2
Dec

Social networks are destroying blogging

Posted by Steven Hodson in Sunday, December 2nd 2007      

It's the message - not who is saying it How many of you out there reading this blog know who Jeffro is, or who William Meloney is, or who Paul O’Flaherty is, or how about Rick Mahn?

Well while they aren’t in the same so-called league as people like Robert Scoble, Michael Arrington or Nicholas Carr the above four are excellent bloggers who have written some very good posts on a consistent basis. While the last three can slap off a one paragraph about the sun coming up in the morning and find themselves spread all over Techmeme or Technorati, the first group of relatively unknown; in the general scheme of the blogging world, have always tried to bring real value to their posts.

With the push of social networks as being the coolest method of communication and the more of your friends that belong to the new media royalty the better our online world of conversation is becoming more of who is on your friends list than it is of what information is being shared in order for us all to learn from.

As Hugh MacLeod said today:

With Facebook leading the charge, suddenly who you know seems far more interesting to the journalists than what you know. Screw the nodes, it’s now all about the network, People. All about “The Social Graph”, People. We no longer worry about what we have to say, we worry about who’s controlling our data.

I have always maintained that it isn’t a matter of who said something but the actual content of what was said that has the value. This has pretty well held true with blogging but even then there has always been a slight favoritism because of who wrote it. Hence we have rating systems like Technorati and the Techmeme Leaderboard but through all the rating system it has been the content, the shared information and the conversation that was important.

With social networks; and to a large degree the whole Web 2.0 movement, though this has all changed. Now it is a matter of who is on your list of friends that makes the difference. It has become nothing less than an electronic form of the old boys network. The fact that you have people like Robert Scoble or Stowe Boyd on your friend’s list is what increases your worth in the social network not what your thoughts are.

We see this same type of attempts to connect with a named person in blog posts because that will get you more traction than if you link to a lesser connected blogger, who might have something more valuable to add to the conversation than that the fact that the sun rose in the morning. With the increasing advancement of social networking; or social graphing, it is becoming more and more about who said what instead of the more important fact of what was said.

The moment the conversation becomes more about who is speaking than the actual message we lose something very important - a chance to learn.

Listening to: Nelly Furtado - Loose - Afraid Feat. Attitude

Conversation Tags: ,



under: The Social Web    

Related Post

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Just followed Jefr0 on Twitter, looks like William Meloney hasn't updated in the last 2 months so no add there (yet). I already knew Paul and to a lesser extent Rick (following both).

    I think social networks supplement, not destroy. Could they reduce the amount of blogging some people do? Sure. That's not necessarily a bad thing in these watered down blogging days, Steven.
    • ^
    • v
    I do agree TDavid that bleeding off any "weekend" bloggers isn't such a bad thing but what I do worry about is that any potential bloggers of quality will be diverted from a medium that would benefit from their writings.
    • ^
    • v
    The 140 character fast food nature of Twitter at least doesn't lend itself to much more than a link with limited description and/or quote dump (or the answer to the usually less useful "what are you doing?"). A collection of messages might equal something of greater value if one follows closely enough. Like what is this person into ... where can I see more details of these kinds of things (their blog presumably)?

    I'm positive there will be times that would-be bloggers will be frustrated by the microblogging limitations and want to branch out. That's where we'll see their work on the blogs of the future. I do see your concern, but respectfully I don't think it's anywhere near as alarmist as the title of the post suggests.

    Good example is if what if we tried to have this full conversation in Twitter. It just wouldn't work as well and wouldn't be available to others readers here. I wanted to come here and leave these comments because this was a good fit for the conversation.

    I'm finding Twitter frequently doesn't allow me enough space to share my thoughts and perspective and thus my blog is where I end up -- or in the comments section. Win-win-win for other blogs each way because if I blog about it I'll probably link to them (win #1) and/or if I use their comments I don't know many bloggers who have comments who don't like seeing more (win #2). If I should write about it on Twitter, it's an additional or supplemental mention to the people following me (win #3).

    I don't know if other would-be bloggers will use these tools the same way, but I know they will feel contrained by 140 characters and that's a good thing for blogs, not a bad thing.
    • ^
    • v
    True enough about the headline but an editor I worked for when I was doing a stint as a reporter on a local newspaper once told me .. "There are two things you must always remember when writing. 1 - you have to capture the reader's attention in the first paragraph .. if you don't they will move on to the next story. 2. The headline must be structured in such a way as to reach out and grab the reader's attention so they will read that first paragraph."

    I guess I sometimes take those lessons too much to heart - even today :)

    I am more a reader of Twitter as it gives me a snapshot of what the people I am interested in are doing, thinking and writing. In that regard it can be invaluable and if I want more than the snapshot; or to becomes involved with what they are thinking/writing about then I will go to their blog.

    I do understand the point you are trying to make though and I don't necessarily disagree with you. That said I also believe that given the innumerable ways that we are now able to get our message or thoughts out there that as we struggle to cover all the bases of communication that message or thought will become diluted.
    • ^
    • v
    Steven,
    Well said my friend. I kind of look at things like Facebook as the online version of E! (entertainment tv). Nothing but gossip, pictures, gossip, stupid apps, gossip, and the rest is shared. And people try to point at it as a business networking tool!?!? Wonder what drugs their on.

    I really believe in the root ideas of social networking - using the tools to meet people, exchange ideas, improve myself, and hopefully improve my opportunities to perform more of it. Like William Meloney said about the WinExtra community. The quality of the people make up the value of the network.

    Finally, thank you for mentioning me - I do regard that as more valueable than a link for m Mr. Scoble. :)

    Regards,
    Rick
    • ^
    • v
    So, to sum this up, I could blog about how the sun is rising and no one could care less. On the flip side, someone like Arrington can blog about the sun rising and everyone in the blogosphere would suddenly give a damn?

    If thats the point you're trying to get across, I agree. I also agree that in many aspects, web 2.0 was, is, and may forever be a glorified popularity contest. I could have 1,000 friends or followers on Twitter yet, if no one knows who any of those people are, I'm just another nobody. However, if my followers or friendslist contains A-List bloggers for example, I suddenly mean business and am worth something. Just like everything else, it seems like things are heading towards Who You Know versus What You Know.
    • ^
    • v
    primarily yes that is the point I am trying to get across. The key being that with the advent of things like Facebook and the such it has become more important who is say something rather than what is actually being said.
    • ^
    • v
    First of all - thanks for the props.

    The WinExtra Community, while fewer in numbers, far exceeds the value of the FaceB community in my book. Real people gathering together to share real lives. That is what community is about.
    • ^
    • v
    I wrote about this earlier in the year at the BlogHerald ... much like how music genres are fracturing over time, so will opportunities for written (and otherwise) self-expression. Blogging was first, but then came podcasting and videoblogging. With the ability to write short "blog posts", so will social networking offer the opportunity for people who don't really want to set up a "blog" (such people would put the word blog in quotes, I think).

    I think this is totally fine, as it really leaves the medium for people who are truly interested in it, and gets away from artificially inflating the number of people who own blogs (vs. the number who are just 'trying it out')

    Wow ... violated my own 5 minute rule. Should have actually blogged this reply. :)

    Great post though.

    Cheers
    t @ dji

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
« A slight change in the Comments system
Say good-bye Boot Camp - Hello native Windows install »