Skip navigation

I was using Facebook long before I used Twitter. When I started tweeting (twittering?), I didn’t want to spend extra time talking to zero followers. Creating ~140 character content was nothing new; I had been doing it with Facebook’s status updates for a while. The solution was a FB application called Selective Tweets which allowed me to update Twitter and push that content to my FB status, effectively easing myself into the Twitter world.

I actually used a completely different app at first which grabbed ALL of my tweets but switched as I gathered followers and wanted to keep some content just within Twitter. The posts that I do push to FB are what I want to talk about in this article, but first another example.

I have always loved the idea of a personal website but I just don’t generate enough content to justify one. I got kind of excited when I ran across though because it allowed me to create a personal splash page without having to generate any more content than I already do. I can use API and tie in all of my social media in a slick accordion format. Twitter, Facebook, RSS feeds, Vimeo all nice and pretty under my name. It’s an easy to build landing zone to collect all of the content I generate. While I was monkeying around with the site I realized  it would be stupid to link both my Twitter and Facebook accounts because so much content is shared between them.

So here’s the question: how do we cut down on content redundancy? There’s so much content that can be published in multiple formats so how do we decide WHERE to publish it? Do I talk about the sandwich I just ate on twitter or on a facebook status update? Should I share this neat link on Facebook or write a post about it in my blog? Now, I have a lot of redundancy between Facebook and Twitter but I have totally different uses and different friends on each network. Facebook is mostly for conversing with friends I already have. Twitter is mostly for interacting with people I don’t yet know, mostly coffee people (like Mark Prince and James Hoffman) and writers (like John Hodgman and Quinn Katherman). That’s a great delineation that works well for me and allows me to share content between the two services without bother too many readers.

As people I know from one service join the other, I have to start thinking about which service gets which content. Again, how do we cut down on content redundancy? Should I only talk about coffee on twitter and leave everything else to Facebook? Should I share quick links on Facebook and more in-depth stuff on my blog? I have no idea, but I don’t think I’m the only one thinking about it. What’s your solution?



  1. I have slightly less of a problem since I’m not as deep into social media as you are, but I’ve mostly kept them differentiated.

    Facebook is for people I know broadly and therefore has just general sorts of updates and the occasional random link.

    Buzz is for people who actually know me and might care what’s up or be more inclined to share my interest in tidbits from the greater internet.

    As for strangers? That’s if they stumble across my Flickr account or scifi blog, both of which are automatically pushed to Facebook and Buzz.

    • I disabled Buzz as soon as it showed up. Too many social networks already and I use Gmail for too many things to add social networking to the bunch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: