If you read my post "Deck under repair" you know that I am in the midst of trying to understand social media and how to implement a system that will utilize all of it. While doing research I came across this statement,
"Twitter represents about 50% of all messages and verbatims that are currently occurring in the Social Media space. Because of this, it is important that you don’t let your social media analytics be dominated by Twitter verbatims. If you are just implementing basic monitoring of social media, and reporting out ‘pure volume’ numbers, it can be quite biased by the Twitter volume. And then your analysis can also be biased by the type of people who are using Twitter. It is important to balance your analytics and ensure that the sample is representative of the full breadth and depth of social media interactions. It is not just Twitter Analytics that you are interested in, it is ALL analytics!"
Of course I had to read it numerous times to even begin to understand what the author was trying to communicate, but the statement that stuck with me was the last one, "It is not just Twitter Analytics that you are interested in, it is ALL analytics!" Replacing the word Twitter with Life I once again begin to draw a life imitates digital conclusion. It is not just one part of my life that matters it is all of it - I can't be interested in sections of my life, and I can not compartmentalize my relationships. If I am going to be truly healthy I have to analyize the entire thing, as a whole. When people ask, "How are you doing?" - if I desire to build true relationship, the answer has to encompasses all of what I am doing. To put out for people just the parts of my life that are doing well does a disservice to them and to me.
Ashley Judd makes this same statement in her recent rebuttal to the media - "I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the “good” pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/09/ashley-judd-slaps-media-in-the-face-for-speculation-over-her-puffy-appearance.html
So let's restate that last TWITTER sentence --It is important to balance your LIFE and ensure that the sample is representative of the full breadth and depth of RELATIONSHIP interactions. It is not just the POSITIVE INTERACTIONS that you are interested in, it is ALL INTERACTIONS!"
So, the key question to ask, in your quest to do better Relationships, and not just to do monitoring (which collects reams and reams of non-actionable data) the key question is … “IS MY DATA SET BALANCED AND REPRESENTATIVE?” Am I looking at my relationships as a whole or do I compartmentalize based on the "report" I want others to see? I'm I giving a true accounting of the report or am I just looking at the parts that look good.
I think if we took as much time to analyze our relationship data as we do our social media data - we may all find data that needs work and some areas that are pretty amazing (and probably not the ones that get the most traffic).