I saw another one of those chain letter posts today:



I think I mentioned these before, and this is a typical example. The interesting thing about them is that they almost always start off that same way, with a rhetorical question about who is reading their posts. So, apparently there is widespread dissatisfaction with the fact that people write posts and get no replies, but so few of them seem to realize that it's because the posts don't say anything.

Another article I saw, but did not take the time to read, recently had to do with facebook and narcissism. Every time I read one of those "who reads my posts" posts the term "narcissism" forces itself into my conscious awareness. If I see the article again I think I'll take the time to read it so I can join in Petro's anti-facebook laments.

(In the mean time I need to go read the instructions so that I don't get a news feed item every time someone gets an extra chicken in farmville that needs a home.)

Does the article say that Facebook makes people that way, or that it exposes these tendencies?

A lot of the people I know on Facebook are people that I knew in college, and maybe talked to in the dining hall or something, but didn't really ever have any in depth discussions with. Maybe some of them were narcissistic and I didn't know it.

But maybe part of it is that things don't always translate well from one medium to another. "It sure is cloudy today" is a reasonable enough statement when you pass somebody in the hall, but on an internet site where it just stays there and is heard by people hundreds of miles away, with different weather, it's just white noise.

I'm interested in the whole translation thing. Back on the now-defunct MST3K's Caption This, people sometimes wrote captions that I thought were incredibly lame. But then sometimes I'd realize that it sounded exactly like something you'd hear on the show. What was funny verbally, when you can hear the inflections, wasn't always funny in print. One of the things I do on Facebook is toss out chapters of a Gothic photo-comedy I'm writing, and I'm always trying to deal with the question of "Is it funny in print?" Sometimes I'm not sure because I can hear the dialogue in my mind, and it's funny there, but is it funny if you can't visualize it that way and just read it? And it's hard to tell because I get virtually no feedback on it other than the occasional "Great Job". I'd rather get negative feedback than none at all.

I have some friends that I know to be extremely intelligent, and probably also very busy, so they just spam links. For example, these from a guy I knew in college who's a minister now:









I know this guy is smart, and could write some insightful stuff if he wanted to or had the time. But he doesn't, so he just spams links. And I don't think people understand that it's like a resume. With hundreds of people spamming links every day, you have to make yours stand out to get it noticed. The title alone isn't going to sell the article. I didn't read any of these. now, on the other hand, if you say something that lets me know what an impact the article made on you, I might be more interested in clicking.

Or, conversely, if it's a link to something he wrote himself, then I'd be interested. A lot of these people are people I didn't know that well then, and wouldn't mind knowing better. Don't give me an article, tell it to me in your own words.

Two political ones today:



Sounds important, doesn't it? Also controversial. But not worth saying a few words about. Is this preaching to the choir (expecting everyone on your Friends List to agree with it, so no convincing needed)? Or is it expecting the title to sell the article?

Another:



Whatever this is, it's so important to this guy that it's a litmus test for all candidates from now on. But not worth describing. "Eh, whatever. Read the article and don't bother me." Talk about your mixed messages.

I replied to him gently suggesting that people often don't click links, and quoting the person I quoted here the other day saying that a slow internet connectino reduced her temptation to click. We'll see what happens.

Speaking of that, the guy who posted a picture of his dinner posted today, saying simply:



To be diplomatic, which I can be sometimes, I wrote back: "What if the movers don't read Facebook?", interpreting his post in the most positive possible light (that he was simply telling the movers that he was available, rather than expecting everyone he knew to be fascinated with the minutia of his daily life). Someone else immediately clicked "Like", so I'm hoping that they saw the point.

An interesting question so I hit google to see if I could come up with the reading and I did find
a probable article.

As a summary report I cannot be absolutely certain, but the research assumption appears to be that narcissists and those with low self-esteem will use facebook differently than those without. There is no suggestions that facebook is leading to the behavior.

One point about people not understanding how to use facebook also strikes me as explanatory. Folks like preachers are being told they need to use internet tools like facebook to keep in touch with their flock, but no one is telling them how so they bumble along as best they can.

Another class of folks I think I see are those who are socially awkward. One relative, who rarely gets to be part of live conversations, regularly posts multiple links to multiple photos, usually inspirational in nature over a short period of time. It isn't unusual for her news feeds to make up 7 of 8 when she is posting.

Another thing that occurred to me today (which I'm asking around about now) is to wonder how people accessed Facebook? I usually do it from my laptop, but I know that it's possible to do it from a cell phone, Blackberry, or other handheld devices. I usually do it from my laptop, where it's easy to click on a link somebody spammed. But I would imagine that someone on the go, checking their Blackberry at the bus stop or something is far less likely to click a link, especially an unexplained one, and take the time to read an unsolicited story in full. If so, this is one more argument for saying what you have to say in your own words, if you care about getting your message across.

Although not Facebook, I was kvetching in Politics2 yesterday about Wikipedia having such a difficult time explaining why their site was down yesterday. You go to their front page, and it says click this link for an explanation. That takes you to a FAQ that doesn't explain it either, but buried in the middle is a suggestion to click ANOTHER two links to articles that may or may not finally explain it.

This is what I said to someone (on Facebook) about it yesterday:



So, guess what response I got back from this person. Go on, have a guess. You'll never get it.

Heh. yeah, did guess it. It was too perfect.

As an aside, here's a non-idiotic link to my friend Tim's strawbale project on facebook for anyone interested. Least I think it is the link....I can't access it from work so can't check.


Straw bale project here.

It is the link, but FYI, nobody who doesn't have a Facebook account will be able to access it. When you click the link, it sents you to a sign-in page, so you have to have something to sign in to.

I hope he knows that the first wolf that comes along is going to blow that thing right down.

And speaking of sign-in pages, one college friend today posted a bare link to a story that, when clicked, just takes you to a Washington Post sign-in page. If you don't have an account there, you can't see the story, and he didn't bother to say anything about it himself.