My wordpress dashboard showed that a blog was linking to mine with a post entitled: “Analysis of blogs who opened a Fb group”… however, when I clicked through, what I found was basic statistics and assumption on seo blogs with Facebook groups. He ended the “analysis” of the Sugarrae Facebook group with the following comment:
The Sugarrae group doesn’t have a real purpose, doesn’t use media to encourage activities, and the strategy to recruit members seems to have been a negative experience for a good majority of the members.
I felt the need to respond to XavierV and to correct the totally “off” assumptions he made. First, he made the comment that the wall for the group had a “good load of negative comments” and then cited some of those “negative comments”:
“But for you, I clicked confirm instead of ignore. Mainly because you scare me.”
“I can’t believe you made us all do this. I feel so dirty.”
These comments were left by JC and Barone, who are actually good industry friends of mine and those comments are the way we joke with each other. They also have both written for the Sugarrae blog before as well.
“Who the hell is Sugarrae?”
“I don’t see a hello… though I do see a hell”
Both of these comments were from former employees of mine who have both since turned into friends I hang out with and see on a regular basis. Again, the smartass banter is something I’m known for and something that definitely occurs between me and my friends.
So, to recap, what you see as “negativity” is actually smartass banter between myself and friends – and regular readers of the my blog should be able to “catch” this – and that’s who the Facebook group is for to begin with.
Additonally, the following comment was made at the end of the post regarding all of the blog groups that were “analyzed”:
What clearly shows from those observations is the cluelessness of the admins who create their group. I like the “it seems like the trendy thing to do” which is full of honesty. These people just don’t know what to do on these groups. However, it seems like they don’t experience any trouble recruiting a lot of members (which is good) to look popular.
I was surprised to find such clumsiness from the people who pretend that they get Webmetrics.
Actually, what shows to me from the post is the cluelessness of the author in regards to the reasoning behind each individuals reason to start a Facebook group. I can’t speak for the rest, but I definitely know my shit when it comes to Facebook. Additionally, I had several reasons behind creating the group. First was to simply claim my “territory” on Facebook before someone else did.
For example, Webmasterworld failed to create a Facebook group and a group was eventually created by other people. Luckily for Brett, the group was created by myself with stuntie as a co-admin (and we did this to make sure we got to it before someone else did) and we are both Webmasterworld moderators and fans of the site (and we have offered to turn over control of the group to Brett should he ever desire us to do so).
Secondly, the group was created as an experiment to see if there were any useful use for the group to the blog readership or if it would simply be a Facebook “home base” for the blog. Since I don’t like to be on video, and since I don’t see the point in creating posts or content specifically to confine to the walls of Facebook that may cause it to be missed by other people, creating any type of unique content for the group seemed silly.
However, I did use the group to kind of be a citation spot. Meaning that there are links in the posted items to some of what I feel are the more “memorable” things that regard the Sugarrae blog (as far as the links *I* have posted there)… the famed video, the Goldschalger/Crackberry game and a recent mention the blog had received in the Register for breaking the Compare People “scandal”.
My opinion is that, for me, I don’t have a “specific use” for a *blog membership* group on Facebook. I’ll continue to keep it as a “home” on Facebook, will continue to post items I feel are of interest to readers of the blog, especially those with Facebook accounts, will continue to moderate the group and will continue to be thankful that people find my blog interesting enough to even *want* to belong to a group for it.
However, a while back, the Facebook group whore and I created a “little Facebook group” called Facebook Whores for SEO, SMO and SEM Awareness that we used originally as an experiment to see if a Facebook group targeting our industry *could* be a fun or useful resource, though we admittedly never expected it to get as big as it has. The group contains four photos (mock covers of the totally fake and made up “SMO Magazine”), no videos, ten posted items, 26 discussion topics with 139 posts, 106 wall posts and 581 members.
The group has been an interesting thing to watch and we see some potential “value” in this one and it can be fun and informative for the members. In addition, at quick glance, it appears to be the second largest seo related group on Facebook. We still have some plans in store for this group in regards to testing its usefulness. But so far, so good.
I’m not going to full-fledge “ream” gooruze as the author of the original post already took back a lot of his assumptions after Marketing Pilgrim made an appearance in the comments on their blog. XavierV made a follow up post saying:
You’re right. When I wrote this, I was too much focused on making a point + I never thought the blogs’ owners would actually read this = confrontational tone.
Truly sorry about that, to you, and to the other blog owners I’ve cited in this post.
However, I still wanted to touch on the “negative comments” in my group and my reasoning behind the group as a whole. You can’t quote some very basic statistics and use them to make an assumption about the reasoning, purpose and person behind a Facebook group. But if you had taken those basic statistics, sent an interview request to the blog owners you chose to profile and thought of some thoughtful questions to pose in regards to their intent, you could have had an amazingly interesting and accurate article.