“Social media pleads for quality content but secretly encourages quantity by rewarding those who participate most often.”
I say, it provides proof for the masses. Numbers speak, they say, right? Nevertheless, that VERY question has been aching me for quite some time. I think the simple answer is that quality is so hard to assess; but regardless of quality, value, benefit, from way before the day of a social web, numbers do resonate with the masses. And thus, whenever site reward users by recognizing them, invariably, they just show those with… the most followers, right?! But yes, its a matter of numbers, quantification is easier to judge, and so people do that. It provides proof to the common man.
From Ben Werdmuller von Elgg:
More content overall is likely to lead to more quality content, for sure. It’s also true that there isn’t an objective standard for “quality”. Different people value different things.
But think about how most of these tools make their money: advertising. The more participation there is, the more eyes there are on their ads. You’re much more intrinsically more valuable to these platforms if you draw more impressions.
From Eric Swayne:
“There’s no doubt that the scales of social media are currently weighted in favor of quantity – in fact, this fascinating study goes a long way towards proving it.
The secret sauce is, and will always be, value. To the right audience, even content published every second can be valuable (stock tickers, anyone?), but to the wrong audience that same content is spam. @DellOutlet publishes deals and has driven millions of dollars in sales off of content some tools would consider “low quality.”
The key for social marketers is in identifying the needs/desires of the brand’s audience, and tailoring content to match. Proper measures should determine the success of that goal, not scoring against a normative standard.”