I receive newsletters from a wide variety of organizations touting themselves as experts in social media. The ones I generally delete without reading include a title phrase like must read. Recently, I received one that included in its preview text a suggestion that the organization producing the article completely understood a social media concept that I had never seen before (and have not seen anywhere since.) Furthermore, the teaser text suggested that what they were publishing was part of “best practices.”
Intrigued, I clicked to download the article. There was nothing new I had not seen before. Furthermore, it had been published back in 2009. Really? Yes, really.
It’s time to look at criteria for credibility in social media.
Does the source cite actual statistical studies of its claims conducted by a completely independent source? Where is the online “Consumer Reports” aggregator of statistical studies reports in social media? A recent Google search for such a service came up pretty dry in that regard. If there actually are statistical studies included, who is the audience for whom the study was written? To put it differently, can you understand what is being said? Or are you looking at a lot of bafflegab intersperced with code words recently invented by (and defined by) the source?
While checking research is a daunting task, you can beat at least some of the bafflegab. There actually are some dictionaries and glossaries of social media terms. Here are some.
A-Z of social media. http://socialmedia.wikispaces.com/A-Z+of+social+media
Pam Dyer. “Social Media from A to Z: A Glossary”
Socialbrite. Social media glossary
…and there are others that Google will serve up for you every day of the week. You can beat at least some of the bafflegab. Go for it!
WANT TO COMMENT? CLICK ON THE TITLE!