|
02.07.07
Less
Sensationalism In Social Media
 By
Solomon Rothman
I submitted
an article written in 2005 to Netscape (for those of your outside of the social
media world, Netscape a runs "submit and vote on news site" like Digg).
The article was originally entitled "Libraries
and Librarians In A Digital Future: Where Do We Fit?." It discuses how the
author believes libraries are losing touch with the fast paced digital world and
how that attitude may lead to their demise. It's a fascinating read, well written
and asks many questions about what place if any a library and a librarian will
play in future generations. I'll get back to that story in a moment.
At the time I wrote this, that "old story" received 7 votes in 2 hours after being
submitted and I'm hoping it will continue to receive a lot more. If you become
a regular user of social media sites you'll notice that people seem to get too
caught up in trying finding the NEWEST possible article with the most shocking
headline. In many ways social media has become a bit of a sensationalist race.
That's also why it has received a lot of criticism and critique. But what if social
media evolves away from mostly sensationalism and disposable content to become
balanced with content that stands the test of time and remains valuable weeks,
months and years after it's creation. That would be really be something and I
predict it's coming, in fact you could already say it's already here.
What does this mean for search engine marketing? Sensationalist content and it's
subsequent promotion by search engine marketers to garnish links and traffic will
still remain a valuable tactic in the arsenal of methodologies for online success,
but as social media matures I expect more value to be in less date sensitive articles.
Produce content that stands the test of time (in addition to disposable bits)
and you may continue receiving traffic and links years on into the future. Wouldn't
that be something?
Have something you wrote / created end up being voted up, discussed and digested
in a democratic media years after you created it? It's already here.
I submitted the article about the future of libraries, because I feel it's content
was as relevant and newsworthy as ever. I was very happy to discover it and wanted
to share it with all of you for debate. Now if you will, I'd like to diverge into
a small rant on that subject. I believe print will be dead sooner then most people
think and the fist to go will be the newspapers and date sensitive publications,
with books following shortly. If libraries are going to survive they are going
to have to find a niche in the world of "get info now."
I live in LA and just the traffic and time to get to the library makes using online
sources many times more efficient and gives me more free time to pursue other
things.
I READ A LOT, but I haven't been to a library in years. If I want a physical book
I purchase it over amazon, but I'll be giving that up as well when portable devices
with digital ink become cheaper and more popular.
Post Script: I'm also a member of Digg, but I didn't submit the libraries
article there, because currently there is already an article discussing the same
topic (opposing POV) in the top stories.
About the Author:
Solomon Rothman is an SEO consultant,
web and graphic designer for Acclivity Inc. He co-authors the
internet marketing blog Stir Crazy. He has created over 100 websites and conducted
SEO campaigns for companies of all sizes; besides technology, his other passions
include screenwriting and filmmaking. |
