I'm just gonna jump into this really quickly
Love all this invested interest in our content curation and distribution
btw. : )
Hi Tilman, I remember those days back in 2012, 2013, and even early 2014
when we were doing that. I didn't have access to our accounts then, but I
do remember helping you guys draft that sm; I also remember using that meta
page and having phased out as well. Such a different time those days....
"This is still true today, but using that logic we should only ever
tweet/post about the blog." <- I'm certainly glad this has changed.
"Our social platforms are strong but achieve really quite awful engagement
at the moment (almost 5 million Facebook likes, yet only something like
50,000 impressions on average). Working on increasing the posting quantity
and quality should improve that."
My caveat for the above is that, as you may know, our accounts are
deliberately slated by Fb's Edgerank algorithm because we are a major brand
with a verified account; hence, we have our total reach cut to a very low
percentage of what it ought to be (down 90%). Furthermore,
if you are to look at our dashboard, our "awful" engagement is being offset
by our increased distribution of the content our followers except from
official Wikipedia digital properties in the first place: Wikipedia
articles. Whereas a bulk of blog content may peak about 1% engagement rate,
it is evident by sheer URL clicks (over 7,000 for a Wikipedia article
shared last week, whereas the average is about 482 for a post) and people
reached (said post reaching nearly 400,000, with 2% engagement).
"Impressions" is actually not the right term just a FYI; "Impressions"
is
referential to the number of times a post is seen on the network, which is
the main "reach metric" we have available for us on Twitter.
/ducks
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Tilman Bayer <tbayer(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Ed Erhart
<eerhart(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
This sums it up pretty well, for those on the
list without the benefit of
context. Sigh. :-)
Michael, Andrew, and I also discussed setting up a page where
Wikipedians of
all languages could come and propose social posts
for us that link to
articles they've written. I figured that we could adopt the DYK/TIL
format
for that.
As in indicated in the previous email, we set up such a page back in
2013 and ran it for a while, see e.g.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar/2014/01
Back then we drafted and reviewed in parallel on that Meta page and on
this mailing list, which involved a significant amount of overhead.
Also, because few people besides Matthew and myself were checking
their Meta watchlist often enough, this mailing list proved to be a
much more reliable venue for people to post SM ideas for review and
get a timely response. That's why the Meta page became inactive, in
contrast to this mailing list. Having said that, it might be worth
another try, assuming you have a critical mass of SM team members who
are living the wiki lifestyle to a sufficient degree in order to
ensure that submissions there get noticed and reviewed like they do
here ;)
--Ed
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM, James Alexander <
jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>
> Heh, fair point there was a lot of context missing there ;)
>
> For the record I'm all in favor, and I was doing a cheap joke for the
> entertainment of those who knew the history :)
>
> The worst problems are usually something that we will have on our radar,
> these articles are not hard to quickly review, and the community IS
actually
> very good at reviewing these. When there are
DYKs we're not interested
in
> sharing there is no issue skipping them,
there are 24 a day :) it's not
like
> we're going to run out.
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Joe Sutherland
> <jsutherland(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, fair point. In fairness I think something like that's unlikely to
>> happen in the future :P
>>
>> (For context for those unaware, he's talking about this:
>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia ... think this may have
been
>> pre-Katherine :) )
>>
>> On 6 August 2015 at 18:26, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joe Sutherland
>>> <jsutherland(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's gotten a lot better in fairness. Checking the article isn't
awful
>> before we publish it on social is also pretty
trivial, thankfully.
>>
>> Joe
>
>
> Yes.... Yes it has....
>
> BUT DYK that Gibraltar was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the
> Treaty of Utrecht in 1713?
>
> /Ducks/
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
> _______________________________________________
> Social-media mailing list
> Social-media(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
>
--
Joe Sutherland
Communications Intern [remote]
m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland
_______________________________________________
Social-media mailing list
Social-media(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
_______________________________________________
Social-media mailing list
Social-media(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
--
Ed Erhart
Editorial Intern
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Social-media mailing list
Social-media(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________
Social-media mailing list
Social-media(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media