I’ve seen, lately, that most of the commenters about Social Media monitoring are moving away from tool powered only by algorithm and giving the right value at the human contribution.
What to say? I’m a huge supporter of the role of humans in the definition of key aspect of a monitoring activity, since the very beginning and that’s why Buzzdetector tool was engineered to be highly interactive with the editors.
In an interesting conversation launched by Tobi Bloomberg, in the Linkedin group Monitoring Social Media, the question was “We’ve got the tool .. now how do we make sense of the tsunami of information?”
The huge amount of data you can get from a monitoring activity should not keep you away from human interpretation but it should drive your attention to a better definition of expectation and a better keyword selection.
My take in the thread is “Toby, I believe that it’s important to define some expectations before going into the research, which is, by the way, the crucial step to get reliable research keywords. You can then, during the process, change them and change the objectives according to the first assessment.
If this first part of the process is properly performed maybe you avoid the tsunami.”
The first obstacle is the-bigger-the-better approach: it’s not necessary to present thousands of results while it’s crucial to get the relevant ones.
Being able to stay focussed in a maelstrom of feeds is the real added value.
(to be continued)
Follow me on Twitter