Our Re-Culture

It will still be alive, of course. Not just as we know it :)
Doubt will play a major role in the future, we are being overwhelmed by recommendations.

Amber-

What a thoughtful analysis, and I love the solution you bring up at the end. The social web gets tricky because there are so many factors in our choosing to be engaged- the willingness to share info (personal and business), the desire to create relationships across the web, and the balance between maintaining these online relationships versus offline relationships. Of course, at some point, the two will intersect.

The issue is then when does the content you share with your network become the irrelevant content that people want to be ignored? Hopefully never! And likely so, because each of our platforms are opt-in. We choose who to follow on Twitter and tumblr. And like you said, we can limit what we see from certain people on Facebook, etc.

I think it's about limiting unnecessary spreading of content just for the sake of spreading content and self-promotion. It should be about finding quality content and sharing that with your followers instead of massive "recycling."

Thanks for your thoughts, Amber! Looking forward to your thoughts if you do write a follow up.

I still think Word of Mouth (I like to call it "word of mouse" haha) will still be alive and well. What's awesome about the web is, heck, we can now track the viral nature of whatever info/content we are spreading.

But you're right, there are the chronic over-sharers as I like to call them that recycle for the sake of sharing. Not so sure that's a good idea.

It is about the relationships. Relationships are formed through providing engaging content and the magic word= *value*. We can pump out and retweet the heck out of whatever we want, but it's the conversations that matter the most.

Thanks for stopping by Ted! Hope to see you around in the future :)

It will still be alive, of course. Not just as we know it :)
Doubt will play a major role in the future, we are being overwhelmed by recommendations.

Amber-

What a thoughtful analysis, and I love the solution you bring up at the end. The social web gets tricky because there are so many factors in our choosing to be engaged- the willingness to share info (personal and business), the desire to create relationships across the web, and the balance between maintaining these online relationships versus offline relationships. Of course, at some point, the two will intersect.

The issue is then when does the content you share with your network become the irrelevant content that people want to be ignored? Hopefully never! And likely so, because each of our platforms are opt-in. We choose who to follow on Twitter and tumblr. And like you said, we can limit what we see from certain people on Facebook, etc.

I think it's about limiting unnecessary spreading of content just for the sake of spreading content and self-promotion. It should be about finding quality content and sharing that with your followers instead of massive "recycling."

Thanks for your thoughts, Amber! Looking forward to your thoughts if you do write a follow up.

I still think Word of Mouth (I like to call it "word of mouse" haha) will still be alive and well. What's awesome about the web is, heck, we can now track the viral nature of whatever info/content we are spreading.

But you're right, there are the chronic over-sharers as I like to call them that recycle for the sake of sharing. Not so sure that's a good idea.

It is about the relationships. Relationships are formed through providing engaging content and the magic word= *value*. We can pump out and retweet the heck out of whatever we want, but it's the conversations that matter the most.

Thanks for stopping by Ted! Hope to see you around in the future :)

It will still be alive, of course. Not just as we know it :)
Doubt will play a major role in the future, we are being overwhelmed by recommendations.

It will still be alive, of course. Not just as we know it :)
Doubt will play a major role in the future, we are being overwhelmed by recommendations.

Amber-

What a thoughtful analysis, and I love the solution you bring up at the end. The social web gets tricky because there are so many factors in our choosing to be engaged- the willingness to share info (personal and business), the desire to create relationships across the web, and the balance between maintaining these online relationships versus offline relationships. Of course, at some point, the two will intersect.

The issue is then when does the content you share with your network become the irrelevant content that people want to be ignored? Hopefully never! And likely so, because each of our platforms are opt-in. We choose who to follow on Twitter and tumblr. And like you said, we can limit what we see from certain people on Facebook, etc.

I think it's about limiting unnecessary spreading of content just for the sake of spreading content and self-promotion. It should be about finding quality content and sharing that with your followers instead of massive "recycling."

Thanks for your thoughts, Amber! Looking forward to your thoughts if you do write a follow up.

Amber-

What a thoughtful analysis, and I love the solution you bring up at the end. The social web gets tricky because there are so many factors in our choosing to be engaged- the willingness to share info (personal and business), the desire to create relationships across the web, and the balance between maintaining these online relationships versus offline relationships. Of course, at some point, the two will intersect.

The issue is then when does the content you share with your network become the irrelevant content that people want to be ignored? Hopefully never! And likely so, because each of our platforms are opt-in. We choose who to follow on Twitter and tumblr. And like you said, we can limit what we see from certain people on Facebook, etc.

I think it's about limiting unnecessary spreading of content just for the sake of spreading content and self-promotion. It should be about finding quality content and sharing that with your followers instead of massive "recycling."

Thanks for your thoughts, Amber! Looking forward to your thoughts if you do write a follow up.

I still think Word of Mouth (I like to call it "word of mouse" haha) will still be alive and well. What's awesome about the web is, heck, we can now track the viral nature of whatever info/content we are spreading.

But you're right, there are the chronic over-sharers as I like to call them that recycle for the sake of sharing. Not so sure that's a good idea.

I still think Word of Mouth (I like to call it "word of mouse" haha) will still be alive and well. What's awesome about the web is, heck, we can now track the viral nature of whatever info/content we are spreading.

But you're right, there are the chronic over-sharers as I like to call them that recycle for the sake of sharing. Not so sure that's a good idea.

It is about the relationships. Relationships are formed through providing engaging content and the magic word= *value*. We can pump out and retweet the heck out of whatever we want, but it's the conversations that matter the most.

Thanks for stopping by Ted! Hope to see you around in the future :)

It will still be alive, of course. Not just as we know it :)
Doubt will play a major role in the future, we are being overwhelmed by recommendations.

Amber-

What a thoughtful analysis, and I love the solution you bring up at the end. The social web gets tricky because there are so many factors in our choosing to be engaged- the willingness to share info (personal and business), the desire to create relationships across the web, and the balance between maintaining these online relationships versus offline relationships. Of course, at some point, the two will intersect.

The issue is then when does the content you share with your network become the irrelevant content that people want to be ignored? Hopefully never! And likely so, because each of our platforms are opt-in. We choose who to follow on Twitter and tumblr. And like you said, we can limit what we see from certain people on Facebook, etc.

I think it's about limiting unnecessary spreading of content just for the sake of spreading content and self-promotion. It should be about finding quality content and sharing that with your followers instead of massive "recycling."

Thanks for your thoughts, Amber! Looking forward to your thoughts if you do write a follow up.

I still think Word of Mouth (I like to call it "word of mouse" haha) will still be alive and well. What's awesome about the web is, heck, we can now track the viral nature of whatever info/content we are spreading.

But you're right, there are the chronic over-sharers as I like to call them that recycle for the sake of sharing. Not so sure that's a good idea.

It is about the relationships. Relationships are formed through providing engaging content and the magic word= *value*. We can pump out and retweet the heck out of whatever we want, but it's the conversations that matter the most.

Thanks for stopping by Ted! Hope to see you around in the future :)

Carla,

Great post! I sometimes ask myself the same question: Am I creating more noise or am I sharing information that could potentially help or be beneficial to someone? I tend to think the latter. If someone finds the content I'm sharing annoying and not helpful to them, I would hope that they would unfollow me, unsubscribe or decrease how much content they see from me (like you can do on Facebook).

Taking technology out of the equation for a moment, I don't think the sharing of information with your network is the problem. I think it's the inability to easily reduce irrelevant and unwanted content.

Comparing this situation to an offline scenario, when you receive a newspaper article in the mail from a friend or a postcard from a family member, it makes you smile. When you receive an unwanted or irrelevant postcard from a company, it may annoy you but you can very easily ignore it, throw it away and move on.

Now taking this back online and thinking of Facebook, the news feed is more like the newspaper article or postcard from someone you trust. You're likely interested in the information on the news feed and due to its innate architecture, you are in control of which information you choose to consume. This experience is pleasant and authentic. However, with 3rd party applications, groups, pages and events, we become inundated with "other requests." The instantaneous nature of the web causes this content to pile up very quickly, and trying to quickly and easily navigate and eliminate this information can be overwhelming.

That's brings me to my solution: the speed at which we receive information should be equal to the speed at which we can eliminate or ignore content or people. Everywhere there is a share button, there should be a delete button. Everywhere there is a RT, there should be an ignore.

(I think you inspired a new blog post for me... thanks!)

Keep up the awesome work!
Amber

PS - Sorry to post this twice! I was incorrectly logged in the first time - please delete the previous comment, thanks!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: word of mouth as we know it is dying. With less effort to share, there's lees focus on value. People "share" as another way of self-promotion. Social media will be the skeptics biggest triumph.

Great point. There is a lot of noise, but at the end of the day, people go back to their trusted relationships when they go to make a decision. It is still all about relationships.

Also, my first time to the blog. Love it. I'm here to stay.

I see you raised "pwned" with "cacophonous". Well played.

I call it the cacaphonous echo of Twittter. It can, at times, be overwhelming.