Comments on: Quantify and then Qualify Your Social Media Relationships http://kylelacy.com/quantify-and-then-qualify-your-social-media-relationships/ Social Media Training and Consulting Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:01:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: thomas bracelets http://kylelacy.com/quantify-and-then-qualify-your-social-media-relationships/comment-page-1/#comment-88500 thomas bracelets Wed, 15 Jun 2011 06:47:46 +0000 http://kylelacy.com/?p=1560#comment-88500 Regarding your last paragraph: You’re right. Those two tests should be combined into one test. Regarding your last paragraph: You’re right. Those two tests should be combined into one test.

]]> By: Paul Johnston http://kylelacy.com/quantify-and-then-qualify-your-social-media-relationships/comment-page-1/#comment-3235 Paul Johnston Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:53:28 +0000 http://kylelacy.com/?p=1560#comment-3235 You've raised another fascinating issue Kyle. I was discussing this only yesterday with colleagues. I forget who said it but the idea that 'you become the average the quality of the network of your contacts' got us really thinking about the nature and purpose of the networks we create. With that in mind I think we instinctively realise that we manage a constellation of networks, some might be highly arms length (lets say Twitter followers) that have information notification utility, others (lets say regular Blog commenters or Ning contacts) are more dialogic.(if there isn't such a word there is now!) others (lets say prospect and customer bases) are exchange and transaction orientated. The idea you propose about 'quality' is interesting because it hinges of having a sense of the 'quality of the qualities' that are prefered for each network type (whatever they might be). Take this very comment as an example. Just reading it (semantic analysis?) you would get a sense of which of your implicit networks I belonged to. If I had simply left a note saying 'Great post Kyle, good work keep 'em coming' you'd very likely categorise me as network type X, if I had left a comment saying something like 'Our clients measure us by how big their social media reach is, bigger is better' you'd have me as network type Y etc. This all might seem like a statement of the very obvious and I also think that we might not necessarily be thinking about the conceptual nature of our networks as much as we might. Maybe falling back on fundamental marketing thinking might help here. Shouldn't we considering what the networks we have 'do' rather than describing what they 'are'? You've raised another fascinating issue Kyle. I was discussing this only yesterday with colleagues. I forget who said it but the idea that 'you become the average the quality of the network of your contacts' got us really thinking about the nature and purpose of the networks we create. With that in mind I think we instinctively realise that we manage a constellation of networks, some might be highly arms length (lets say Twitter followers) that have information notification utility, others (lets say regular Blog commenters or Ning contacts) are more dialogic.(if there isn't such a word there is now!) others (lets say prospect and customer bases) are exchange and transaction orientated.

The idea you propose about 'quality' is interesting because it hinges of having a sense of the 'quality of the qualities' that are prefered for each network type (whatever they might be). Take this very comment as an example.

Just reading it (semantic analysis?) you would get a sense of which of your implicit networks I belonged to. If I had simply left a note saying 'Great post Kyle, good work keep 'em coming' you'd very likely categorise me as network type X, if I had left a comment saying something like 'Our clients measure us by how big their social media reach is, bigger is better' you'd have me as network type Y etc.

This all might seem like a statement of the very obvious and I also think that we might not necessarily be thinking about the conceptual nature of our networks as much as we might. Maybe falling back on fundamental marketing thinking might help here. Shouldn't we considering what the networks we have 'do' rather than describing what they 'are'?

]]>