Posts Tagged ‘facebook’
Recently there was some discussion on Klout, their influence calculation is unclear. Many people were unhappy with the fact that their Klout Score is a moving target. People who actually use the numbers generated by Klout to find the influencers they want to contact also have the issue that they don’t see what the results are of their contacts.
Kred.ly is an interesting option as the scoring is extremely transparent, with this transparency the system could be gamed. This would need collusion on quite a large scale.
PeerIndex is less transparent, although it gives more statistics and information on the date it uses to calculate authority and score. Roughly your PeerIndex is an average of your Authority + Activity + Audience. Unlike Kred.ly it doesn’t give numbers on individual social actions, although it does give more direct feedback it can’t be used to directly game the system.
What all of them suffer from is that they see authority stemming from one account, and neglect to see that power users – who use different channels to curate content for different audiences – may have their klout spread thinly over places that aren’t included like multiple Twitter, Google+ or FaceBook pages.
Image source: me
I’m a regular curator of daily links, and like to give overviews of my collection of curated links and posts. This is partly as there are some good sources and articles in here and as I am working on a research project which I started based on a number of books I read.
I’m sure you’ll find something interesting in the items below – there are some gems in the list – and I dare to hazard the guess you might learn something you wanted to know. 🙂
Written by Daniël W. Crompton (webhat)
July 15, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Posted in tagging
There is a new wind, actually a very old wind, blowing through social application users. As social applications are being adopted by the mainstream limitations of social applications are also being found – multiple accounts.
Many of the applications which attach themselves to the combined Customer Relational Databases (CRMs) or Identity Managers (IMs) of Google, Twitter, FaceBook, and other implementors of remote, are making a crucial mistake: They believe that there is ONE identity covering multiple networks. They fail to realise that people have multiple identities on multiple networks. This is also the case for FaceBook where multiple identities can be attached to a single account, or Google where multiple accounts can be used and are even encouraged.
Hootsuite realized this, and decided to earn some change by making it possible for people to work with this. Ping.FM realized this and made it possible to make different streams which can be fed from different locations. Even FriendFeed realized this, and allows consolidation from the different streams, yet due to the FaceBook buy-out they didn’t implement the back-end of this having only one twitter account as an end point.
The conclusion should be support multiple social accounts from the same vendor for one user and allow different fine grained use of the accounts.
In December of 2010 HootSuite enabled bulk scheduling of messages to FaceBook, Twitter and the other services it supports. This was during my HootSuite hiatus, which means I missed it. I think it’s such a cool feature that I wanted to spend some time on it. It’s so easy to schedule future messages by creating a .CSV file, as the example below:
Go to the compose message and press the calendar icon, which opens the calendar (image on the left). Press the Schedule in Bulk button to open the uploader (image on the right). Here you can select a social profile and upload a correctly formatted .CSV file with up to 50 messages. HootSuite will schedule these messages for this profile. Any errors are concise, they usually relate to problems in the file due to invalid input or duplicate messages.
As you probably know I can go without Facebook for a number of days without any problem, so the ban that came Sunday and ended Monday wasn’t much of a stretch for me in terms of not having Facebook. I could still use all my other social networks, so I could easily get the word out. What did surprise me is my righteous indignation about the reasons of the ban (mail below), they said I had uploaded content which did not meet the ToS. The strange thing about it is I didn’t, isn’t that classic defamation of character to accuse somebody of a crime? And isn’t it a breach of contract to accuse somebody of breach of contract and as a result stop delivering the services that the contract says they will deliver.
What surprised me even more is that Facebook has the power to bend a political party, albeit not it’s members, to its will. That Facebook is a private network that can make rules for itself is fine, and when you are being used by governments as a tool their should be government oversight, which there isn’t. I am for open networks, and I see the need for political parties to make use of private resources to campaign for elections. I may not agree with this, and I do see it is necessary.
What I do find repulsive is the way in which Facebook implements it’s ToS. There is nothing in their ToS that allows them to disconnect me for another person’s violation of the ToS. They can disconnect me without a reason – that’s their prerogative – and I don’t think they should falsely accuse people of breach of contract and break a contract.
Thank you for explaining the situation. We realize that you may not have been the one to violate our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. However, any action made from a Facebook member’s account is considered authorized by the account holder. It is your responsibility to remove any existing content on your account that violates our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
Nobody uploaded anything from my account, it was uploaded my somebody else with their account. I merely tagged it and set it as my profile picture. I am not completely innocent in this manner, and did NOT violate the specific portion of the ToS that I’m accused of violating. As such I can’t remove the infringing item, as I do NOT have the rights to modify another person’s account as per the ToS.