Tag Archives: twitter

Do your social profiles include any of these clichés? Part 2: “Content Creator” “Content Creation”

scribe site | roger scime | annoying social profile cliché #2: content
Are you content with content?

In my previous post, I discussed the use (including overuse and misuse) of the word remarkable in social media profiles, and mentioned that I would get to its favorite sibling, content, in a subsequent post. Well, here it is, beginning with a question:

When did a story or a work of art or a musical composition or a photograph suddenly become content? It wasn’t me, that I can tell you.  I would have stuck with a story or a work of art or a musical composition or a photograph. And, because so many people in social media use that term in their various profiles, it’s become a social media profile cliché.

The word content has also usurped several perfectly serviceable names for the makers, themselves:

  • writers
  • artists
  • musicians
  • photographers

These craftspeople have been transformed, in the language of social media, into: content creators.

I’ve encountered content and content creator in so many LinkedIn, Twitter, blog “About Me” pages, and résumés, that I herewith dub it—as well as its various iterations—an official social media profile cliché.

Here are some more statistics from another of my dubious, methodologically-challenged surveys (The columns represent Google | LinkedIn | Twitter SERPs):

scribe site | roger scime | annoying social profile cliché #2: content / content creation
too much content with too little

With all this content being created, I wonder if anybody has time to write a story, draw or paint a picture, sing or play a song, or take a picture?

I’ll say the same thing I said in my previous post on this subject: It is unlikely that any potential employer will search for the keyword content or the phrase content creator or creation when seeking to hire an artist, musician, photographer, etc.

A caveat, however: Unlike the previous post’s example, of a social media aware employer’s unlikely search for remarkable, it’s entirely possible that he or she might actually search a variation of content.

So, here’s my suggestion. If you feel you must, try something along the lines of:

  • online or offline content creator [then] expert in music, photography, art, etc.

Or, whatever else floats your boat.

Thus endeth the lesson.

In Part 3 of this series, I’ll deal with compelling, and why it’s not.

Are there any social media conventions or clichés that bother you? Please share your inner-peeves in the comments section, below:

Related:

Do your social profiles include any of these clichés? Part 1: “Remarkable”

Annoying Social Media Cliche #1" Remarkable"
Remarkable? I think not!

I’d never heard the expression “remarkable” used in a particular way until I attended my first social media event in 2009 (I was a late adopter). The speaker was pontificating about blogging and  said something along the lines of, “What you offer in your blog has to be REMARKable. In other words,t must be that about which people REMARK.”

Wow, I thought, cool play on words.

And, earlier this year when I began using social media on a regular, systematic basis, I’m positive my professional LinkedIn, Twitter, blog, and Facebook profiles all included the word “remarkable” somewhere within the text, usually in conjunction with the word “content,” which I’ll examine in more detail in a subsequent post.

It’s now months later and I’ve revised my own profiles several times. However,  I’ve noticed that a depressingly large number of others in the wonderful, wacky, worrisome world of social media are using the r-word in their own profiles, to a really annoying degree.

Remarkable is less so than it ever was: It’s become a social media profile cliché.

You see, I love language and its words to a degree that—with alarming regularity—drives my readers away from my prose, because in my search for the absolutely perfect word in something I’ve written, I’ve managed to concomitantly drain all the juice and liveliness from it.

So, seeing that silly little pun overused so offends me linguistically as well. I thought of the other words and phrases that have popped up and infest the world of social media profiles, did a very small amount of research, and have arrived at what consider the four most egregious and aggravating examples of social media clichés, which I will be exposing in this and my next three posts.

I’m going to begin with the least egregious of them: “remarkable.” Continue reading Do your social profiles include any of these clichés? Part 1: “Remarkable”

Roger Ebert & Twitter: feel the love!

Roger Ebert and Twitter | Roger Scime | Critical Journalism
Roger TweEbert

For the  past few days, I’ve been following five people I consider influential on Twitter,

  • how often did they Tweet?
  • what times of the day?
  • what sort of things were they saying?
  • . . . things like that.

Well, one of the people I chose to follow was Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, partly because I am a huge fan of his movie reviews, but also because I remembered a column he had written in 2009 in which he explained why he had hitherto been skeptical of the platform, but was finally willing to give it a try.. Like me, he was a late adopter and—also like me—he was a little dubious over what nuggets could be conveyed in a mere 140 characters.

In that particular October 2009 column, This just in: I am a Twit“, Mr. Ebert explains that he had realized his Twitteristance  was futile, and that he was finally willing to try it—at least as an experiment.

Well, it’s now a year and a half later and . . . well, all I can say is, “Tweet, tweet, tweet . . . that man’s got the beat!”

Mr. Ebert has become a Tweet machine! No kidding!

Here are just today’s (Sunday’s) stats—times are Central:

  • 6:00 AM – 10:00 AM: 8 Tweets
  • 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM: 7 Tweets
  • 2:00 PM – 7:00 PM 7 Tweets (as I type this)

That’s 22 Tweets over 14 hours (somebody check my math, please. I’m challenged); and it’s all original material! Of course, that shouldn’t have come as a surprise, as Mr. Ebert gave as his reason for finally giving in was:

my realization that I have a very special gift for writing messages of 144 characters, including spaces. Why should I selfishly hide this from the world?

Indeed, Mr. Ebert. Indeed!

Of course, that doesn’t beat Guy Kawasaki, who Tweeted 30 times between 8:00 AM and 4:40 (Pacific Time). But Mr. Kawasaki’s Tweets consisted exclusively of links to other sites.

Plus, unlike Mr. Ebert, who spread his Tweets out over the course of the day, Mr. Kawasaki seemed to clump his together beginning with 5 Tweets at 9:00 AM and reaching his apex at around the 1:00 mark, with a burst of 10. Maybe he had an appointment and wanted to get his quota out. Or maybe he just wanted to take a nap.

My other three choices were pretty much no-shows: Jon Stewart, Howard Kurtz, and Joss Whedon. I’d expected more from them, but belatedly recognized the hope that they might—just might—be hard at work . . . instead of trying to fit 15,000 word inspirations into 140 character slivers. One can only hope.

By the way: Pardon the mixed metaphor at the end, but this is social media, after all. And social media—as has been explained to me time and time again—means never never to have to say you’re sorry. Oops! I just said it.