I Hate Facebook’s Math

There is a Facebook equation that most people will never need to know or pay attention to until it becomes a problem for them like it did for me this week.

Number of friends + Number of Fan Pages you are a fan of = Must be less then 5,000 total

Now, I never thought I’d have to worry about this equation. I had seen people like Robert Scoble and Jeff Pulver openly complain about this in the past and I didn’t get it. But, now I do. I really do, and I’m not liking it.

I am an open connector on Facebook as well as most other sites. I have a lot of people who want to connect with me because they listen to my podcasts, like my photos, have seen me speak or just because we share a lot of similar buddies. But, the problem is that I can’t add anyone more on Facebook right now.

I set up the C.C. Chapman Fan Page months ago, but never really did much with it. The word “fan” is a strange one to me, so it feels very weird to use that page in the way Facebook intended it. But, now I almost have to send people there rather then to my profile unless we are truly Friends or have more then just a passing connection.

But, where do I draw that line without hurting anyone’s feelings? It is a sucky thing based on a number that Facebook has set and doesn’t seem to want to change. I certainly don’t have 5,000 close Friends, but I do have a community of people that I like to stay in contact with and right now Facebook allows me to do that better then most.

I’m doing my best to figure it out right now. Earlier today I openly said that I wished Facebook would require some message along with each friend request so I can actually know who someone is. I always look at our mutual friends and a person’s profile to get information, but sometimes I just don’t know who they are and have to hit ignore now and I hate that. In the past I’d accept almost any request and then start getting to know them through their Facebook postings.

I also went through and “un-fanned” (is that a word?) a bunch of pages that at some point I had joined, but didn’t make the cut for one reason or another. Now I’ve got to be really selective on what I become a fan of. Show me where that makes sense to Facebook?

It is obvious to me that I have to use my fan page more now. But, I refuse to use it in the shilling nature that it instantly gives me in my stomach as I type this out. I want it to remain personable and ME or else why do it? So please bear with me while I figure this all out and try to find a nice balance that works for me and for you.

Facebook makes the rules and I get that, but I don’t understand this one at all. Then again I never was much of a fan of math. *grin*

Share With Others:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Netvibes
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Posterous
  • Sounds like it's an archaic guideline---a figure Facebook came up with long, long time ago. Groups are the same too. The max is 5000. Seems like Facebook is driving people to fan pages without a choice. I bet they have better technological control with fan pages, thus increasing advertising opportunities this way.
  • jasoncrouch
    I didn't realize that they added in pages in the 5,000 number. I must be getting precariously close to seeing this error message myself, with nearly 4,300 friends. Dang. Such an arbitrary choice for them to make.
  • I've seen many people that ask for us, the readers, to unfollow them an follow just the fan page. This is a bigger problem for people like me that refuses to give up any of my 2 followers.
  • So, Fan Pages no longer a solution to friend limit on FaceBook, since now they count Fan Pages AND Friends together for the 5000? FaceBook, we hate that. WTF. It makes me wonder if this number limit + geolocation = FaceBook trying to FORCE users to make pages public to communicate (with all of the associated benes that would have for FB: ads, search, product placement, event planning fees, etc)
  • You can have an unlimited number of fans on a fan page. Couldn't tell if that is what you thought I was saying was limited. There is NO limit on that as I know Coke broke 3 Million fans a while back.
  • Oh I know about that, I'm thinking of the way I and my clients use it. Think of it from the indie musician or filmmaker point of view. Let's look at film: You fan a film and friend all of the principals and actors when you start a project. Then each film hopes to get viewers, funding, festival placement. Films, filmmakers, crew and actors fan and friend each other to do business, share news etc. Often, crews work on several projects with an expanding circle of people. The average filmmaker with multiple projects and connective needs who is using Facebook runs a risk being a fan of too many pages and a friend to too many people (which sounds weird to say - is there really any such thing?) rather quickly. Then there is the frustration of hitting the wall, or of having to choose, and the effect on the egos involved, etc...
  • it's an interesting conundrum CC. Many of the platforms are almost forcing folks to do things in a way we consider "wrong". We don't like the broadcast method but rather prefer the community and engagement method of connecting.

    Quick Story: I had drinks with some folks at Google at SXSW. One of the things I told them was that their increase in weight put upon "social" in their search algorithms was a detriment to the community. My contention is that by adding "conversation" heavily to search it actually incentivises broadcasting and that those in "off message" "Not relevant to search" conversations become punished.

    A year ago I could look at the Google wonder wheel tool and the words google saw me relevant to were Podcaster, Marketing, wood turning, twitter and a couple others very relevant to all the work I have done. Now when I look at what Google see's me relevant for it's all of my friends or the people I engage a lot with. When someone searches our names they immediately get "social search" at the top of the page. these are conversations normally not relevant to search. We work years to blog and provide long-tail content only to have that wiped by our most recent post on twitter.

    So why all this about Google? Because Facebook and Google seem to be punishing us for doing it "right" or "our way". For creating real relationships with real people. They are treating us more like a brand or company than an individual. Should we go from personable conversationalist and sharing to broadcaster because we are blessed with 5000+ people that want to connect?
  • Interesting perspective. Not sure I agree with you at all about Google. I like how they are integrating social currency into the algorithm. Weeds out some of the people who just write blog posts for the sake of SEO rather then actually making a point or adding to the world.
  • I think maybe "Social Currency" is different than "Social Content". Would love if they weighed more of the currency and less on the conversational content.
  • Guess I don't see the difference. If you are that worried about it then I guess you need to think a lot more about WHAT you say right?

    Everything we say, share, create and post all weighs into the equation and that is going to continue to become the norm and it makes sense I believe.
  • Was thinking the worry was that it promoted the use of spam. Instead of being a conversationalist it would benefit to be constantly "on message".

    The difference I am seeing is, "Currency" is the measure of how active someone is in the social space. Do they respond to others or do they just push content.

    vs.

    "Content" which is more about what you put out there.

    For instance. DJWaldow has a child and I congratulate him on twitter. This gets indexed in Google and has basicly no value to those searching for what I do professionally. Now. I'm not going to stop congratulating my friends on their stuff but Google is actually pulling that conversation as part of my "Brand".

    I won't change because honestly... I don't care if people see me wishing you a happy birthday. But, from a large or medium size company perspective... what incentives do they have to communicate (converse) rather than just send out self-promoting messages for the SEO value? The very thing indexing social is supposed to help hinder?
    Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but if I am telling my clients to be part of the conversation and the ecosystem and they see that instead of Google indexing them for what they do and rather for who they are talking to, then that could be a potential pitfall.
    Hope, I'm being clear... I didn't mean to hijack the comments.
  • I still don't get your concern. Those same companies are the ones who spout out blog posts and press releases full of SEO keywords for the old way.

    If all you or a company is doing is worrying about your "brand" image then social media and the web in general is not the right place for you.

    Be yourself. Do good things. Amazing things will happen.
  • I agree with you 100% on that. Amazing things that have changed my life personally happen every day. I'm more grateful than I could ever put in words.

    From the strategic side. I probably did a crappy job explaining the concerns many brands seem to have with the social space.
  • It's probably something like "you're only allowed to post/comment in 5,000 different places". A fan page is kind of like a person's wall, so perhaps internally they've represented them in the same way.
  • Perhaps. I also think that for obvious reasons when it was built it was for college students and it has quickly outgrown that. There are LOTS of things about Facebook that are trying to play catch up with the constant growth.
  • brindey
    You're too sexy for your shorts- I mean you're too popular for FB.
  • *laugh* Thank you for the smile! Perfect for a Friday afternoon.
blog comments powered by Disqus



All views expressed on this site are those of C.C. Chapman and not any company, group or activity that I am associated with.