Do we really need Twitter and Facebook?

[Chris D]

Hehe, well it could mean something as simple as all their oauth related servers being down. So it's not as unlikely as we'd think.

 

[Slavik]

I have accounts for both, but use them very rarely, maybe ones every couple of days for facebook, once every few months on twitter...

I have them for my site though using the xensocialize addon, just for more exposure.

 

[digitalpoint]

Actually, R_A has a point.

If you're a brand new user and you register via Facebook then you have a user account but without a password.

So, if Facebook disappeared they wouldn't be able to log in.........

...until they entered their username and used the forgot password feature. At that point a password is e-mailed to them. But unless they've linked a normal forum account to a social networking account, the first time they have a password is at that juncture.

Ultimately, it really isn't a problem.

True... I guess the problem is if the user's email on their Facebook account is not working since that's where the password reset is sent to.

 

[Luxus]

The bottom line is, Twitter and Facebook integrations are like Anti Virus programs. Everybody uses them, but nobody needs them.

I have to say I take ever so slight issue with statements like this. Not because Facebook and Twitter are genuine necessities. They aren't. But then again, neither is any website we'll visit, ever. The world worked fine before we had an interconnected web of data machine thingies. But we're still sitting here using them on a day to day basis as if they were the greatest things since sliced bacon. Facebook and Twitter are useful tools to the majority of users on the internet. You're not required to use them, but going so far as to say nobody needs them, in context to what we're talking about, is not a fully educated statement. And I don't imply that as an insult, I imply that in the sense that I think your acting on your personal feelings/experience with Facebook and Twitter, rather than on what they mean to a great many people.

You misundertood. I didn't mean facebook and twitter per se, but integrating them to forums and sites. They are simply not needed for most sites. Take this site for example. It's a very basic forum running on and old vbulletin version with a nasty skin. No social media integrations in sight. It's so anti-social-media, you aren't even allowed to sign up with a free email address there. And it's the biggest gaming site in the world. Why? Because of its content.

 

[Digital Jedi]

You misundertood. I didn't mean facebook and twitter per se, but integrating them to forums and sites. They are simply not needed for most sites. Take this site for example. It's a very basic forum running on and old vbulletin version with a nasty skin. No social media integrations in sight. It's so anti-social-media, you aren't even allowed to sign up with a free email address there. And it's the biggest gaming site in the world. Why? Because of its content.

I am referring to integration. What I'm saying is, social media usage is ubiquitous, and there's a strong tendency for forum admins to not accept it's impact. Because there are forums successful without any type of social media integration, is not evidence that social media integration isn't needed, or hurtful. It's a feature. One you use for the convenience of million of people who are using social media every day. Not because it's connected in any way to your site's popularity. Though for some, it has a significant impact. And I'd be willing to bet that statistically, it actually contradicts your supposition.

I'm not sure what free email accounts would have to do with social media. Most sites that ban free email accounts do so to curb spam, which is prevalent from accounts from Gmail, Yahoo!, Hotmail, etc. It's interesting to note, however, that NeoGAF has a thriving Facebook community, in spite of itself: http://www.facebook.com/groups/neogaf/.

 

[Luxus]

You sure that those million of people you claim use social media every day use them in conjunction with site integrations? Or do they rather use them stand-alone, just like myself?

I'm not sure what free email accounts would have to do with social media. Most sites that ban free email accounts do so to curb spam, which is prevalent from accounts from Gmail, Yahoo!, Hotmail, etc. It's interesting to note, however, that NeoGAF has a thriving Facebook community, in spite of itself: http://www.facebook.com/groups/neogaf/.

If you can't sign up to a social community because you aren't allowed to use free email addresses that most users use, then this is pretty much anti-social. Imagine Facebook and Twitter banning all free email addresses to prevent imposter accounts and such.
NeoGaf has a facebook page and twitter as well but they are not integrated to their forums at all.

 

[Brandon Sheley]

You don't need Twitter or Facebook accounts, they can be used in conjunction with your other marketing efforts.

 

[Digital Jedi]

You sure that those million of people you claim use social media every day use them in conjunction with site integration? Or do they rather use them stand-alone, just like myself?

If you'd ever seen an average Facebook News Feed, you know the answer was an unequivocal yes. (Any link you see posted that doesn't have a URL in the description, was posted using a Share button.) But as I pointed out, that's not even really the point. The point is, its a tool you can make available to people who are going to be very familiar with it. It's not something you should say you shouldn't have, anymore than you should say that for another random add-on in the Resources section.

As I claim?

If you can't sign up to a social community because you aren't allowed to use free email addresses that most users do, then this is pretty much anti-social. Imagine Facebook and Twitter banning all free email addresses to prevent imposter accounts and such.

You used the phrase "anti-social-media". The reasons for not allowing free emails sign-ups has to do with spam control (and in some cases I've seen, even with popular websites, a paranoia against the large email providers.) Nothing to do with social media.

NeoGaf has a facebook page and twitter as well but they are not integrated to their forums at all.

But I wasn't saying they were. I was pointing out how interesting it was that they had no integration, yet still had a thriving Facebook Group. In other words, in spite of no integration, they have a connection to Facebook anyway. Which would likely not have happened if Facebook wasn't as common as it is.

 

[Jason]

Eh, one size doesn't fit all. Some (well, many) people find value in Facebook, Twittler, Google+, etc., while others don't. You probably take time to evaluate if an "add-on" would provide any value to your site before adding it, well social media integration is no different. It's not really any more complicated than that.

All the OP has provided is anecdotal evidence, which in aggregate, for all site owners, is anecdata.

 

[0xym0r0n]

Twitter doesn't work for me but with facebook I get about 500+ hits a month. Not a very big deal, but it something for doing almost nothing at all.

 

[Luxus]

If you'd ever seen an average Facebook News Feed, you know the answer was an unequivocal yes. (Any link you see posted that doesn't have a URL in the description, was posted using a Share button.) But as I pointed out, that's not even really the point. The point is, its a tool you can make available to people who are going to be very familiar with it. It's not something you should say you shouldn't have, anymore than you should say that for another random add-on in the Resources section.

What use has a tool that isn't used other than bloat the page and increase the loading times? The theory is good. Use social media to gain more traffic for your site, but it just isn't working from my view for most sites I know. I just don't see this acivity.

You used the phrase "anti-social-media". The reasons for not allowing free emails sign-ups has to do with spam control (and in some cases I've seen, even with popular websites, a paranoia against the large email providers.) Nothing to do with social media.

How can you say that? Banning free email addresses obviously has a huge impact on the ability of users to sign up to a community. Just because it's meant as a spam prevention measure, doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with social media.

But I wasn't saying they were. I was pointing out how interesting it was that they had no integration, yet still had a thriving Facebook Group. In other words, in spite of no integration, they have a connection to Facebook anyway. Which would likely not have happened if Facebook wasn't as common as it is.

Why bring it up in the first place when you claim you wasn't saying they were? This isn't about Facebook and Twitter as stand-alone services, but integrations with sites. I have no problem if sites sign up for Twitter and Facebook and have a community there as long as they don't do any integrations.

 

[Bram]

With regards to the build-in share like and plus options. Immediately disabled them on the forum:
1) nobody ever clicks them due to the strange position at the bottom of the page
2) slows down the loading of the complete page

However on our blog all sharing options are enabled as all the breaking news stories are directly posted there people tend to use the social sharing options a lot and it does drive some traffic (of returning members) to the site especially Facebook.

Currently experimenting with Pinterest a lot. No consistent results yet.

 

[Digital Jedi]

What use has a tool that isn't used other than bloat the page and increase the loading times? The theory is good. Use social media to gain more traffic for your site, but it just isn't working from my view for most sites I know. I just don't see this acivity.

How can you say that? Banning free email addresses obviously has a huge impact on the ability of users to sign up to a community. Just because it's meant as a spam prevention measure, doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with social media.


Why bring it up in the first place when you claim you wasn't saying they were? This isn't about Facebook and Twitter as stand-alone services, but integrations with sites. I have no problem if sites sign up for Twitter and Facebook and have a community there as long as they don't do any integrations.

You seem to be missing my overall point. You're argument is that social media integration doesn't increase traffic to your site, and therefore any integration is useless to everyone. I'm saying that's not why you have social media integration in the first place, and that your evidence of it's usefulness is entirely anecdotal. In fact, you seem to only regard the anecdotal evidence of admins who say they don't need it, and not acknowledge the one's who've said it's been useful to them. Again, not exclusively having to do with traffic increase.

As far as the email thing goes, when we refer to social media, we refer, specifically, to social media websites like Facebook, Google+, Twitter, MySpace and the like. Not to any aspect of the web that results in social interaction. Because that would make every forum, every blog, every news site with a comment section, a social media website. By it's current definition, that's not what we mean.

 

[Luxus]

You seem to be missing my overall point. You're argument is that social media integration doesn't increase traffic to your site, and therefore any integration is useless to everyone.

How can this be my argument when I don't even have a life site yet?

I'm saying that's not why you have social media integration in the first place, and that your evidence of it's usefulness is entirely anecdotal.

I don't need evidence because it's just my opinion. All posts from me reflect my personal opinion.

In fact, you seem to only regard the anecdotal evidence of admins who say they don't need it, and not acknowledge the one's who've said it's been useful to them.

I didn't say Facebook and Twitter integrations are useless for all, but for most sites I know.

As far as the email thing goes, when we refer to social media, we refer, specifically, to social media websites like Facebook, Google+, Twitter, MySpace and the like. Not to any aspect of the web that results in social interaction. Because that would make every forum, every blog, every news site with a comment section, a social media website. By it's current definition, that's not what we mean.

Let's say, just hypothetically, that NeoGAF enabled registering via Twitter and Facebook. With all free email addresses banned, you can't sign up with your twitter and facebook as long you used a free email address to register. So people who found NeoGAF through Twitter and Facebook (who use free email addresses) are like, "I can't register, lets move on, nothing to see here".

 

[Digital Jedi]

How can this be my argument when I don't even have a life site yet?

"Your" in the general sense. (Like the "they" in "They say".) I guess I could have used "our", but I figured you would follow me.

I don't need evidence because it's just my opinion. All posts from me reflect my personal opinion.


I didn't say Facebook and Twitter integrations are useless for all, but for most sites I know.

Yeah, we get that. We're just saying it's not true.

Let's say, just hypothetically, that NeoGAF enabled registering via Twitter and Facebook. With all free email addresses banned, you can't sign up with your twitter and facebook as long you used a free email address to register. So people who found NeoGAF through Twitter and Facebook (who use free email addresses) are like, "I can't register, lets move on, nothing to see here".

 

[Carlos]

NeoGaf has a facebook page and twitter as well but they are not integrated to their forums at all.

My company does the same tactic. No integration, but have pages for the independent brands (sites) that I own.

Twitter doesn't work for me but with facebook I get about 500+ hits a month. Not a very big deal, but it something for doing almost nothing at all.

Had an arguement with another user about how my Twitter/Facebook efforts affect my site. You said exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Luxus]

"Your" in the general sense. (Like the "they" in "They say".) I guess I could have used "our", but I figured you would follow me.

This reasoning doesn't make sense if you consider what you have said.

Yeah, we get that. We're just saying it's not true.

Who's we?

 

[Crayo]

This is basically a case of using social media in the right way equals fantastic results, and using it in the wrong way mildly displeases members. I think I would rather take the risk of having a few annoying share buttons if there is a possibility of achieving said success. The only reason I see to advertise liking a Facebook account and following a Twitter account is if you offer a service where users do not check your website daily, and rely on those social media accounts to hear about such topics to bring it to their attention. But sharing pages on Facebook and Twitter especially can really spread the word about your forum to a lot of people who haven't heard about it before; you will probably be surprised.

We had a Facebook account with ~50 likes at one point, and we posted a humorous meme related to our niche. That resulted in around 20 or so people liking it, which then resulted in over 600 people seeing it. That's the power of social media. Imagine those numbers when 300 or so people are liking it; think about how many users it reaches who had no idea about your forum who might want to sign up. Whilst I'm not a guy who shoves social media in my users faces, I can definitely see the positive side of it and understand why so many people are trying to master it.

 

[Digital Jedi]

This reasoning doesn't make sense if you consider what you have said.

I think you're overthinking it.

Who's we?

Um, we who disagree with you.

 

[jonsidneyb]

No No No don't need it. Yuck,. pew, ick.... Booooo