I really don't get the all or nothing attitude of this article.
I have a blog - and a facebook account and a g+ account. The blog gets my best content. But it's not easy to integrate a standalone blog into an existing social graph (social buttons notwithstanding).
G+ gets my less well thought out rants - short stuff. It allows me to cheaply signal to like minded people and hopefully establish new readers/relationships. I don't care if I offend people on G+ because I'm there to attract the like minded. So I say what I think.
And facebook is just a socialisation wheel greaser for local friendships. Here I'm much more guarded. I use content posted by people as conversation starters for when I see them in real life. I might have to deal with these people - so I keep it light, fluffy and fun. I personally don't care if facebook deletes all that content. (I see it as a medium risk since facebook isn't a particularly diversified business)
I decided a while ago that I need to engage on all these platforms - because concentrating solely on a blog only increases your overall isolation to your local life - cause it takes an enormous amount of time - and even your closest local friends aren't likely to even read it.
It might mean that I'll never put enough time into the blog for it be a standalone success. But the odds of that ever happening were slim to nil anyway - even if it did get 100 percent of my time. And there would have been a very high chance that I would have been miserable because such dedication would have led to a high degree of isolation.
This is the right balance for me. I don't expect everyone to have the same view - but then I'm not claiming it's right for everyone.
I think we agree with "the blog gets my best content." I'm active (and it works) on all major networks. The tone of the article is intense only because I'll never put my best work on G+ for example, and I was surprised when Yegge did a 6 Yegge long article on G+ rather than his own site, even if he works for Google+.
well the title of the article is 'your words are wasted' - which is a bit hyperbolic if you agree with the diversification view. That title - along with the content that follows - seems to imply that it's a waste of time if it isn't going onto your own blog.
Don't get me wrong - I would love for there to be a decentralised social graph that allowed us to eat our cake and have it too. But that aint going to happen any time soon.
Yeah, I think there is an all or nothing attitude somewhat. I think the most common pattern i've seen that people maintain a personal blog and use facebook/twitter/google+ as channels for sharing. That being said, this article is a great means of encouragement for the people who only post to one platform. I've definitely read lots of thoughtful posts on Facebook and wondered why friends don't take the extra leap to start a blog. Personally, I think a catalogue of interesting thoughts/conversations from any platforms would be pretty cool and far from a substantial investment of time.
But who is talking about "you shouldn't use [whatever]"? The crucial bit is owning and controlling your content - some people aren't thinking much about that. As you said, "The blog gets my best content.", so you're obviously aware of the pitfalls already.
I have a blog - and a facebook account and a g+ account. The blog gets my best content. But it's not easy to integrate a standalone blog into an existing social graph (social buttons notwithstanding).
G+ gets my less well thought out rants - short stuff. It allows me to cheaply signal to like minded people and hopefully establish new readers/relationships. I don't care if I offend people on G+ because I'm there to attract the like minded. So I say what I think.
And facebook is just a socialisation wheel greaser for local friendships. Here I'm much more guarded. I use content posted by people as conversation starters for when I see them in real life. I might have to deal with these people - so I keep it light, fluffy and fun. I personally don't care if facebook deletes all that content. (I see it as a medium risk since facebook isn't a particularly diversified business)
I decided a while ago that I need to engage on all these platforms - because concentrating solely on a blog only increases your overall isolation to your local life - cause it takes an enormous amount of time - and even your closest local friends aren't likely to even read it.
It might mean that I'll never put enough time into the blog for it be a standalone success. But the odds of that ever happening were slim to nil anyway - even if it did get 100 percent of my time. And there would have been a very high chance that I would have been miserable because such dedication would have led to a high degree of isolation.
This is the right balance for me. I don't expect everyone to have the same view - but then I'm not claiming it's right for everyone.