Two weeks ago Louis Gray wrote a great post about how people are filtering their checkins to enhance their already inflated egos and now today we get a post from Robert Scoble about how people are doing the same thing with all those Like buttons.
Well color me surprised <snicker>™ – Not.
Seriously, did anyone really believe that people would be honest when using these personality indicators?
Did we really think that people would want everyone to know that we do things like laundry, or spend a little bit too much time at the non-famous corner bar, or gawd forbid that our lives are actually boring as shit?
Did we really think that people would want everyone to know that they Liked the video of some old lady falling in the street, or that they Liked a political broadcast that puts them at odds with their friends, or that with enough Likes we will realize that they are full of shit – even if they aren’t?
That is part of the problem with the whole Like ecosphere that we first saw show up on Friendfeed. People wanted to like something about what was posted but were left unsure of how others would react. Sure we might like the commentary that goes with a posted item even though the source might be upsetting, politically wrong, morally wrong or even contrary to our believes; but people won’t see what it is that you are really liking about what is posted. In such cases your liking something could lead to misunderstandings or even public condemnation. In the end you walk away from clicking the Like button.
A similar problem exists with checkins on services like Foursquare and Gowalla. Where we are more than willing to brag about being at one of the coolest places in town, or meeting with some famous person we shrink from showing the world that we spend most of time with regular people or some greasy spoon.
In short we lie, or at the very least misdirect from the truth.
Which in turn makes a large percentage of the data collected using checkins and likes totally useless, and to a degree poisons all the data collected. So where is the value to companies looking to get realist demographics – well there is none. It’s a con job, a shell game being played by companies like Facebook, Foursquare, Gowalla and any other service that utilizes features like these to gather consumer data.
If you are a company that is hoping to utilize this information in some way you need to understand that you are buying nothing but the Fool’s Gold of data. You are being conned into thinking that there is real value to be mined from all this bullshit.
It’s all a charade.
You’ve been gamed.
I missed Gray’s post when it came out, but I was one of his sources. I believe that it was on FriendFeed that I commented that I did not check into every place that I visit, and Gray questioned me on it. In my case, I censor my visits to fast food places.
I also censor visits to places where other family members are involved. For example, I have never checked in at my daughter’s school, and if my wife were to go and visit a doctor, I probably wouldn’t check in there either.
However, this censorship doesn’t necessarily mean that the data is completely useless. While the check-in feed is not an accurate portrayal of where most of us spend our time, the fact that we are willing to associate our names with certain places DOES have its benefits. Think about it – if Burger King only takes my money but I don’t openly brag about Burger King food, their benefit from my patronage is minimal. But if Foursquare can get me to rave about SnootyUberCool Bar & Disco, then more people are going to hear about it.
And it’s better to have customers that talk about you, rather than customers who keep their patronage a deep dark secret.
.-= John E. Bredehoft´s last blog ..When will Microsoft give birth to Natal? =-.
The modern day variation of people paying cash for that seedy motel so it won’t show up on the credit card?
.-= Webomatica´s last blog ..Apple WWDC Hopes =-.
I’ve thought about this every now and then when reading friends 4-square posts. Always the cool and never the mundane.
One difference? I asked if people did it and Robert says he is doing it.
.-= Louis Gray´s last blog ..Hey iPhone, Forward All My Calls (To Android) =-.
Social media and all its tangents don’t exist if we don’t talk about them.
.-= Tyler Hurst´s last blog ..All Out – The Audience =-.
Spot on Steven.
The idea that the social data collected is going to be accurate and useful is a stretch. People are censoring or filtering their own overt behavior to appear a certain way.
They want to keep up with the other cool kids. Peer pressure looms in the like landscape. While many hope for a world where people express their unique individuality without fear or embarrassment – that’s a long way off and it’s folly to think that a new open graph infrastructure will change deeply rooted mental modes.
I wrote about the fool’s gold of Facebook data nearly a year ago (http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/facebook-data-gold-or-pyrite) but your post puts a spotlight on the potential further degradation of that data through the implementation of the like button.
Will marketers pay for this data? Absolutely. But how much will be a product of how effectively they can use the data. I’m still not sure it’s that useful, and once targeted by marketers, how long until users further curtail and censor their social activity?
.-= AJ Kohn´s last blog ..Top Tweets is a Trojan Frog =-.