5 replies to this topic

[A.N.Onym]

While it's known that you have to share interesting stuff via your social accounts, you also know that it doesn't have to be only your stuff. So which is why? Where's the balance?

The answer is that 42% (well, almost) of the time you should be linking to your own content on your own site.

You'll have to read the article to find out

It's also said that blind sharing without comments rarely increases your authority. Naturally.

Edited by A.N.Onym, 12 September 2011 - 07:48 AM.

[glyn]

Thanks for sharing this link, but what a load of bull****, wrapped up in a "research method".

I always worry when I read something like this and find myself asking the question

"I understand English, I am of a reasonable intelligence, but what is the reason for writing in such a complicated unclear way".

Trying to find formula's like this in social media is precisely the reason why social media strategies fail. Everyone wants to have a magic formula just like magic formula's in SEM.

Thanks for sharing but filed under "online marketing guff"

[send2paul]

Glyn/Yuri - hi.

I haven't read the article or clicked on the link. But Glyn - "Thou dost protest too much?" :frustration: :emo6:

The "online marketing guff"... got you to respond.... you may have even left a response there if you were so "outraged"... and left an email address for marketing purposes, or a website link for the other fella to visit/knick ideas from you, back links blah blah blah etc.

Bad writing may not be the product of a bad writer - but some one just being shrewd enough to make it so that they elicit a response from the reader without sounding like a total c*ck. :emo10:

....

However, it could also be a trite little item for from an "Article Factory" somewhere in the world where English is NOT the first language... but 500 words can be bought for 0.5c a word....

....

- and it may also be the case that they just might not be clever enough to explain themselves properly and end up sounding like they've written something in a "complicated unclear way"

[EGOL]

I don't think that there can be any firm formula for this type of sharing.

Just as an example... Let's say you produce one article per month and decide that your own content should be 50% of your shares. Then you would only share twice a month.

A lot of people have a prolific source of their own content and they can do active sharing, pointing mainly to their own stuff.

However, it is also possible to be very successful sharing several times per day and pointing to fantastic content on many other sites. A person could become an oracle by doing this type of sharing with intelligent commentary.

For myself, I would be sure that I am building great content on my website before I share very much with social. I don't like building houses on other people's land.

[Michael_Martinez]

I think social sharing is supposed to reflect the account holder's personal interests. There will be some average behaviors, or common behaviors, and some people will do things very differently from the crowd.

In fact, I would expect more than one type of "crowd" in any social network.

I'm not sure how useful it is to measure everything by one standard.

[A.N.Onym]

I agree that we shouldn't try to go by one standard, but rather just see what works and see how to fit it in our own strategy, if we haven't already.

That being said, in different niches there are different social [sharing] needs, so comparing average data against a niche-specific strategy would probably do more harm, than good.