Thursday 31 December 2015
Wednesday 29 October 2014
Hit me with your algorithm stick: How Facebook is taking aim at paid-for content
FACEBOOK has dealt a serious blow to paid-for content creators by introducing a big change to the way its newsfeed algorithm works.
I've written briefly in previous blogs about how the site decides on what we all see in our newsfeeds - this includes giving ratings to the things we click on, and the stories our friends have viewed before.
But the latest change means it doesn't just register what we click on - it also registers how long we stay there.
This means that if you click on a link on your newsfeed and stay on that site for along time, you are even more likely to see more from that site in your feed later. If you just click and return to Facebook straight away you will see a lot less of that site's stories in future.
The measure is designed to discourage 'click-bait' style stories that don't deliver on the promises they make. Often cheap, ad-heavy sites will employ click-bait tactics to get users to click, then just bombard them with ads once they've navigated there.
So far, so good. After all, who wants to see loads of crappy links in their feeds?
Unfortunately, the new measures have had some negative consequences.
Facebook has essentially taken aim at paid-for content sites, just at a time when the media is struggling to work out ways to fund itself.
To fully understand the problem, you have to look at the situation from a paid-for website's point of view.
If your content is not free, then a large number of the people that click through to your stories from Facebook aren't likely to stay there very long. You are relying on much smaller numbers to subscribe to read. But, of course, to get those small numbers of subscribers, you need a large number of clicks.
So if increasingly smaller numbers of people are staying - or 'dwelling', as it's often referred to - on your site, the new changes mean you will find the number of users who see your posts goes down dramatically.
These changes work really well for providers of free content, as their slice of the readership pie will continue to increase. Aggregator sites who employ relatively few journalists, like the Huffington Post, and other small, lean operations like Buzzfeed provide all their content free.
The BBC too is of course free, and will be taking an increasing interest in social media in the next few years.
But the bigger newspapers, who employ lots of people and undertake far more traditional investigative journalism will suffer more and more unless they commit to keeping their content free.
Many will - The Mail, The Mirror, The Guardian and The Independent are all still free. But all are seriously struggling to make ends meet.
It's a tricky problem, but one that Facebook should take seriously. The majority of online advertising money now goes straight to Facebook and Google. So if they aren't careful, Facebook could end up cutting off readership from paid-for sites AND ad revenue from free sites.
If that happens, all content providers will have less money to invest in good quality articles. It would mean that either people migrate away from Facebook (encouraged to do so by increasingly angry news sites) OR Facebook's dominance makes this impossible and the quality of web content just gets worse.
Neither is desirable, but Facebook aren't stupid. I expect changes to come sooner rather than later - not least because many of the big media organisations that own these sites invest a great deal of ad money in Facebook themselves. The threat to cut it off could prove decisive.
The incentive is clear, the solution less so.
I've written briefly in previous blogs about how the site decides on what we all see in our newsfeeds - this includes giving ratings to the things we click on, and the stories our friends have viewed before.
But the latest change means it doesn't just register what we click on - it also registers how long we stay there.
This means that if you click on a link on your newsfeed and stay on that site for along time, you are even more likely to see more from that site in your feed later. If you just click and return to Facebook straight away you will see a lot less of that site's stories in future.
The measure is designed to discourage 'click-bait' style stories that don't deliver on the promises they make. Often cheap, ad-heavy sites will employ click-bait tactics to get users to click, then just bombard them with ads once they've navigated there.
So far, so good. After all, who wants to see loads of crappy links in their feeds?
Unfortunately, the new measures have had some negative consequences.
Facebook has essentially taken aim at paid-for content sites, just at a time when the media is struggling to work out ways to fund itself.
 |
| Many people are seeing their reach - or, number of people who see their posts - decrease |
To fully understand the problem, you have to look at the situation from a paid-for website's point of view.
If your content is not free, then a large number of the people that click through to your stories from Facebook aren't likely to stay there very long. You are relying on much smaller numbers to subscribe to read. But, of course, to get those small numbers of subscribers, you need a large number of clicks.
So if increasingly smaller numbers of people are staying - or 'dwelling', as it's often referred to - on your site, the new changes mean you will find the number of users who see your posts goes down dramatically.
These changes work really well for providers of free content, as their slice of the readership pie will continue to increase. Aggregator sites who employ relatively few journalists, like the Huffington Post, and other small, lean operations like Buzzfeed provide all their content free.
 |
| The changes benefit free sites like Buzzfeed. LOL. |
The BBC too is of course free, and will be taking an increasing interest in social media in the next few years.
But the bigger newspapers, who employ lots of people and undertake far more traditional investigative journalism will suffer more and more unless they commit to keeping their content free.
Many will - The Mail, The Mirror, The Guardian and The Independent are all still free. But all are seriously struggling to make ends meet.
It's a tricky problem, but one that Facebook should take seriously. The majority of online advertising money now goes straight to Facebook and Google. So if they aren't careful, Facebook could end up cutting off readership from paid-for sites AND ad revenue from free sites.
 |
| Facebook now dominates the market in terms of online ad revenue |
If that happens, all content providers will have less money to invest in good quality articles. It would mean that either people migrate away from Facebook (encouraged to do so by increasingly angry news sites) OR Facebook's dominance makes this impossible and the quality of web content just gets worse.
Neither is desirable, but Facebook aren't stupid. I expect changes to come sooner rather than later - not least because many of the big media organisations that own these sites invest a great deal of ad money in Facebook themselves. The threat to cut it off could prove decisive.
The incentive is clear, the solution less so.
Wednesday 10 September 2014
Tweet for Scotland! - How Salmond's slick Twitter campaign has polished the independence turd
THE SNP's modern, accomplished Twitter campaign has made a weak case for Scottish independence seem incredibly strong.
Alex Salmond's Yes campaign has more than twice as many followers than the Nos, and it's not down to coincidence or dumb luck. They've been taking social media far more seriously than Better Together for quite some time.
They have put rivals Better Together to shame with slick design, an (ostensibly) optimistic message, and a vocal, mobilised online support-base.
They regularly publish more engaging posts than the Unionists, and their content looks more modern, more dynamic and more exciting.
Look at the two logos as an example. Here's the Yes logo:
Just look at that glorious tightly-kerned Helvetica. It's marvellous. It looks like something I want to look at.
Now the No campaign:
It looks awful. Negative and unappealing. I don't even know what that font is, but I know those rounded edges are hideous.
The whole No page is like a vision of everything that is dull and dreary about modern Britain. I wouldn't vote for that. Who would vote for a country represented by a font as terrible as that? Fewer and fewer people, apparently.
And if we look at the personal pages of the two leaders we see the same again - Salmond looks friendlier, busier and more fun than dreary old Darling.
He and his team are publishing loads of posts throughout the day with pictures of real people. This - like so much of what we all do on social media - gives the impression that he is incredibly popular.
Darling, by contrast, just isn't a natural at this. You can tell he's trying, but it just doesn't have the energy of his Anglophobic opposite number. His banner picture cuts off his own head because he's only optimised it for mobile (Salmond's works multi-platform, FYI) and you can see he's only got about a quarter of the number of followers.
All of this combines to give the impression that the Yes campaign is winning the war through positivity and confidence. It's doing an excellent job of convincing users that there is an excellent case for independence when, of course, there is no such thing.
Alex Salmond's genius lies in his ability to convince Scots that he is the positive, good option and the No campaign is the negative, bad option. Part of that mission was already complete when he chose the question on the ballot paper, obviously, but the message has been reinforced by smart social marketing that mobilises people power online.
The fact is there is no real case for Scottish independence - the economy is already faltering at the mere possiblity that the UK could break up. Without a monetary union with the rest of the UK, and access to the lender of last resort in the Bank of England, Scotland will become an economic basket case.
It will be mired in debt and unable to borrow money on the international markets at affordable rates. It will therefore be unable to spend the money it doesn't have fulfilling the empty promises made by Alex Salmond.
But, of course, perception is often reality. And social media is increasingly becoming a link to the wider world for all of us. It gives huge opportunity to talk to and mobilise people - an opportunity the SNP saw and seized on faster, smarter and much more ruthlessly than the more traditional No campaign.
It left them looking old and tired - just like the vision of Evil England it is selling to voters. And it seems to be working.
Alex Salmond's Yes campaign has more than twice as many followers than the Nos, and it's not down to coincidence or dumb luck. They've been taking social media far more seriously than Better Together for quite some time.
They regularly publish more engaging posts than the Unionists, and their content looks more modern, more dynamic and more exciting.
Look at the two logos as an example. Here's the Yes logo:
Now the No campaign:
It looks awful. Negative and unappealing. I don't even know what that font is, but I know those rounded edges are hideous.
The whole No page is like a vision of everything that is dull and dreary about modern Britain. I wouldn't vote for that. Who would vote for a country represented by a font as terrible as that? Fewer and fewer people, apparently.
And if we look at the personal pages of the two leaders we see the same again - Salmond looks friendlier, busier and more fun than dreary old Darling.
He and his team are publishing loads of posts throughout the day with pictures of real people. This - like so much of what we all do on social media - gives the impression that he is incredibly popular.
Darling, by contrast, just isn't a natural at this. You can tell he's trying, but it just doesn't have the energy of his Anglophobic opposite number. His banner picture cuts off his own head because he's only optimised it for mobile (Salmond's works multi-platform, FYI) and you can see he's only got about a quarter of the number of followers.
All of this combines to give the impression that the Yes campaign is winning the war through positivity and confidence. It's doing an excellent job of convincing users that there is an excellent case for independence when, of course, there is no such thing.
The costs & risks of separation are real. When they were underdogs the nationalists could avoid & evade big questions. No longer. #indyref
— Alistair Darling (@TogetherDarling) September 9, 2014
Alex Salmond's genius lies in his ability to convince Scots that he is the positive, good option and the No campaign is the negative, bad option. Part of that mission was already complete when he chose the question on the ballot paper, obviously, but the message has been reinforced by smart social marketing that mobilises people power online.
Scotland's future in Scotland's hands - it has to be Yes in any language #IndyRef pic.twitter.com/0usR9LiOrz
— Alex Salmond (@AlexSalmond) September 9, 2014
Some pics from my visit to Inverness #IndyRef pic.twitter.com/cmE1CFQ8wp
— Alex Salmond (@AlexSalmond) September 6, 2014
How many profile pics have you spotted with little 'Yes' badges in the corner? The chances are you've seen far more Yeses than Nos. They thought of it first and used it better.The fact is there is no real case for Scottish independence - the economy is already faltering at the mere possiblity that the UK could break up. Without a monetary union with the rest of the UK, and access to the lender of last resort in the Bank of England, Scotland will become an economic basket case.
It will be mired in debt and unable to borrow money on the international markets at affordable rates. It will therefore be unable to spend the money it doesn't have fulfilling the empty promises made by Alex Salmond.
But, of course, perception is often reality. And social media is increasingly becoming a link to the wider world for all of us. It gives huge opportunity to talk to and mobilise people - an opportunity the SNP saw and seized on faster, smarter and much more ruthlessly than the more traditional No campaign.
It left them looking old and tired - just like the vision of Evil England it is selling to voters. And it seems to be working.
Friday 5 September 2014
Brutal, but not clever - Here's why you don't need to be afraid of the IS media machine
MUCH has been made recently of the way social media and the web have changed the face of global terrorism.
The narrative says the barbaric Islamic fundamentalists IS have become incredibly web savvy - as seen in their horrific beheading videos - and now threaten a whole new type of terror, which we in the west will have no idea how to deal with.
I'm not so sure.
IS do, of course, have a better understanding of technology and the internet than their predecessors in Al Qaeda (probably helped by the brainwashed idiots flying over from countries like the UK).
But being better than other Middle Eastern terrorist organisations at using the web isn't really a very big ask. It's a difference of scale rather than type, and not one that makes them necessarily any more dangerous.
The most obvious way they've employed their internet marketing skills is in the promotion of the infamous beheading videos.
There has been a lot of talk online about how the clips look incredibly professional - but I'm not overawed.
Yes, they are put together better than the camcorder-in-a-dark-room terrorist vids we're used to seeing. They have more than one angle, employ some effects, and switch between different shots with linking sequences like fade-outs.
But these are the kind of techniques any A-Level media student would be able to put together with ease. It's hardly The Matrix.
The savagery of the acts committed on screen is what gives them their power, not the production process.
Another worry for us in the west is the way the clips have been distributed and received online - the seemingly massive reach of the super-tekkie militants.
But, again, I think the truth is less worrying.
IS were synchronised in launching the clips online, but the mainstream video sharing sites removed them almost immediately. And IS's own servers were clearly not well enough equipped to deal with all the traffic, as the video download on their channels was very slow and crashed constantly.
Even when the clip was available, something very interesting happened on social media - people CHOSE not to watch it.
They enforced a sort of self-censorship, believing that by refusing to watch the video they were taking the power away from IS.
But they didn't just quietly shuffle off - most took the opportunity to post tributes to Steven Sotloff, remembering his life, rather than leering over his grisly demise.
IS have no way to combat this kind of smart, rational response, so they will never be able to win the information war (because, make no mistake, we are at war).
This point is even more salient when you compare the IS tech machine with the capabilities they're up against in the west.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter - all of the platforms they use are owned and operated by American companies. The foundations of their castle are built on western sand.
We have rightly been debating the extent to which the secret services should be allowed to watch our own digital movements - but I don't think any of us have any complaints about MI6 or GCHQ using their considerable expertise to monitor and shut down terrorist communications. And their methods and capabilities are far in advance of anything IS will be able to cook up.
These maniacs are a threat - a very real one. But we should be realistic about the capacity of their much-feared media machine, and also be confident in its eventual defeat.
The narrative says the barbaric Islamic fundamentalists IS have become incredibly web savvy - as seen in their horrific beheading videos - and now threaten a whole new type of terror, which we in the west will have no idea how to deal with.
I'm not so sure.
 |
| IS video of the brutal murder of US journalist James Foley |
IS do, of course, have a better understanding of technology and the internet than their predecessors in Al Qaeda (probably helped by the brainwashed idiots flying over from countries like the UK).
But being better than other Middle Eastern terrorist organisations at using the web isn't really a very big ask. It's a difference of scale rather than type, and not one that makes them necessarily any more dangerous.
The most obvious way they've employed their internet marketing skills is in the promotion of the infamous beheading videos.
 |
| IS recruitment video |
There has been a lot of talk online about how the clips look incredibly professional - but I'm not overawed.
Yes, they are put together better than the camcorder-in-a-dark-room terrorist vids we're used to seeing. They have more than one angle, employ some effects, and switch between different shots with linking sequences like fade-outs.
But these are the kind of techniques any A-Level media student would be able to put together with ease. It's hardly The Matrix.
The savagery of the acts committed on screen is what gives them their power, not the production process.
Another worry for us in the west is the way the clips have been distributed and received online - the seemingly massive reach of the super-tekkie militants.
But, again, I think the truth is less worrying.
 |
| The now-infamous IS flag |
IS were synchronised in launching the clips online, but the mainstream video sharing sites removed them almost immediately. And IS's own servers were clearly not well enough equipped to deal with all the traffic, as the video download on their channels was very slow and crashed constantly.
Even when the clip was available, something very interesting happened on social media - people CHOSE not to watch it.
I refuse to see the video of #StevenSotloff. Sharing the video of his execution in social network only gives ISIS what they want.
— Imma Casanovas (@immacb) September 2, 2014
They enforced a sort of self-censorship, believing that by refusing to watch the video they were taking the power away from IS.
As with James Foley, I refuse to watch the Steven Sotloff video. You should too. If you do, you should not put it in front of others' eyes.
— Jack Moore (@JFXM) September 2, 2014
But they didn't just quietly shuffle off - most took the opportunity to post tributes to Steven Sotloff, remembering his life, rather than leering over his grisly demise.
I hope, and have faith that, the people I follow will not give IS the propaganda they want be tweeting the video of Steven Sotloff's murder.
— Alex Halpern (@HalpernAlex) September 2, 2014
ISIS Black Out. Refuse to share video or images and remember #stevenSotloff for the journalist that he was.
— Laura Wilkens (@Laura_Wilkens) September 2, 2014
IS have no way to combat this kind of smart, rational response, so they will never be able to win the information war (because, make no mistake, we are at war).
This point is even more salient when you compare the IS tech machine with the capabilities they're up against in the west.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter - all of the platforms they use are owned and operated by American companies. The foundations of their castle are built on western sand.
We have rightly been debating the extent to which the secret services should be allowed to watch our own digital movements - but I don't think any of us have any complaints about MI6 or GCHQ using their considerable expertise to monitor and shut down terrorist communications. And their methods and capabilities are far in advance of anything IS will be able to cook up.
These maniacs are a threat - a very real one. But we should be realistic about the capacity of their much-feared media machine, and also be confident in its eventual defeat.
Thursday 21 August 2014
NewsFed: How Facebook is closing our minds, and what we can do to stop it
YOU may not realise it, but Facebook records every single thing you do while you're logged in.
Liking a friend's status or looking at your mum's holiday snaps might seem inconsequential - but it all translates into incredibly valuable data.
Liking a friend's status or looking at your mum's holiday snaps might seem inconsequential - but it all translates into incredibly valuable data.
The world's most popular social network uses what's called a filtered feed. It's a complex algorithm that works out what you want to see when you log on by using the things you've engaged with - or, liked, clicked and commented on - in the past.
When you look at your news feed, you never see everything that everyone you know has posted. You couldn't - it would take all day. According to Facebook's own blog, the average user could potentially see about 1,500 new stories every time they log on. Those with lots of friends could see as many as 15,000.
So instead of simply showing us all these in order - like Twitter does - Facebook works out the posts we are most likely to want to see.
It does this by ranking every possible post we could see according to a number of different factors. These include:
- Interest: How much the user (YOU) is interested in the post creator (this could be a friend, a news site, or a brand - anything or anyone that posts to Facebook)
- Post performance: How popular the post has been with other users
- Creator popularity: How popular other posts by the same creator have been
- Type of post: If it's a photo, video etc
- 'Recency': How new the post is
These factors are also weighed against a whole host of other, more personal details. For example, it might be that someone very close to you - like your wife or brother - has commented on a photo. That would give a high likelihood that you will like it too.
- Interest: How much the user (YOU) is interested in the post creator (this could be a friend, a news site, or a brand - anything or anyone that posts to Facebook)
- Post performance: How popular the post has been with other users
- Creator popularity: How popular other posts by the same creator have been
- Type of post: If it's a photo, video etc
- 'Recency': How new the post is
These factors are also weighed against a whole host of other, more personal details. For example, it might be that someone very close to you - like your wife or brother - has commented on a photo. That would give a high likelihood that you will like it too.
The system works incredibly well, and it's one of the main reasons Facebook is so successful. It allows us to see plenty of the things we like, and less of the things we don't.
The problem, though, is that it gradually blocks out the other things people are talking about that don't fit the general trend. Over time, this causes a long, drawn out confirmation bias. You will tend to look at posts that confirm beliefs you already have, rather than ones that challenge them.
This is all well and good when it comes to mundane news stories or gossip from friends, but what happens if the things you tend to click on are racist? Or homophobic? Or just idiotic?
You can see my point. Facebook's algorithm would then effectively be encouraging slightly bigoted users to become more and more so through a system of positive reinforcement.
You can see my point. Facebook's algorithm would then effectively be encouraging slightly bigoted users to become more and more so through a system of positive reinforcement.
I've given an extreme example, but all of us will tend to find that we get the same old stuff coming up in our news feeds. If we haven't heard from someone in ages, we're very unlikely to see what they've been up to, precisely because we haven't heard from them in ages. This is surely the opposite of what Facebook is supposed to be all about.
On top of all this, the friends we do have left are increasingly getting crowded out by brands who've paid for space on our news feeds. If we then engage with the brands who have paid for the space, we'll never get rid of them.
This ecosystem is all part of what social media marketing is all about, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. People do actually like to engage with brands, and are often happy to see more and more of them in their feeds. But I suspect that is not always the case. In fact, I doubt whether many people even realise it's happening at all.
This ecosystem is all part of what social media marketing is all about, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. People do actually like to engage with brands, and are often happy to see more and more of them in their feeds. But I suspect that is not always the case. In fact, I doubt whether many people even realise it's happening at all.
So what can you do to take control of your feed?
Well, you could just switch your news feed from 'Top Stories' to 'Most Recent'. Then you'll get everything in the order it was posted.
But, of course, that will mean you become much more familiar with that girl you went to school with, who now has three kids and posts hundreds of pictures of them all day... every. single. day.
Like I said, the algorithm isn't necessarily a bad thing.
- Alternatively, you can begin un-liking. Remember when you thought the pages you 'liked' were just there to show the people who looked at your profile all the cool things you're interested in? Umm, yeah... that's not what that's for.
But, of course, that will mean you become much more familiar with that girl you went to school with, who now has three kids and posts hundreds of pictures of them all day... every. single. day.
Like I said, the algorithm isn't necessarily a bad thing.
- Alternatively, you can begin un-liking. Remember when you thought the pages you 'liked' were just there to show the people who looked at your profile all the cool things you're interested in? Umm, yeah... that's not what that's for.
Every time you like a page you make yourself a better target for advertisers. To be fair, since they know more about you, you're probably more likely to actually want the things you see in the ads - but that's not what Facebook is for! Obviously, if you really do like something and want to see more of it in your feed, then like away - just ditch the ones you're bored of.
- Second, go through your friends list and look for people you haven't seen in your feed for a long time. It may be that they haven't been posting - but it's far more likely they're being crowded out by everyone else. Go to their page and like a few status updates or pictures - you'll start to see more of them when you log on.
- Third, stop clicking on shit you don't want to read. We all do it - the "You'll never believe what happened next" posts get me every time. You click the link and, surprise surprise, you absolutely CAN believe what happened next. And guess what happens next?? That's right, you get a load more rubbish posts from the "You'll never guess what happened next" brigade next time you log on.
- Lastly, try to engage with things that challenge your beliefs. The more you stay in your comfort zone, the tighter the circle will close around you. Some of the most interesting things you'll see on Facebook will come from people or pages you completely disagree with, because they'll challenge you to figure out why they are wrong. Sometimes they might even change your mind.
Either way, you will keep your horizons open and avoid the confirmation bias.
I'd love to hear what you think - so get in touch on here, or tweet me @TheTommyEdwards.
Thursday 31 July 2014
Don't be a tweet: Six top tips for Twitter success
EVERYONE has their own way of doing things on social media, and we all use it for different reasons.
Up until a couple of months ago, I only really used Twitter for newsgathering (I used to be an online journalist) and never really said very much. I wasn't concerned about getting followers and didn't really engage with people on there. I'd often look, but rarely talk back.
Then I realised that, in the media industry, you are judged on how many followers you have (it's a shallow world, I know) and I had some catching up to do. Now I'm by no means a celebrity on Twitter - I only have about 1,200 followers at the time of writing - but I have got there from only a couple of hundred when I started working in social in February.
Fortunately for me, I'd been posting in a professional capacity to Twitter for quite some time, so I had a pretty decent idea of what works and what doesn't. And since starting as a full-time social guy I've picked up a few more. So I thought I'd share with you what meagre knowledge I have...
DO use pictures. Pictures are far FAR more engaging than words alone. There is a reason why sites like Instagram and Imgur are so successful. We are all generally very lazy, and pictures are much easier to take in than words. This means your audience is instantly much bigger when you use them. And if the content is good, it means there are more people to share it.
If you need help getting the best out of your pics on social, here's a blog that can help by Buffer, a company who did a study into tweeting pictures. They found tweets with pics got 89% more favorites and 150% more retweets than tweets with just text.
DO talk to people. You get what you give on Twitter. I've lost count of the amount of real-life conversations I've had with people who say they signed up to Twitter but then got bored and went back to Facebook, or just didn't bother at all.
It will be boring if you're not doing anything. It's all about conversation. People won't know you're there if you don't tell them, and they won't want to follow you unless they think you've got something interesting to say.
DO work out why you're there. Twitter is a fantastic place for niche interests. Of course, some people will get away with being very broad and talking about all sorts of things. But they tend to be people who are already in the public sphere. The best Twitter accounts are the ones that have a specific purpose - a news site, or celebrity gossip feed, or a football expert, or whatever.
So if you love Carp Fishing, for example, then put that in your profile and talk to other people who share your hobby. They are much more likely to want to talk to you than a bunch of strangers. And you'll find you get much more enjoyment out of using Twitter if you're talking about something you enjoy.
DON'T troll people you don't know. Everyone loves a bit of banter. And if you have a mate in the office who supports a rival football team, then it can be great fun winding them up online. But remember, Twitter is a public forum. Don't say anything you wouldn't want a potential employer to read.
Streams of angry bile and replies full of derogatory remarks just don't look nice. If you saw a pub where everyone was shouting filth at each other, would you go in for a pint? Of course you wouldn't. So don't be that angry drunk at the bar.
DON'T give up. Rome wasn't built in a day, and a million followers won't just turn up overnight. It takes time to build up a following on Twitter and there are no shortcuts.
DON'T buy followers. I'm sure you will have seen or heard of websites where you can just pay for as many followers as you like. But as with most things in life, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Those sites will get you lots of followers, but all of them will be dead accounts. The sites create the accounts (some make them look real with pictures and posts, some don't even bother with that) and then follow you. Then repeat as many times as you've paid them to.
These fakes won't help you to enjoy using Twitter, as you still won't get anybody talking to you. You'll be like the king of an empty country. Plus, anyone can audit your account to see how many fake followers you have. Imagine how embarrassing it would be if someone you know checked out yours, only to find that you've just gone out and bought thousands of fake friends.
Up until a couple of months ago, I only really used Twitter for newsgathering (I used to be an online journalist) and never really said very much. I wasn't concerned about getting followers and didn't really engage with people on there. I'd often look, but rarely talk back.
Then I realised that, in the media industry, you are judged on how many followers you have (it's a shallow world, I know) and I had some catching up to do. Now I'm by no means a celebrity on Twitter - I only have about 1,200 followers at the time of writing - but I have got there from only a couple of hundred when I started working in social in February.
Fortunately for me, I'd been posting in a professional capacity to Twitter for quite some time, so I had a pretty decent idea of what works and what doesn't. And since starting as a full-time social guy I've picked up a few more. So I thought I'd share with you what meagre knowledge I have...
DO use pictures. Pictures are far FAR more engaging than words alone. There is a reason why sites like Instagram and Imgur are so successful. We are all generally very lazy, and pictures are much easier to take in than words. This means your audience is instantly much bigger when you use them. And if the content is good, it means there are more people to share it.
DO talk to people. You get what you give on Twitter. I've lost count of the amount of real-life conversations I've had with people who say they signed up to Twitter but then got bored and went back to Facebook, or just didn't bother at all.
It will be boring if you're not doing anything. It's all about conversation. People won't know you're there if you don't tell them, and they won't want to follow you unless they think you've got something interesting to say.
DO work out why you're there. Twitter is a fantastic place for niche interests. Of course, some people will get away with being very broad and talking about all sorts of things. But they tend to be people who are already in the public sphere. The best Twitter accounts are the ones that have a specific purpose - a news site, or celebrity gossip feed, or a football expert, or whatever.
So if you love Carp Fishing, for example, then put that in your profile and talk to other people who share your hobby. They are much more likely to want to talk to you than a bunch of strangers. And you'll find you get much more enjoyment out of using Twitter if you're talking about something you enjoy.
DON'T troll people you don't know. Everyone loves a bit of banter. And if you have a mate in the office who supports a rival football team, then it can be great fun winding them up online. But remember, Twitter is a public forum. Don't say anything you wouldn't want a potential employer to read.
Streams of angry bile and replies full of derogatory remarks just don't look nice. If you saw a pub where everyone was shouting filth at each other, would you go in for a pint? Of course you wouldn't. So don't be that angry drunk at the bar.
DON'T give up. Rome wasn't built in a day, and a million followers won't just turn up overnight. It takes time to build up a following on Twitter and there are no shortcuts.
DON'T buy followers. I'm sure you will have seen or heard of websites where you can just pay for as many followers as you like. But as with most things in life, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Those sites will get you lots of followers, but all of them will be dead accounts. The sites create the accounts (some make them look real with pictures and posts, some don't even bother with that) and then follow you. Then repeat as many times as you've paid them to.
These fakes won't help you to enjoy using Twitter, as you still won't get anybody talking to you. You'll be like the king of an empty country. Plus, anyone can audit your account to see how many fake followers you have. Imagine how embarrassing it would be if someone you know checked out yours, only to find that you've just gone out and bought thousands of fake friends.
Saturday 19 July 2014
Gaza, Twitter, and the worst picture I've ever seen
CONFLICT around the world is not new - and conflict in the Gaza Strip certainly isn't. But the way it is being recorded and broadcast is changing.
The most recent bouts of fighting in Gaza have been documented in shockingly graphic detail by the people who live there, and the pictures can now be seen on Twitter and elsewhere by anyone.
This hasn't happened before, mostly because there are some things the mainstream media simply cannot, or will not, show.
Images and words can be deemed too shocking, and editorial standards simply won't allow for the publication of pictures thought to be too graphic or distressing.
This image, for example, has not to my knowledge been distributed by any mainstream media outlet.
It is, I think, the most disturbing I've ever seen. I really can't imagine anything worse. It is a brutal encapsulation of everything that is horrific about war, and I challenge anyone to look at it and not have an intensely emotional reaction.
Now, I can understand why editors would decide not show this picture to their viewers or readers. But I believe they are wrong to withhold it, and others like it.
I think it's important the world sees these awful things so they can better understand what really happens when an army drops bombs on civilian populations. Censored pictures and expert analysis simply do not have the same impact.
I should be clear here that I'm not trying to make any kind of political statement about who is right and who is wrong in this conflict. I'm not qualified to do that, and you can all make your own minds up.
But the politics is beside the point. All I want to highlight here is the fact that uncensored social networks have given us a new window into the true horrors of this war. And I hope that this increased global awareness will help to stop it.
I should also point out that the pictures featured here haven't been verified by mainstream media outlets, so their origin and authenticity are undoubtedly less certain than others. But the sheer number of them would indicate that at least some will be genuine, if not all.
Either way, the impact remains the same.
We all now have the resources to educate ourselves far beyond what we see on BBC News at Ten - and we all have a responsibility to use them.
For more info, search: #PrayForGaza, #GazaUnderAttack, #IsraelUnderFire
 |
| PrayForGaza: A hashtag many have used to share information about the conflict |
The most recent bouts of fighting in Gaza have been documented in shockingly graphic detail by the people who live there, and the pictures can now be seen on Twitter and elsewhere by anyone.
This hasn't happened before, mostly because there are some things the mainstream media simply cannot, or will not, show.
A young boy says good bay for his father in Gaza this morning...
#GazaUnderAttack #PrayForGaza pic.twitter.com/wHqcWatn7i
— فلسطين i (@iFalasteen) July 19, 2014
Images and words can be deemed too shocking, and editorial standards simply won't allow for the publication of pictures thought to be too graphic or distressing.
This image, for example, has not to my knowledge been distributed by any mainstream media outlet.
Israel kills most dangerous terrorist
#PrayForGaza
#Palestine
#IsraelUnderFire
#GazaUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/QQaiB70JjI
— ماجد القشعمي#GAZA (@_majed_q) July 11, 2014
It is, I think, the most disturbing I've ever seen. I really can't imagine anything worse. It is a brutal encapsulation of everything that is horrific about war, and I challenge anyone to look at it and not have an intensely emotional reaction.
Now, I can understand why editors would decide not show this picture to their viewers or readers. But I believe they are wrong to withhold it, and others like it.
Pregnant Palestinian woman gets shot, gives birth to child who was also shot. #PrayForGaza #PrayForPalestine pic.twitter.com/dYoBJpTQOJ
— كاشف Kash (@_wizkid_) July 11, 2014
I think it's important the world sees these awful things so they can better understand what really happens when an army drops bombs on civilian populations. Censored pictures and expert analysis simply do not have the same impact.
I should be clear here that I'm not trying to make any kind of political statement about who is right and who is wrong in this conflict. I'm not qualified to do that, and you can all make your own minds up.
His dead little brother in his arms. #PrayForGaza pic.twitter.com/btI9omlSuV
— Mina (@mina_ysf) July 19, 2014
But the politics is beside the point. All I want to highlight here is the fact that uncensored social networks have given us a new window into the true horrors of this war. And I hope that this increased global awareness will help to stop it.
this makes me want to be physically sick so so cruel cannot process the complete inhumanity wow #PrayForGaza pic.twitter.com/eb3mK1ja3j
— icks (@cadburyhxrry) July 13, 2014
I should also point out that the pictures featured here haven't been verified by mainstream media outlets, so their origin and authenticity are undoubtedly less certain than others. But the sheer number of them would indicate that at least some will be genuine, if not all.
don't cry, baby. don't cry. #PrayForGaza pic.twitter.com/OUuenKXizW
— Lucaspeebo. (@Lucaspeebo) July 13, 2014
Either way, the impact remains the same.
We all now have the resources to educate ourselves far beyond what we see on BBC News at Ten - and we all have a responsibility to use them.
✨ Surely with hardship comes ease. QUR'AN 95:5 ✨ #PrayForGaza #FreePalestineOrDieTrying pic.twitter.com/xLsLnqkg5c
— Linda لو لو (@falasteenager) July 12, 2014
For more info, search: #PrayForGaza, #GazaUnderAttack, #IsraelUnderFire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)