A Breakfast Blow Up - Over The Sharing Line?

It was James Whatly's tasty looking breakfast that blew up on me, not mine.

I got burned on twitter (as "Happening London"), then had a twitter exchange on the dos and don'ts of sharing.

I'm hoping this is a miss-understanding but, I could just be wrong. Maybe the "sharing model" I've set up for happening London is a step too far over the sharing line?

I'll explain here, how contributors posts on Happening London will are intended to be shared and how that fits into the sharing model. I was going to write this post over on happening London, but it's more a question on the ethics of sharing across platforms, so it's ended up here.

After reading this post, please reply with your opinion on this specific sharing model in the comments. I'm particularly interested in the opinions of those people who's content has been re-shared by the page already, but any photographers (related) who are sharing their work on Google+ are more than welcome to chip in.

If the general consensus: that resharing (other people's) content, which is then posted across platforms doesn't can't work for most I'll change the way things are set up for happening London, and I will have learned something.

If the general consensus is that things are (mostly) OK with this particular re-sharing model, I'll still include an opt-out option at the end of this post. For people who would rather not have their content promoted. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but that doesn't stop me trying!

Here's a projection of how articles would be created then shared (amplified) after happening London launches.

▶ Contributors would discuss themes for site content, site direction and support each other in the (private) "Happening London Contributors" community.

▶ Contributors write and publish their own articles.

▶ They are given full credit in the article footer with a link that leads to their Google profile. They will also be credited as the author in Google search via authorship.

▶ Posts would then be "auto shared" a few min's after to the Happening London Google+ Page. As Happening London uses Google+ comments the share of the contributor's article is both a comment on the article and a share on the page: they are the same thing.
Comments on the Page share appear as "replies" to the Page comment on the article.

▶ Shortly after blogger has "pushed" the contributors article to the Google+ Page that Google+ post is  pushed to twitter.

An example tweet is of how this would work is embedded below (without the media, which would be a small version of the first image from the article).

Prelaunch: as of writing this happening London is in "pre-launch". 

The main definition of "pre-launch" is the fact that I don't currently live in London. I will do. If you're reading this at some point in the near future I probably already am, but currently as of writing this: I don't. 

I can't produce any "London content" while resident in a different country, so the focus for Happening London right "now" is on community building and sharing other people's content. After launch I would still expect we'd continue to share some of the great London content out there on Google+, it just (hopefully) wouldn't be the only thing the site would be doing!

The re-sharing of content on Google+ shouldn't be an issue for anyone "on platform". If you don't want your content on Google+ to be shareable you should disable reshares. But it seems that a proportion (small? large?) of people might not be happy with sharing moving "off platform".

How does re-sharing work?

▶ Find some great "London" content. 
▶ Do my best to make sure that it's "owned" by that person. 
▶ Re-share it. With some added commentary.
▶ The original content poster (depending on their settings) would be notified of the share. 
▶ The re-shares on Google+ are "properly" attributed (with links back) to the original owner. 
▶ The image (image shares) is not duplicated. 

▶ The happening London re-shares are tweeted, with a link back to the re-share (underlined in red). 
▶ The original (Google+) sharer can be followed directly from the re-share.
▶ Time permitting I try and tie-in connecting the person on twitter too. Though that may confuse people who don't move across platforms. Examples: here and here

What the twitter shares link back to:

▶ A Google+ post (share) which shows the original content. If the owner deletes it, it leaves a hole.
▶ A link to the original (owners post).
▶ Follow or Add to circle options for the person or page who originally shared and the person / page who re-shared.
▶ Direct profile link.

User options: 

▶ Interact with the reshare.
▶ Follow the original sharer or resharer.
▶ Navigate to the original share.
▶ Navigate to the either profile.

Is that attribution enough?
That's what I would be interesting in hearing your opinion on.

If the majority view is that the "cross platform" part of sharing model is Ok, then the happening London page can stay as it is.
For those who are uncomfortable there are a couple of "opt out" options.

Opt-out of being promoted

Because things are never black and white I'll maintain a "Do Not Share" circle.

The content from people in that circle will be set not to show in the home stream of the page.

When searching for "London content" any content found in search will have a "Do Not Share" reminder for the page manager.

Saying that you'd like to opt-out of having your content shared may seem a bit odd, but it still leaves options for interaction open.
You can still follow the page and see what "London content" is being posted and shared. The page could still comment on your content.

Complete opt-out

If you'd rather do a "hard opt-out" with not sharing or interaction then blocking the page is an option that prevents sharing, interaction, even seeing of all your content.

Popular Posts