Resharing Differences Between LinkedIn and Radar

I recently posted a long thought piece entitled “How I Failed” on LinkedIn, and then a few days later, republished it here on my own Radar blog. (I published it on LinkedIn first because I wanted to reach the more business-oriented audience on LinkedIn, and not just the technical audience that we reach here with Radar.)

This morning, I decided to check on the resharing stats that are published at the top of  posts on both LinkedIn and here on Radar (a WordPress based blog).  I normally look at these stats to see the relative impact of Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and LinkedIn on the readership of my posts.  But this time, I realized I had another data point available – the differences in the use of these services by my Radar readers and my LinkedIn readers.

When I compared the stats this morning, a couple of things surprised me.

SocialSharing.001
As you can see, there was a lot more Twitter activity resulting from the Radar post than from the LinkedIn post, and as expected, a lot more LinkedIn resharing on LinkedIn itself. That wasn’t surprising (although I suspect the amount of engagement LinkedIn has achieved through its Influencer program is a surprise to many people.)

As is usually the case for my posts, I find that Twitter tops Facebook and Google+ for resharing, and that Google+ is a significant fraction of both Twitter and Facebook – showing far more engagement than many critics allow. That is interesting, but wasn’t surprising either.

But what did surprise me a bit is that the share count is identical for both Google+ and Facebook. They both seem to have detected that the two posts were the same, despite the different URLs. Twitter and LinkedIn did not.  I expected that of Google. I didn’t expect it of Facebook.

 

Get the O’Reilly Web Platform Newsletter

Stay informed. Receive weekly insight from industry insiders—plus exclusive content and offers.

  • baxley

    Data intelligence from Facebook surprises you? (Thanks for sharing, I love picking through user data.)

  • http://everwas.com/ iankennedy

    If Google and Facebook have this knowledge, wouldn’t it be great if they could also centralize the discussion in the comments?

  • http://everwas.com/ iankennedy

    View source on the post on oreilly.com shows the answer. Both Facebook and Google+ must be looking at rel=canonical to tie the two together.

    • http://radar.oreilly.com timoreilly

      Right. But notice that Twitter and LinkedIn are ignoring this attribute. I expected Google to pay attention. I thought FB would be like Twitter and LinkedIn. At any rate, good for them.