The sheer volume of messages certainly comes across like spam. It obviously comes from an automated system that collects posts and spews them out to social media sites at some specified time - around 6am PT so people will catch the updates as they log in in the morning.
The posts are clearly designed for Twitter not Facebook. You see the abbreviated URLs and the @ response tags as well as the # subject tags. These have a purpose in Twitter but are gibberish in Facebook.
It's a pity because I'm sure some of this content would have been of interest to the 1,353 people who've bothered to like them on Facebook. Being a visual person, one of the things I like about Facebook over Twitter is that URLs will generally include a graphic and the initial sentences of the story. And if given slightly more information, I might have been interested in some of these stories. Granted, WebJunction does have more followers on Twitter - 2,530. So perhaps that's why they clearly prefer the Twitter format.
I don't mean to pick on WebJunction, really I don't. This was pretty common a few years ago. I actually blocked Twitter from my Facebook updates because I found it so annoying. But this is proof that there's always a way around. So it's a perfect example of how you really shouldn't try to cut corners with social media. Had they taken the time to share just a few of these posts on Facebook in a Facebook-friendly format, they might have generated some comments - people sharing their own insights and experiences. It could have added to the conversation instead of the overall noise level.
I've come to the conclusion that different types of social media appeal to different people. We need to be conscious of that as we decide how to get our message out. I think Twitter enthusiasts enjoy the sheer volume. Twitter isn't really about interaction. It's about scanning large quantities of information and passing it on. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that. I'm feeling slightly more friendly toward Twitter since I discovered Flipboard on my iPad. It slows down the barrage and makes it into a nice magazine type feel with photos and introductory paragraphs from stories.
But I think Facebook is more about the social interactions. People like to comment on stories, like them and share them, perhaps stop and read the other comments. I really feel cheated of that when I see Twitter posts.
Perhaps we can't do it all but need to choose our medium. WebJunction may choose to focus on Twitter if that's more their style. I don't think we need to be all to everyone. I suspect their Facebook friends would be very happy with a brief update every now and then and perhaps an opportunity to connect.
Which social media sites do you spend the most time on? Are these also where you post the most or comment or interact with friends? Where do your members spend the most time? It's not just about us but where those we seek to engage are as well.
