I’m that guy, stood there in the driving rain at 3am in the morning, waiting to give you a hand. I’m there because I said I would be. But at the same time as being your best friend, I’ll probably annoy you with my principles…
I get Shouts on Digg, people sending me web pages on StumbleUpon and Sphinn articles on Facebook.
On a good day, I might vote on maybe 10-15% of those articles. If I was to just take Shouts from Digg in isolation, that percentage would drop to nearer 2-5%
I’ll only ever vote on something for three reasons:
- The topic is of interest to me.
- I agree with the majority of the article.
- I think the article is good enough to share.
However, some people seem to think I should just vote on stuff as a matter of course, irrespective of whether I like the article or not. Worse still, that I should vote on something sent from a friend simply because they are a friend.
Sadly for those people, that’s not how I work. At times, it’s almost like water & oil — principles and Social Media just don’t mix.
As I’ve said before, I can only ever be logical and objective. And I’m not being capricious or morally high-handed, either. I cannot bring myself to agree with or indicate that I like something when I know that I don’t on both counts.
Surprisingly, some have even taken exception to my stance. Thankfully, they’re a small few.
Think of it this way — if all I’m doing is boosting the social transmission, I could be doing nothing more than boosting the noise at the expense of the signal quality.
And on those very rare occasions that I actually share any of my own stuff — which some friends chide me for not doing more often — I add a caveat along the lines of: “Only vote on this if you like it or you agree with me. If you don’t like, don’t vote. If you disagree, say so and vote me down!”
To me, I don’t see that as me being overly moral, I’m simply being socially responsible by helping to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high…