioned group that spends more time in mutual promotion on site than in outbound or inbound marketing offsite. IMO. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #24

#32
Jared, thank you for reading and commenting. I'll try to answer your detailed comment as succinctly as possible. 1) I said the intention of satire is always positive. Never said the result is. To avoid failing, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing applies here. 2) anonymous likes and dislikes totaled as a positive or negative number tell us nothing. As 6 organized minuses from a clique against 4 likes from unconnected bees would show as -2, yet establish nothing of consequence. What is important at expressed opinions, where people speak their minds openly. 3) yes, the bad buzz satire makes fun of people including the author, but if nobody in particular. Mr Owen claims that the targets know who they are, but that is the point. They know, but nobody else does. Mr Owen cites a poem about cooking with Pam, but if you check there are 720 Pams on beBee, which doesn't single anyone out ---!unless, of course, you are already aware of the insulting and offensive words used by that person, which occasioned the satirical post. Of course, Mr Owen is not about to quote those offensive words, which he has already described in print as being "not the best choice". Rush to judgment here on your part? 4)!as to your view of criticism, you are entitled to your beliefs. But understand that most of then"critical" writing I produce is in my own posts, which you are free to read or ignore. I rarely comment critically on the posts of others, unless tagged or otherwise invited to do so. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #23

#30
Well, Jim, that is quite a compliment (I think) coming as it does from the Old Man of Blogging, himself. Or should I say, the Elder Statesman of the Blogosphere? :-)

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #22

You can hold any attitude you like towards Phil Friedman. But one thing you can never say about him is that he doesn't achieve an amazing amount of engagement, which in ny peanut brain is really the whole point of all of this. Pro bloggers will do that. Read and learn people.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #21

#26
Thank you, Dean, for supplying that link to a piece that includes, I think, some interesting comments by a few readers. To quote Gerald Hecht, admittedly from a different context, "res ipsa loquitur".

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #20

#27
Thank you, Michael Angelo, for saying so. I remember it well myself. More important, I think your comments are confirmation of my often reiterated claim about the lasting value of genuine exchange. My best to you.

Dean Owen

Dean Owen

4 years ago #19

#23
Free and open exchange, yes! But targeted attacks like : https://www.bebee.com/producer/@jim-able/on-cooking-with-pam-29439 https://www.bebee.com/producer/@jim-able/why-satire-is-not-the-same-as-sarcasm#c10 You well know, as do your targets, that these were very specifically targeted. You also well know that blocking completely is not as option as yet, although I understand it is under development. But as of now, your targets do see these posts. You have your clique, as do I, which is informally made up of people who love to share world culture. You use the word elitist quite often. I would say only one of those cliques is elitist and one is welcoming of anyone who shares the same passion no matter how experienced a writer they are. Have a great weekend. I am going to write a travel blog.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #18

#24
Thank you for reading and taking the time to say so, Michael Angelo. It might be interesting for others to know that you and I first crossed paths on LinkedIn during some lively differences of opinion, as I remember. But I think it is fair to say that we eventually came to respect each other, or at least trust that each of us was sincere. And I like to think that later my presence on beBee might have contributed to your decision to join the platform. BTW, thanks for the compliment to Jim Murray's and my work on the twenty some installments of He Said He Said, which have proven quite popular --- I think because we are honest with each other and always try to call a bull chip a bull chip, notwithstanding that some purveyors of bull chips may get bent out of shape. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #17

#22
Yes, Dean, the initial live buzzes were bad. And they've gotten a lot better. Which was the point of having a laugh at them, if for no other reason to show some sense of self awareness. I will not answer your other vague and unsupported assertions. If there are people who cannot tolerate my presence on beBee, they are welcome to stand up and say so publicly. Your tactics belong back in the era of McCatthyism in the U.S. Or perhaps in as part of a middle school mean-kids clique. https://www.bebee.com/producer/@karen-anne-kramer/clique#c35 By the way, what happened to beBee's often-repeated admonition that there is room for everyone on the platform? And that if you don't like something or someone silence the buzz, or mute or unfollow the user --- and move on? Is your message as a beBee Brand Ambassador that beBee is for everyone, unless you happen to make some waves that a few people don't like? Oh, and once again for the record, my number of followers on beBee has over the last several weeks continued steadily to increase. So please let's not continue this particular exchange, since I am beginning to conclude that you do not appreciate the nuances of free and open exchange of opinion. Cheers!

Dean Owen

Dean Owen

4 years ago #16

#21
Well thanks for telling people that their live buzzes were "atrociously bad". Very encouraging. As to targeting, well many of your posts may not appear to readers as targeting specific members of beBee, but I assure you those that are being targeted know, some of whom have chosen to unfollow you and no longer get involved. You have a huge talent. I understand you calling for intellectual exchange, and you get it quite often. I understand your passion to see beBee succeed. But quite a few members of the community have expressed their view that you do come across as condescending. Why not prove them wrong.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #15

#20
Ah, Dean Owen, yours is an interesting comment. Are you speaking as a beBee user or as an appointed beBee Brand Ambassador? The reason I ask is because of your incorrect reference to a "fake account", when the issue of a pseudonymous account for my satirical alter-ego was settled months ago in discussion with Javier beBee who did not object to the concept, which is line with a well-established literary tradition that included Mark Twain, George Orwell, and Lewis Carroll. https://www.bebee.com/producer/@jim-able/floats-like-a-butterfly-and-when-it-counts-stings-like-a-bee https://www.bebee.com/producer/@jim-able/beware-of-imposters-there-is-only-one-real-jim-able For the record, the satirical "Live Buzz" to which you refer was deemed "hilarious" by several beBee members before it was taken down, apparently due to being "reported" by someone (was that you?) and later restored after, I infer, review by the appropriate person or persons at beBee. Just to be clear, I was not targeting any particular person --- although I was using humor to tell beBee that the initial batches of "live buzzes" were, in my opinion, atrociously bad. Thank you for reading and commenting.

Dean Owen

Dean Owen

4 years ago #14

#19
Nothing wrong with lively disagreement, but veiled attacks using fake accounts that essentially say "Your live buzz is crap" under he guise of satire?

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #13

#18
Thank you, Wayne, for reading and commenting. I am being honest when I say that, as a writer, I value a thoughtful negative comment more than a shallow positive one. What I have never understood though is why so many on social media are made uncomfortable by lively disagreement, even when they are not involved. Cheers!

Wayne Yoshida

Wayne Yoshida

4 years ago #12

Interesting topic, Phil. I notice similar ramblings both here and there, I think the term "Ditto Heads" was used / (is it still used?) fits in too many places. While it's all good to boink a "Like" or "Relevant" button - what does this really mean? I like to advise people to add some value in addition to a mindless boink to like. Tell me why you liked something. And the opposite would work the same. If you don't like something - tell me why and maybe - if we disagree, I can see another point of view. I learn a lot from a lot of folks who tell it like it is. Sort of like the anti-boss I had many years ago: He always said, "Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, as long as it's mine." Oh brother. We had a lot of arguments. Too bad we were not able to teach each other things, it was a one-way conversation with that guy, he never listened and never took criticism.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #11

#14
Thank you Don for reading and commenting. Good to hear about your conversation concerning like-mindedness, and to hear that you, Kevin, and Recee are also concerned about its implications. I'm good with you beeing a beeliever, as long as you don't become a true-believer (in Eric Hoffer's sense of the term). Cheers!

don kerr

don kerr

4 years ago #10

"The high road is paved with frankness and honesty. It is clear of exaggeration and spin. And it is free of defensiveness and name-calling. It also follows the way of open and frank discussion and expression of ideas and opinions. Without recrimination." This is reminiscent of part of the conversation Kevin Pashuk and I had this morning. We as well were similarly concerned about the notion of 'like-mindedness'. While not speaking for the others I will say that has about the notion of passive acceptance of 'authority' when none exists. Regardless, I am a beeliever.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #9

#12
John, thank you for reading and commenting and for the kind words. 1) I never said Affinity Networking was "invented" or owned exclusively by beBee. Indeed, LinkedIn groups were providing affinity networking quite well, when I first joined and founded an industry-specific group in 2011. My point is two-fold. a) To my mind beBee has a potentially brilliant instantiation of affinity networking, and b) LinkedIn has pretty much abandoned its tools for affinity networking. 2) My Venn diagram focuses on commonality of interests because that is what I believe needs to be done, rather than lionizing like-mindedness, which if followed to its natural and logical conclusion results in zero interesting or stimulating discussion, conversation, or other forms of exchange. Moreover, I'd argue that like-mindedness does not build stability, but rather fragility in a platform, since it requires virtually no intellectual effort, and so attracts only people with shallow commitments to anything. In my book diversity is strength, whereas uniformity is weakness and lack of durability. This, of course, amounts to a prediction, which is subject to empirical confirmation or negation. 3) Well, I never really got very far with the LI superstructure in my bleating recommendation to them to nurture true engagement. Personally, I believe that ownership and top management at beBee are more sensitive to that issue, but that, unfortunately, Javier's calls for positivity may have been mistaken by loyal troops to mean an endorsement of, and call for uniformity and total lack of criticism. The jury is still out on this issue, to my mind. Which is why I am moved to speak up now, rather than later. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #8

#7
Aurorasa, thank you for reading, reflecting, and commenting in such a meaningful way. I think you and I agree on some issues. However, on two, I think we do not. 1) I am personally prepared to engage with those who have interests that are common to both of us, even if we have differing views of ethics. As long as they are not dishonest. And 2) I do not believe that fair and frank disagreement are damaging to one's brand. Indeed, I believe that is a social media myth fostered by platforms such as LinkedIn to make people feel safe and comfortable and able to make ridiculous claims without fearing contradiction. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #7

FYI John White, MBA, you are also mentioned in this post. Thanks for all your support and help both on beBee and when we were both stomping around on LinkedIn. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #6

#5
Randy, I understand what you are saying. As far as Twitter goes, we all know several people and a number of firms who have automated Tweeting of links to posts. Churning Twitter does have an effect on a number of algorithms, most notably the one that LinkedIn uses to identify posts that are "trending", and which they might want to pick up on a Pulse feature channel. Flooding Facebook, however, can I think be counter-productive. I know that I unfriend sources that are filling my feed with multiple entries of the same post. As to LinkedIn, I make no book for them, as I think LI deserves whatever it gets. But it is important to my mind not to flood LinkedIn with beBee native content in an attempt to poach members, then whine and cry when LI fights back. And as I said, if LI is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, one had better be sure one wants and is ready to poke him in the eye. Thanks for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #5

#4
Thank you, Kevin, for reading and commenting. And for the supplementary link to another of your posts relevant to this topic. I believe strongly in understanding that questioning and critical comment are not necessarily negative, indeed are often intended to, and do have positive impact. Which is why I am hoping this will stimulate further open discussion of the issue. Cheers!

Randy Keho

Randy Keho

4 years ago #4

My LinkedIn and Twitter accounts, and to a lesser extent, Facebook, are now being clogged by multiple shares from multiple ambassadors, administrators, and individual bees on beBee. it's almost to the point where I don't need to be on beBee. I can read its content everywhere. In fact, I receive the same buzzes multiple times. Then, I realized I'm doing the same thing in return. Of course, officials at LinkedIn have noticed and they're making changes. They must think they're under attack and, yes, they're fighting back.

Kevin Pashuk

Kevin Pashuk

4 years ago #3

Being shuttered in through a hurricane has certainly stoked your writing fires Phil... The Venn diagram is brilliant and explains affinity better than 1000 words. Perhaps it's our background in engineering and academics that makes it a natural to question things and ask clarifying questions. Negativity is designed to denigrate and tear down, but constructive questioning is designed to make the product/paper/initiative/program/idea stronger. It's important not to confuse the two. Just as I explained the difference between an Effluent Agitator and Sh*t Disturber in my post "Gramma's House, Hockey, & Sh*t Disturbers" ( https://www.bebee.com/producer/@kevin-pashuk/gramma-s-house-hockey-sh-t-disturbers )

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #2

You are mentioned in this post, as well, Michele Williams, Thank you for the powerful quote.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #1

Jim Murray, you are mentioned in this post. The opinions and inferences are mine, but the inspiration is yours. Thanks and cheers!