Comments on: Is Social-Media Link Authority B.S.?

By: Matthew Hurst

Matthew Hurst — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:23:29 +0000

You're making a lot of assumptions to jump from some initial findings regarding a very new type of media with no real analogy, to claiming that the assumptions underlying the use of link structure are under attack. Does it matter that your update regarding eating a cheeseburger did or didn't reach the right people?

By: maxkalehoff

maxkalehoff — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:02:18 +0000

Matt: Thanks for chiming in and I hope you're well. But "under attack" are
your words, clearly not mine. I'm not making any broad assumptions -- at
least I was not intending to. However, the possibility that "a link between
any two people does not necessarily imply an interaction between them" is
extremely important at a time when there's often blind conviction driving
strong, yet ambiguous beliefs about the value of an online social-network
connection, or, in this case, a stable of "friends" on Twitter. In fact, I
believe social connections online -- i.e., a Twitter friend -- are extremely
valuable, but they are also nuanced and misunderstood. As far as that
cheesburger goes (when was that, anyway?), it does matter that it reached
the right people. And if it went over Twitter, it was received by people who
OPTED into my content feed, boring as it may be. But of all the people who
opted into my Twitter feed (thereby creating a "link" with me), I really
have no clue how many actually pay attention to me, or even actively use
Twitter anymore. I suppose that a lot of Twitter and many other social
network connections are like dead-tree magazine subscriptions: junk, as in
most technically pile up on my coffee table, but otherwise have no meaning
in my life. Those connections certainly may be cumulative and high-impact,
but they might also be a false proxy of interaction or connection.

By: Matthew Hurst

Matthew Hurst — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:23:29 +0000

By: maxkalehoff

maxkalehoff — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:14:13 +0000

I have no reservation about the importance of relationships initiated or
nurtured online: they're HUGELY SIGNIFICANT. I have utmost reservation about
superficial proxies used to score their significance quantitatively or
qualitatively. You're right about followers...they drive ego, but this study
underscores the possibility there might be a negative correlation between
volume and impact -- the higher the volume, the lower the impact (whatever
"impact" is defined as, I know it's, variable). But this also brings up the
interesting question of how known quantities of followers may inform a
person's view of another.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:19:39 +0000

Very interesting study. I'm always intrigued to hear more about whether there is much substance to relationships developed online through social networks. What you mention about Facebook is very true where users have lots of friends but in reality only communicate with a small selection of them on a day to day basis. But from an ego centric point of view users will always want more friends or followers which can be a help or a hinderance to marketers like myself.