Last week, Facebook celebrated the one year anniversary of the “like” button, the popular successor to the “fan” button, and the tip of the spear of its Open Graph gambit that it hopes will allow it to become the plumbing of the Web.
By any measure, the “like” button is a smash hit. It is served billions of times each day, and silently connects us to a vast array of our preferences, providing ongoing cues about who we are and with whom and what we choose to interact.
Physiologically, it takes exactly one click of one finger to click the “like” button. So it’s not exactly a blood oath. In many cases, the “like” button click is no more than digital bumper stickering, a casual statement of preference. But sometimes, it’s not.
Do We Have to Just Be Friends?
The problem with the “like” button is that there’s no way to have a second date. It’s a binary circumstance: you either “like” or you don’t. I can’t “like” a lot. I can’t “love”. I certainly can’t “adore”. I like the band Fleet Foxes. I love the band Radiohead. There’s a real difference in my passion for the two. But in the eyes of Facebook, my preference is the same. The “like” button has the exact same level of nuance as a light switch.
Imagine if other preference-driven interactions had the same on/off limitations. How would your Netflix recommendations look if you could only indicate whether you did or did not like a film? Would we all be getting a lot more “Dude, Where’s My Car?” showing up in our suggestions?
Long Distance News Feed Romance
I recognize that interactions with social objects in the form of additional “likes” and comments on specific status updates provide a measure of ongoing temperature control for your passions on Facebook. That’s how the Facebook EdgeRank formula works, governing what you see in your Top News stream versus what’s relegated to the less popular Most Recent (unedited) version of news.
The premise of EdgeRank is that if you’re truly passionate about something, you’ll most likely click “like” and/or comment on the status updates published by that something, giving Facebook a hint that they should definitely show you more of that publisher’s musings in the future, by automatically pushing it to your Top News stream.
But there are two huge flaws in that mechanism.
First, if I know from the get-go that I have inordinate passion for something, why can’t I put those cards on the table at the outset? Why can’t I click a “love” button that guarantees that everything published by Radiohead, or my wife, or my clients, or my favorite tequila brands will show up in my Top News?
Second, Facebook’s reliance upon my ongoing positive interactions with a publisher necessitate that publisher to be consistently good at Facebook. And that’s no gimmee. Lots of companies, organizations, and people struggle with striking a balance between engagement and promotion, frequency and relevancy. Radiohead is not very good at Facebook by most accounts. They rarely publish, and when they do it’s not in a way that tends to solicit a lot of interactions (which is the current best practice).
So, even though I’m a big fan and want to see whatever they write on Facebook, I may not see it because of Radiohead’s inferior use of the medium? The ability to subscribe to information should be under the control of the citizen, not the platform.
Help Me Love You
I realize that I could proactively visit the Radiohead Facebook page and see what’s happening on the Wall, but that again puts the burden on me, and is a behavior that conflicts with the overall Facebook ethos of “pushing” to me what is relevant via Top News and email alerts. And in fact, VERY few people go back to a company or organization Facebook page after liking it initially. Whatever ongoing interactions there may be overwhelmingly take place from within the user’s news feed.
The “like” button has changed the nature of social connection between people and things, and I wish it a Happy Birthday. But as we get pummeled by an invitation avalanche, with more and more and more and more things asking us to “like” them, why can’t we show some “love” as well?
(image by Shutterstock, a Convince & Convert sponsor)
About Jay Baer
@jasonbaer:disqus Alright Mr. Bear, I want to comment on two things: 1) your issue with the "Top News" formula (or the fact that there is a formula at all) and 2) your love button idea.
First of all, I know it's not idealFacebook doesn't make it clear to the user that they're not giving him all the news; the user may see the words "top news" but he might not know what that meansbut there is a setting where you can abolish "Top News:" Scroll down to the bottom of the page (when you're in "Top News") and click "Edit Options;" there's an option for it. Now, it'll still say "Top News" but in fact it will be an unadulterated feed.
As for the "love" button or the rating system you suggested in a comment, boy do I disagree with you. Ratings? Which should I pick? 3 stars or 4. For some people this is a pretty easy choice; for others, it's at least annoying, if not difficult. The Like button asks "do you like this?" It's a simple question; it's a fun question. Do you give this one star, two stars, three stars, four stars, or five stars? Not so much.
What if a friend or a person likes a status of yours and they give it a rating? You get a notification: "John gives your status four stars." You're being rated! It's not "John likes your status," it's "John gives your status four stars." "Like" is a real word, a warm word, a nice word, and even five stars, though nice, it sounds really stupid in reference to a status; you rate movies and books.
And if there were a rating system, you could rate things one star out of five. That would be a dislike button essentially, people would finally be able to send the message "this sucks" with the click of a button. Rejoice! I'm totally opposed to a dislike button: hate is a theme on the internet and I think we'll all be better off, if the haters aren't given the ultimate weapon of hatred.
Also, Facebook's fan pages have to mimic the rest of Facebook. Right now, "Like" plays the role of the old "Become a fan;" and also contributes to the Like-count for that Page. If there were a rating mechanism instead of a Like button, there would have to be a "Become a fan" button on the Page but then there would also be the rating mechanism? That's a cluttered interface right there! And again, I bring up the haters; now that there's a rating mechanism on Pages, boy do I feel sorry for people (or entities) with a lot of haters, e.g. Justin Bieber, who's a good musician, a good singer, and has a great performance crew, and I hate to think what his average rating would be, which would have to be displayed on the page if there were a rating mechanism; that's just common sense.
But what if it weren't a rating mechanism; what if it were separate "Love" and "Like" buttons? Well then, that brings me back to the fan pages: If fan pages had both Love and Like buttons, would they both have the function of adding you to the fans? Two buttons next to each other that say different things yet have two different functions? And where it says "100,000 people like this," would it say
"100,000 people love or like this"
???
That sounds terrible! How about
"90,000 people like this
10,000 people love this
100,000 people love or like this."
???
Now the fan page could just have the Like button and that would remove all those problems but if there were Love buttons everywhere else on the site, people would start wondering where the Love button's at.
Facebook would be having to explain to people why there can be a Love button everywhere else on the site, but you can't "Love" your favorite stars.
Also, the Love button might create some awkward moments too. If you want to say you love something, that's what the comments are for. If you really love something, you can afford to speak in English (or another language) instead of buttons.
Thanks for listening.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like