SocialMediaBust

Q: You've been a harsh, sometimes abrasive critic of what you've called poor and misleading information about social media, customer service, and e-learning. It sounds like you don't believe anyone, particularly those that post on social media platforms. So, who DO you give credence to?

Robert: You're right. I do not find 99% of people who post and participate on social media credible, without them having a strong track record of posting insightful things, and NOT posting stupid things. On social media you have to follow someone for quite some time to determine their agendas, and its the agendas that often bias what they pass on to others. So, to be blunt, when I look for really solid information, I tend to discount Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and most blogs. Another factor, the signal to noise ratios, and repeated stuff is terrible on all of these.

Q: So, if you don't trust social media sources including blogs, what DO you trust? Where do you go to get stuff you feel you can trust?

Robert: Part of what I've been doing for 15 years on the internet is actually acting like an information curator (before its become fashionable to use the term), so I get to go to a lot of different places online. It's kind of interesting.

Some sites jump out at you and say: "I'm credible, professional and skilled so you can trust me/us", while other sites say "We pander to whatever people might want to read, and we just say the same things over and over". It's very hard for me to articulate how I separate one from the other, so maybe some examples.

Mashable.com is a hugely successful site from every perspective. Or almost every one. To me, it does not say: "We're pros and we make sure what is on our site is accurate." Uh-uh. Now, part of my feelings about mashable come from it appearing like its purpose is to post large volumes of stuff, and rightly or wrongly, it doesn't look like any of the material on their site is vetted through editors who check for originality, content quality, critical thinking and accuracy. It also appears to me like the site is written at a lowest common denominator. Articles are more like soundbytes than really researched material. Often the material there is a rehash of other sources.

So, while mashable is a success, it's not a "go to" place for me. That's not to say I never visit. I just don't find the site itself trustworthy as a source, and sadly, I often find errors in the articles, or article titles that have nothing to do with the content. That tells me what the site managers think is important. Volume. So it seems.

Q: So you are not a mashable fan in terms of credibility. Can you provide a comparison site?

Robert: Indeed. Take a look at Go-CEM (click to open a new window). I just came upon this site today, and I have no idea who they are. Take a look at the articles, and the contributors on the topic of customer experience management. Here's a few things that jump out.

Most articles are rather long. Let's face it. If you want to cover a topic properly, with some depth and originality, you simply cannot do it in 400-500 words, as is often the case on a site like Mashable and for about 95% of the sites on the Internet. To me, provided the material is plumped up with junk, it means credibility.

The writing level is rather advanced and sophisticated. It's clearly not aimed at the casual visitors. The material seems to be written for other professionals, and as such it has the feel of a professional journal rather than People magazine. Mashable, on the other hand is clearly written for the masses if you go by the writing and reading levels (which is why its so successful). No doubt Go-CEM received a fraction of the visitors that Mashable receives. Yet the site gives me the impression of quality thought and research.

Each article has the author, his or her affiliation, and degrees prominently displayed. Mashable, and many other sites do not do that. Go-CEM brands its writers as experts with qualifications. Does Mashable do the same thing? No, because mashable isn't about qualifications or indepth coverage. It's about volume, and popular success. Who writes the material for Mashable is largely irrelevant.

Oddly enough the layout and type face of GO-CEM is attrocious. The type is way too small, the screen is not optimized very well in terms of space usage, but while that is bothersome, it doesn't detract from credibility (it doesn't help either). Compare with Mashable. Mashable is a "withit" place.

Then there's the ads. There are no or few ads for third parties on GO-CEM. It's clear they don't make their money by selling ads. Mashable? Uh well, ads galore. There's nothing wrong with that and again they are monetizing a successful and busy site, but does it say: "We are serious professionals here"? Not like on GO-CEM.

Q: So, what you are saying is that you use some of these "indicators" to evaluate credibility?

Robert: Yes. They are very rough. I'd rather not have to use them since some of them are superficial and introduce bias into what I believe, and who I believe. However, in a world where anyone can be anyone or anything, I need to assess credibility. While I know that some of the things I mentioned are superficial, and there will be lots of exceptions, I've found I'm not usually disappointed when I use them to determine credibility. Your mileage may vary.

Q: You've commented that you think the vast majority of content in the social mediasphere is superficial, and even misleading or wrong factually. Could you elaborate?

A: When you remove all barriers to entering something -- a profession, or use of a medium or media, you get a terrible downturn in quality. "Professions" like training are an example where the reputation and even value of what is offered is tarnished by the people who are simply terrible, but could enter the profession just because they wanted to. You know, most people are not terribly interesting, or terribly knowledgable, and particular, most people aren't great writers, although most of us think that somehow we are special or are way more profound than we really are. So we tweet, update, blog, etc, and the results are pretty sad.

Self-publishing whether it be in print or in the social media is still an attempt at self-expression without standards external to oneself, and that's why we get so much crap. Why? Because nobody is forced to think, edit, reflect, or otherwise work at being good.

Q: Are you finding good content anywhere?

A: Yes, actually, I've recently started spending more time on LinkedIn on their groups and discussions, and when I started participating I was pleasantly surprised. If you browse the discussions, it's pretty lame, and most are filled with spam and self-promotion, but when you actually write posts and get responses, then it gets better, since you can attract the small percent of people who have interesting things to say. I'm kind of liking it at the moment. Of course, I think MY posts are so profound that other really really smart people recognize my brilliance and respond in kind <grin>.

Q: What about blogs?

A: I've stumbled across some amazing writers in blogland, despite the fact I can't stand blogs. Some of these people clearly have the talent to write professionally, even if they have other careers.

Again, though, because there are zero barriers to entrance, any idiot can write a blog, and apparently there's a good supply of both. The thing that bothers me most about blogs is there seems to be some weird need for some to try to come up with catchy titles for posts, just to bring people in, and often the titles have nothing to do with the actual content. I don't like being tricked.I don't like blog posts about research and numbers when the person writing doesn't understand either. I don't like blog posts that just repeat what another blog post said. Ain't it likely we can't run out of letters, tho!

Q: Worst platform for content?

A: Keeping in mind I don't sample every different platform, I'd still say Twitter. Even the chats are superficial while at the same time being self-congratulatory about how smart the chatters are, and it drives me crazy. Look folks, I'll let you in on a secret. The toughest things to write are pieces that are short and profound. Very very few people on the planet can do it well, and you don't do it by not thinking. You do it by working at it.And knowing stuff. Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean you have something valuable.

Let's face it. If you want a profound, indepth conversation about astrophysics, or whatever your passion might be, you gonna go to Twitter for satisfaction? No. The best and brightest are not using Twitter to have indepth conversations. It isn't FOR that. Hence, even though it's not about what someone had for breakfast, it's not much better than that.

Q: What's your opinion on Mashable.com as a reputable trustworthy source for information about social media?

A: I'd give it a massive failing grade. I'd expect a site that is so popular to show more ability to avoid publishing material that is wrong, misleading, false, or otherwise contains information that is not accurate. In my view a site with as much influence needs to show extra care and have extra integrity and controls in place. I don't see that.

Q: Do you feel a lot of their material is incorrect?

A: Almost every time I get suckered into going to mashable, I end up getting annoyed at the inaccuracies. For example, There's a headline for an article (actually a promo that goes to a CNN article) that says: How Dana White Built a UFC Empire with Social Media. Now, I don't want to give away too many secrets here, particularly those that any serious follower of the UFC knows anyway), but Twitter has had nothing to do with the growth of the UFC empire, which, in fact, predates active participation on it. UFC made it for a lot of reasons, none of which having to do with Twitter.

Not only is this the case, but anyone with half a brain could figure this out. Fighters need to get found on Twitter to have any effect via Twitter. FIRST, the fighters needed to become names so that people know to follow them. First comes the status, then Twitter can work.

Q: So you are seeing a lot of what you think is overstatements?

A: Yes. Mashable is not credible in my eyes on anything. When I view 10-15 posts on a site, and can find errors, mistakes, logic problems, or opinions passed on as fact in about 3/4 of them, how can I trust them? I can't. I go there for a laugh and to find more things to write about. But never ever for the realities of social media.

Q: Why do you think this is happening?

A: In the book that I'm working on, I try to explain that there are a number of reasons why hype and hope have converged at the social media door and how they've overcome rational analysis, particularly in the media, and double particularly when social media platforms are used to learn about social media. Sites like mashable exist because of social media. Is it that surprising that they want to hear positive things, and they want to report positive things? Or more exactly, they live inside the bubble of social media and as a fish in water, it's impossible for them to understand what "water" really is.

I'd be willing to bet that almost all of their contributors try to make a living from social media, or want to eventually. That's bias. And it's out of control

I think I may start a mashable watch section here, and post a daily Mashed Mashable message picking one wrong post each day. I figure I'll never run out of material.

Q: As a writer, how do you feel about some bloggers and writers who publish on social media wanting to be considered journalists in a legal sense, and to get credentialed for various events?

A: I'm in favor of anything that creates higher standards for anything, not lower ones. If someone writes on his or her own blog, or otherwise publishes via the Internet in a way so there is NO OVERSIGHT by an editor or someone else who upholds journalistic standards, then my feeling is no, bloggers are not journalists, and should not be treated as such. If they aren't getting paid for material, as part of a job or freelance assignment for a publishing entity, then no they shouldn't be considered part of the journalist profession.

Q: So you, yourself shouldn't be considered a journalist then on the basis of your writing on the Internet?

A: No. I'm not a journalist. I'm not trained as one. There are no standards for me to meet other than the ones I set for myself. Hence, not a journalist in the sense of being a member of that profession at least based on my Internet work. Since I have a fairly long list of articles published in print publications -- HR and training publications, I don't know where I'd fit, but right now, I'd say no.

Q: What about bloggers for websites that are actually owned by newspapers?

A: I suppose it depends on whether their submissions have to meet reasonable standards such as the material that is published in the print versions, and whether they are edited prior to publication. It kinda gets tricky in some situations, but the principle is that a) there should be reasonable standards regarding being a journalist, and b) there should be pre-editing and accountability.

Q: So what about the quality of the lower end ragsheets and scandalsheets where presumably there are some standards, and there is pre-editing. These people are called journalists under the law, aren't they?

A: I don't know what the law calls them. Look, it's an imperfect and inconsistent world. There is material on blogs that is way better than some in print, but that doesn't make the writer a member of the journalistic profession, particularly since they have no accountability to anyone about what they write.

Q: Why does it matter? Why not call anyone who blogs or writes online a journalist?

A: When you remove all requirements to do something, you basically remove the meaning from the category. If anyone who has ever written a word on the Internet can be called a journalist, then most of the population could fit. That means the term journalist has no meaning at all. It fails to distinguish people who fall into the category, and those that do not. The second issue is both practical and legal. Journalists receive preferential treatment under democratic laws because they have an important place -- a role -- in a democratic society. If there are no qualifications required to receive those benefits, is that a good thing for democracy?

Besides, I think that professional designations should be earned as a result of study, performance, and orientation to the professional culture. That said, there's gray areas, and I could see a day when journalistic standing will be available to certain writers who work only in social media. If that can be done in a way that created high standards for the work, I don't have a problem.