Um, why?
Do I really need to see the same link to the same article in both places? Maybe I should just use one (if I had to pick: Facebook). But really, what's with that? Why not have original content in each - and if you don't have original stuff for each one, do you really need both?
I suppose people have different followers / connections in different areas. But really, a little less redundancy would be nice. A little less redundancy would be nice. ;)
2 comments:
Hey Dan. Um Why Not? I don't see any problem with this nor does it irritate me. I have different social networks on Twitter and Facebook (and like it that way...I don't one giant ball o' mud social network). Sometimes I post the same thing, sometimes it's something different. I know who's following me and make a conscious decision to cross-post or not. Services like Twitter are pretty low bandwidth and high signal to noise (for the people I follow). A little redundancy is easy to filter or ignore. But if it irritates you, then stop following me. :-) But seriously dude, the fact that someone uses a tool differently than you shouldn't irritate you! Just like the fact that spymaster spam on Twitter irritates me, but probably shouldn't ;-)
Cheers!
Rhet
I think "irritate" was probably a stronger word than I intended. It's more like "mildly disappointing."
That is, when I go to Facebook and Twitter, I expect to find fresh content, new things I haven't seen or heard already. And when I find a lot of stuff I already saw on the other site, it's mildly disappointing. But there's enough original content in each that I keep coming back to both.
Having said that, I realize I've done it too - posted an announcement about a new article on both FB and Twitter... precisely because I know I have some Twitter followers who aren't FB Friends. But there's some overlap in those two groups, so yeah, I did it too.
I totally understand the practice of replicating posts. It makes sense. But too much of it can have a diluting effect.
Post a Comment