Coffee Chat 4.2 with S.K. Anthony: Our Facebook Issues

Hey, everyone! Amazingly enough, I'm waiting for S.K. to arrive instead of finding her in my kitchen already (or my bedroom, or at the door, or any number of places). I thought I'd look through some of our old Coffee Chats to see what we've covered, and realized we never finished our coverage of the Social Media monster. I've been wanting to talk more about it anyway, since I'm having some Facebook issues.

SK: Oh hey, Lynda! Goodness . . . how many bath towels do you own? I've been stuck in your laundry room all morning washing them for you. I got here extra early and didn't want to disturb you, since, umm . . . you didn't seem too happy about me waking you up last Thursday. Hang on; let me get us some coffee while you tell me what's bothering you this week. I know it isn't me. I've been a good girl . . . so far.

ER: Whatwhatwhatwhat . . . do you EVER sleep? [Sees a pile of fluffy towels.] Hmm, this may not be so bad. Thanks for washing the towels, man. I owe you . . . something . . . unless you’ve already come in and taken it.

SK: No, no . . . I took nothing. I even brought you some bacon to make up for eating all your goodies last time. Look out the window!

ER: [Makes the mistake of looking.] Is that—?

SK: You’re welcome.

ER: There is a live pig in my yard. A pig that is walking around. A pig. Walking. I . . . I just . . . uh . . . [Sighs.] Thank you.

SK: [Nodding vigorously.] Yep! You’re welcome.

ER: I’m not really sure I want to know where that pig came from. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t legal. Maybe we should just talk about something else, and deal with my bacon gift later.

Okay, here’s what’s bugging me today. You and I both have Facebook pages, right? I've gotta ask: Do you have much success with using it as a promotional platform? Because I have a moderate amount of "likes" on my Easy Reader Editing FB page, but it doesn't seem like a whole lot of people actually see my posts on there. I have better luck when I share my ERE posts as myself on my personal page.

SK: Define success. If by that you mean I get likes on my FB posts from my editor regularly, then yes. I'm very successful. If not then well . . . sadly no. I've had a range of 30 out of my 1,121 "likes" on my FB page "seeing" my post to over 5,000 . . . it depends on how many shares I get.

Recently Facebook made about thirty-hundred changes on its "page" features. And that's in the past year alone. Do not look up the real number, I'm exaggerating by like two numbers—otherwise I'm pretty sure I'm close. Anyway, since they went public, pages have suffered because the FB peeps are more business-oriented and are in for the money. If you and I want to make sure our "fans" see most of our posts then we have to pay up . . . umm, NO.

ER: I’m not into paying for advertising on a free social media site, especially one such as Facebook. I am one of those people who completely ignores the column with ads while skimming the page for posts of friends or family members, and I’m going to assume most people filter that type of thing without thinking about it consciously.

SK: In past years it used to be free, and I think everyone saw everything, which made it one of the best ways of keeping fans in the loop and helped with promotions. Now we have to pay and keep our fingers crossed it’s not fake "sees" we're getting. This last change (which I'm sure will change by midnight again) says: "A person has to be 'active' on your page a minimum of three times within any calendar month period. This means clicking 'like' on one of our pictures and/or posts, or just leaving a short comment. If a person is not active on your page, as listed above, after a month of no activity, their 'like' will be removed from your page. FB has decided they are not interested in your page!" (This I'm quoting from a message going around FB; I have no idea who the originator was.)

ER: That almost sounds like something I’d find on Snopes. We should have asked Raymond about that, since he’s faster than Google. I just don’t see why a person has to prove he’s active on a liked page to see that page’s posts. Really, if I liked it, doesn’t that imply I wish to see the posts? This is why I don’t do the “I’ll like yours if you like mine” swaps—I only click “like” on the pages I genuinely LIKE. And if people “like” a whole lot of pages, how are they supposed to remember to go looking for posts that aren’t showing up on their feed? It makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

AND . . . AND . . . I need more coffee. I use up all my caffeine intake at a faster rate when I get worked up like this.

SK: Okay let me get you some more coffee while I scream: EXACTLY!

I don't want FB to guess what it thinks I'm interested in. I want it to show me what I told it I'm interested in. Ugh. Anyway, and since I'm not paying nor is hardly anyone else, groups have become popular. Authors, readers, anyone who has some kind of following are creating groups and keeping their fans up to date that way . . . except now the word on the street is that FB has caught on to that. Now, they're also not showing the feed and group members have to go in the group, much like into pages, to see what is going on.

Twitter on the other hand . . . I guess its great. I don't utilize it to my advantage as much as I should. I love that you can add hashtags and anyone looking for something specific can find your tweets that way. If I was more active with readers and friends I might benefit better. Sigh. I'm just going to give up on FB and create my own community and whatnot on Google plus. It seems to be the next big thing . . . unless they start making us pay too. I’m feeling sad now. I feel like I’ll have to break up with FB soon. What do you think you’ll do?

ER: I really like FB for my personal stuff, but it’s not doing me any favors for my editing. As long as they don’t start charging me to have a business page, I’ll just keep it. I ignore the sad statistics they send me each week anyway—the ones that tell me how many people are NOT engaged with my posts.

SK: Mind if I finish off this coffee? [Sees the look on Lynda’s face.] Oh, okay, we’ll share the last of the coffee. Relax! Here eat this in the meantime. [Throws chocolate at Lynda.] By the way, I think your piggy is hungry. [Throws more chocolate at Lynda.] Thank goodness I found some chocolate in one of your socks. Pheww.

Now that we’re both calmed again, I’d like to rant one more time: And it’s not like we can come up with a plan on what to do with FB since they keep changing things. Also, what’s up with the new look? I guess I’m getting used to it but there was nothing wrong with it before. NOTHING. Well, except maybe fewer ads from them. Ugh. Social Media! Love to hate it and hate to love it.

ER: I think the ad column is wider, and the design is ticking me off because I just finished adapting to the other change they made a year ago. I’m slow like that.

I’m pretty happy for now, sticking with Coffee Chat and my Monday blog posts (which I should probably apologize for completely forgetting about this past Monday). I would like to ask our readers, though, which of the social media platforms works for them and why. I don’t have enough time in the day to put effort into something that’s not making me happy.

As always:

You can find S.K. Anthony in a number of places. She's on Twitter @SKathAnthony, her website is www.skanthony.com, her Facebook page is S Katherine Anthony, and on occasional occasions, she'll be right here with me, drinking coffee and laughing it up over our latest plans and schemes. And possibly even talking about books and writing. 

You can find me here. I'm always here.

Editor's Notes #10: Good, Bad, or Ugly? My Editor's Private Life

I would never consider myself to be a celebrity-watcher. Most often, I couldn’t care less what strangers do in their spare time, whether they’re famous or not. I don’t know them and they don’t know me. Would they be fascinated by a photo of me, grocery shopping? No? Well, then, why should their grocery-store photo fascinate me? Because they dared to shop without a face full of makeup? Give me a break. They’re regular (albeit obscenely rich) people, and they shouldn’t have to be “on” all the time.

That said, allow me to add that who a person is should not change whether someone is looking or not. I’m not saying they have to show their most private emotions to the public, but a little consistency would be nice. To see a public figure (whether international celebrity or local police chief) present a pleasant face to some, while privately being abusive at home, is disheartening to me.

What does this have to do with editing, you ask? Perhaps you’re getting the idea that I think I’m famous. Perhaps you want a photo of me at the local grocery store so you can judge me on whether I’ve bought organic food or not. Perhaps you’re even wondering why a serious editor would be buying a MAD magazine. (The answer: because I can’t help myself.)

The thing that has me pondering public lives versus private lives—and what that has to do with editing—is this: I think it’s a good idea for people to check out an editor’s social media interactions prior to hiring that person. I don’t mean that you have to agree politically with that person, but there are a few things to consider.

• Does the editor promote the authors he works with? Although this isn’t a necessary step, I think it’s a polite and helpful thing to do. I know it’s difficult to reach a large audience, and I want to help in any way I can.
• Does the editor talk about the authors or their books in a derogatory way? I lose respect automatically for people who publicly trash others. I'm not talking about those times when someone is frustrated and says something like, “Boy, I’ve been so busy with edits that I haven’t had time to clean my house or work on my own novel.” I’m talking about when you open your Twitter page and a friend says, “Check this out.” You go to his link and see a tweet from your editor, moaning about the YA dystopian fantasy she’s editing (which can only be yours from the description) and how boring it is and how she wants to gouge her eyes out. She mentions specific instances and phrases which confirm that it is, indeed, yours, and openly ridicules your work, never thinking you’ll see it . . . or never thinking at all. If potential clients see that, they probably won’t want to take the risk that she’ll talk about them if they hire her.
• Does your editor tell the truth about his work? A friend showed me a tweet from a guy who had been one of a handful of betas for one of her books. The tweet talked about “pimping my clients to build up new business” and the person listed books he’d edited. My friend’s book was listed. This person had not “edited” the book he was claiming, and had only provided beta feedback early in the process. Beta feedback is important, but it’s not the type of editing he was talking about in the tweet, and he knew it. Any potential client could have looked in the front pages of that book and seen a completely different name listed as copy editor, but many would take his claim at face value without doing the research.
• Is your editor’s social media filled with things you’d rather not be associated with? If his page on Facebook is filled with hate speech or things like, “Those reviewers don’t know a good book if it smacks them in the face. We should all trash their Goodreads ratings and undermine their Amazon profiles. Who’s with me?” then you probably don’t want to be involved with that editor. What about a status that reads, “Too hungover to bother rereading the final three chapters of edits. Hey, I already have my money anyway.” If that’s the person he’s comfortable with presenting to the public, then that’s the person he is. Do you really want to be giving your money to that person?

Those are only a few examples, but I think they’re pretty important things to consider. I don’t think you have to agree on every political, religious, and economic view, but if there are things that send up red flags in your mind, heed them.

Angry and Ranting

What is it that makes someone think he can put out a product for consumers to purchase, and not a single person in the entire world is permitted to dislike it? 

Does everyone buy Coke instead of Pepsi? Does everyone have to love polo shirts? Heaven forbid we were all required to love Fifty Shades of Grey or else be subject to a sharp rebuke. People feel free to express their love or hate for Tolkien, Hemingway, or Poe, perhaps because they’re already dead. Last time I checked, Laura Ingalls Wilder didn't pop out of the grave to haunt someone because a reader didn't find the Little House books captivating. Nor would I expect that she sat in her home, writing nasty letters to those who weren't her fans while she was alive.

I'm so angry I could just spit. It's one of those rare times when I'm furious about something that's not my business and not in my control—when I'm indignant on the behalf of people I don't know, whose lives will not change in any way, regardless of my anger.

Yes, I'm talking about life on the Internet.

A few days ago, I witnessed two author meltdowns on Goodreads. As is always the case, they started off with being on the receiving end of a one-star review for each of their books. Follows basic procedure, right? Read. Like or don't. Review. The end.

Wrong, wrong, and wronger.

Not the end. An end would be merciful.

The final step these days has moved right along from "review" to "defend your review/rating and then have your name smeared across every social media available."

I want to call out the first author in question, but I don't even want to give her any recognition by typing her name out here. A review was posted, and she jumped right in and attacked the reviewer. Friends on both sides joined in.

The reviewer had posted portions of the book so all could see why she rated it so low. It appeared to me that the author had somehow ingested a thesaurus and vomited all the words four syllables and higher into a manuscript. Truthfully (and I'm a big fan of the thesaurus, myself), I was glad the original reviewer explained some of the passages featured, because I would never have gotten what was being said.

The author removed all her own comments from Goodreads, but moved over to Facebook. There she began to spew some horrid stuff: shouting out names of people she deemed trolls, posting links to their Amazon profiles, and encouraging others to harass this reviewer and anyone who showed support of this review. She stooped as low as to call one of the reviewers "The Creature from the Black Baboon."

The part that made me the most angry—and believe me, it was tough to choose just one—was when one of the author's friends commented on one of the Facebook posts, saying, "[Author name], you really should take a step back and get some control. You're doing a lot of damage here, and may be alienating your readers with this type of stuff," and the author replied (and I am NOT kidding you here), "Don't worry. I know what I'm doing. My sales are going through the roof since this started."

What?!? She was creating a horrible situation on purpose? And reveling in it?

Apparently she was, because she began repeating the mantra, "Even 'snublicity' is good publicity!" and thanking her "trolls" for all the free promo. She accused them of creating Amazon accounts simply to trash her book, ignoring that they all had established accounts with multiple reviews of other books and products. Facts were not needed or welcome.

As I was in the middle of writing this post, a second author started another attack on a reader who dared to mark his book as a "don't want to read" based on her reading of the sample of his book.

Mr. Author attacked the reviewer on her own blog, calling her names in the comment section of a recent post. She responded with facts and restraint. He went back to the original review and began a long list of insults against her on Goodreads. Her only response at first was to copy his posts for the record, since we all know the pattern by now: hurl insults today, remove all your posts tomorrow. His posts (mostly unanswered) continued to come, sounding more and more unhinged with each moment.

I finally got to the point where I just couldn't take it anymore, and decided to stand up for the reviewer. I need to make it clear here that I do not engage in Internet arguments as a general rule. People are not going to have opinions/life beliefs changed when shouted at by a stranger online, and that's all there is to it. But I can't sit idly by while someone attacks an innocent party, and I feel it's important to show support in those situations.

I was embarrassed for the attacking author, because he was making a colossal fool of himself by acting worse than a child. There was no reason, other than immaturity and a bruised ego on the part of the book's author, for any type of response. If she had rated it four stars with no explanation, I don't think he would have attacked her, shouting, "Why?"

The man was not rational. He kept going whether anyone was responding or not. He even went to another thread to complain, thus ensuring that more people moved over to "his" page and were witnesses to his ranting. I should probably mention that his author profile had been deleted after a tantrum two weeks prior, where he’d gotten a GR member banned for bullying that didn’t actually occur, so he had created a new profile as a non-author and was using that for his attacks.

It’s a shame, really, that there are selfish authors like these two who are unable to accept the fact that not everyone out there will be their fans.

Most self-published authors have more class than that, and are concerned with next year’s sales in addition to today’s. They’re insulted that the actions of a few are tainting the reputation of the many, because they have to work twice as hard to get people to even look at their books, much less review them.

I will never forget the names of those tantrum-throwing authors and will be quick to discourage others from supporting their work. I won’t paint the others with the same brush, but there are many who will, and who have already dismissed SPAs as too much bother and high drama. What a shame for all those who work hard to put out a high-quality product, only to have a few bad apples spoil the reputation of all.

Coffee Chat 5.1 with Author S.K. Anthony: Flash Giveaway!

Hey, everyone, S.K. here. I just snuck into Lynda's house (I climbed in through the window, in case you were wondering), and I'm washing my cup. I just had some coffee and ate two of her muffins, but let's not tell her...I still want more during our chat. Shhhh . . .

SKA: Oh, hey, Lynda. Fancy meeting you here . . . in your kitchen. Err, why the murderous look? [Frantically wipes crumbs away from face.]

ER: Hey . . . um . . . good morning, I think. I hate to say this, but what are you doing in my kitchen? Wow, I didn't even hear the door . . . did someone let you in?

Oh, well. I made muffins and I—oh, man! I told those kids not to touch the muffins until later! At least they left us enough that we can still have a few apiece. [Hands S.K. a plate.] Have a couple. They're great!

SKA: Look, look at my phone! I've been busy online, entering giveaways like a mad woman. Um . . . why are you inspecting your coffeepot? Here, lemme fetch a couple mugs for us . . .

ER: [Looking at coffeepot in confusion.] I'm not sure why this pot isn't full. I made 12 cups when I set it last night. I need to stop using those ShamWow filters; they're sucking up too much of the coffee.

SKA: You know, I think I'll only have one muffin. I'm watching my waistline.

ER: I'm getting excited about our giveaway. People have been asking about the Mother of All Prizes, though, and I feel so bad every time I have to tell someone they can't have Raymond's VCR. He did promise it to me for Christmas, and I was really counting on that gift.

SKA: Yes, I've received a few emails for Deb's Pong as well, but she's holding onto it because she still hasn't beaten the third level. Ah, well. Sorry, folks!

ER: So how's it going? Have you had a good week? 

SKA: My week has been okay. Sadly, I haven't won any prizes lately, but participating in your giveaway has been just as rewarding . . . I guess. I've tweeted and I've taken advantage of the groups on Facebook, and have posted our giveaway at different intervals. I have to say, it's proven its worth, since I've received a few "likes" on my links and a couple entries from it.

Speaking of, have you heard about those "Flash Giveaways" that are going around Facebook?

ER: I've heard things here and there, but I'll admit I'm not clear on the concept. I don't have to burst into song in public to win something, do I? Because you know how shy I am when it comes to singing . . .

SKA: Shy? You and singing? Sure . . . unfortunately, that's not how it works. Unless you upload a video to Facebook of you singing, but it still won't help in this case because YOU'LL be offering the Flash Giveaway—

ER: Huh? I will?

SKA: Yes, and the entrants are the ones who have to do the dirty work.

All right. Quickly, so people can't say we don't teach them anything here on our chats, a Flash Giveaway is:

1. a giveaway (duh)
2. . . . that happens in a flash (double duh)

ER: Well, that seems easy enough to follow so far. Duh, indeed.

SKA: For real: it's when you decide you want to run a giveaway for a few minutes, hours, or however long you want, but it's usually within the same day. You ask participants to "like" your pages, share your posts, tell a secret, guess a lie, etc., and then you use a strategic way to choose a winner from the comments. I suggest you close your eyes and point to the screen; others suggest you use random.org or even a separate Rafflecopter widget. In any case, a winner is chosen, and they get their prizes in a—wait for it—FLASH!

So now that we're all on the same page, Lynda, let's do one on Facebook tonight. What do you say?

ER: I think, as usual, that you are a genius. Yeah, what the heck. Let's do it.

If I were going to flash someone, what would I flash them with? I've always wanted to flash an FBI badge at somebody, but I don't have one of those anywhere close by. Any suggestions? I don't really have a second choice.

And are you sure you don't want another muffin? I can't believe your willpower, only allowing yourself to have one. That's incredible.

SKA: Well, I'm really serious about this diet. I don't want to mess it up, but this muffin is delicious.

Flashing people . . . flashing people . . . I think the FBI badge is pretty cool, but then you'd go to jail for impersonating a federal officer. I can't exactly bail you out right now, so let's stick to maybe . . . a gift card?

ER: Amazon gift card! I love Amazon gift cards!

SKA: Let's test this Flash Giveaway thing tonight and have our friends share and tag their friends. All of them will come back here to enter the Rafflecopter giveaway and comment that they did. Then we'll announce a winner on Facebook. 

Easy Reader Editing's page will start the giveaway tonight at 7 p.m. EST and end at 10 p.m. EST.

If you're on Facebook, come over and help us spread the word!

ER: Sounds great to me. I think I could get addicted to this flashing stuff . . .


Okay, everyone. You know what to do and when to do it. We'll see you tonight on Facebook. And don't forget to enter the Share the Love Giveaway while you're here, if you haven't already. Lots of easy ways to enter, lots of prizes to win.

a Rafflecopter giveaway

You can find everyone in the following places:
S.K. Anthony: www.skanthony.com
Easy Reader Editing: you are here. :)
Raymond Esposito: writinginadeadworld.com
Stephen Fender: www.stephenfender.com
Debra Ann Miller: debraamiller.blogspot.com
Sisters Baking Company: www.sistersbaking.com
Sarah YourBetaReader: yourbetareader.blogspot.com

Coffee Chat 4.0 with Author S.K. Anthony: Taming the Social Media Monster

Hello, I'm the Social Media Monster! I've come to adjust your clocks. I'll cause a warp in the space-time continuum so your "only five more minutes" of reading email turns into "an hour has passed already?"

Does this scenario sound familiar to you? Today, S.K. Anthony and I will be performing the not-ironic-at-all task of using social media (a.k.a. my blog) to discuss how misuse of social media can suck our lives away. 

Not this blog, of course. This blog will add years to your life, if only you visit it on a regular basis and tell all your friends to visit, too. Kind of like a bloggy sort of chain letter: "Tell ten friends to visit my blog and something wonderful will happen to you in the next thirty minutes. I can't tell you what it is, but you'll know it when it happens." I can only tell you that if you don't, nothing bad will happen, your dreams won't be crushed, and God will not be disappointed in you. I won't be upset with you, either, but you will definitely miss a good time. Speaking of a good time, here comes my coffee buddy.

ER: Hey, S.K.! Fancy seeing you here again over the top of my coffee cup. 

SKA: What's crackalackin', Lyn-Lyn?

ER: I'll bet our readers don't realize we have matching coffee cups. In fact, I'll bet our readers don't care that we have matching coffee cups. The picture above is mine, and it is not photoshopped. I repeat, NOT photoshopped. I didn't even use a green screen to capture that image. I figured people might think it's 'shopped because it looks so natural, but no. I just plunked my cup down in front of my coffeemaker and snapped. Snapped a picture, that is. I might have snapped for real, had the coffee not finished dripping right then. But luck was on my side and coffee was on my front. Thankfully, I had another shirt.

What was I saying?

SKA:  To answer your question, I think you were saying hi to me. I'm not sure anymore. I got confused and defensive and proud all in one paragraph.

Let's start with: Why wouldn't they care? Of course they care! We have the same coffee mugs—how else would this be a real and official "Coffee Chat"? And I'm so very proud of you for managing to take a picture that not only looks real, but IS real.

Oh, and for all those cynics out there, here I am with MY non-photoshopped coffee cup. By the way, the sunglasses are because Mildred Loudermilk doesn't want to be recognized in public. Not because I'd just woken up or anything . . .

[SKA disappears for a short while. ER drinks coffee to kill time. 'Cause drinking coffee is what we do here when we're not talking over each other.]

SKA: Sorry, sorry for me abandoning our chat for a minute; I had to go tweet something. In five minutes, I have to go do some "shares" on Google+. Ten minutes after that, I have to go like some posts on Facebook, and then I'll spend a couple hours commenting on my friends' blogs. After that I have to figure out my own blog posts, and think about canceling Instagram and creating a LinkedIn account. So excuse me while I disappear from our chats here and there. 

What are you up to?

ER: Uh . . . not much, compared to your busy schedule. I'm just kind of sitting here, waiting for you to come back. I don't even have an Instagram account. And I'm afraid to be LinkedIn with someone I don't like. Can I unlink them if we're not compatible? And how do you find the time to visit all these places?

SKA: LIKE! . . . err . . . sorry, I think this was the wrong place.

Umm, LinkedIn . . . I haven't opened the account yet, so I don't know. I'm not even sure I want to link up with people I like, so your guess is as good as mine. If someone out there knows, they should tell us. How do I find time? I—

[Disappears again, this time long enough for ER to root around the kitchen, looking for something that goes well with coffee. What's left in those Christmas stockings, anyway?]

SKA: —Okay, I'm back. I had to log in my workout on MyFitnessPal and cheer on some friends. Right . . . so I decide in the morning what kind of day it will be. Tweeting, Facebooking, etc., etc. And blogging/commenting I deal with twice a week for sure; otherwise, I will have no time for our chats.  The rest of the SM channels are lucky I remember they exist when I don't have a ton of emails to answer. 

Which are your favorite social media channels? And which do you think are more beneficial to authors?

ER: Huh? Did you say something? I was on SparkPeople, logging in the mini Twix bars I found in the toe of my stocking. My Christmas stocking. I don't usually store candy in the toe of my regular socks. I don't want to say "never," but it's not typical behavior, anyway.

Beneficial to authors . . . oh, that reminds me, I haven't checked the Goodreads forums today. There have been some pretty interesting threads there lately! 

brb . . . that means "be right back" to those of us who are online-savvy. Or just too lazy to type all those extra letters.

[This time it's ER's turn to run off, back to SparkPeople this time, just in case more candy turns up in anyone else's stockings. Not that she would ever look in anyone else's Christmas stockings. And why are they still hanging on January 9?]

All right, now. I think I'm back for good this time (translate: all out of candy and social media sites). 

I won't deny it. I do have a handful of social media sites I check with regularity. Facebook and Goodreads are probably my top two. My blogs, Twitter, other people's blogs come next. I'm finally getting back on track with SparkPeople. I may sign up with reddit, although my kids say I don't need it. I have a Pinterest account, but much like shopping, I need to know exactly what I'm looking for, or I'll waste all kinds of time and find nothing useful. Actually, I find that I'm capable of wasting time on any one of those above-mentioned things, even when they're helpful to me.

Let's face it: social media is time-consuming. There's no way around it. The real question is whether you control it or it controls you. 

SKA: SparkPeople! I have an account there as well. I had to give it up after I found MyFitnessPal. I like the blue background; my favorite color is blue. Now that I think about it, that might be exactly what attracts me to my "top" sites: Facebook, Twitter, my blog. I'm very scientific when I choose, apparently.

ER: I like the sites that make things easy for me to find. And I absolutely hate when I go to someone's website or blog and can't move around it without the pop-ups getting in the way, saying "SUBSCRIBE!" I won't go to those ones more than that first time. It's so irritating to have to keep clicking things closed just to read an article. If I want to subscribe or follow, I'll do it on my own. If you push, you can guarantee I won't follow you. I only have so much time to waste . . . I mean, spend . . . and I can't use ten more seconds of it trying to avoid pop-ups.

So what are your biggest online time-wasters? Other than chatting with me on Facebook, which can probably be considered official working time, if you stop to think about it.

SKA: Hmm . . . time wasters? I'm not sure. Twitter can be, I guess, but I don't go on too often. I retweet my friends and share a quote here and there. The rest of my tweets that I need readers to pay attention to, I use hashtags. Thank goodness for them.

ER: Twitter, for me, is almost a waste of time, because I get the feeling it's a bunch of people shouting on street corners, but not really listening to the other people who are also shouting. I use it, but I don't expect any big returns from it. 

SKA: As you said, they disappear so quickly and who knows who's reading them? I use the hashtags that anyone who might be interested in my particular subject can find. If not, no harm done. I'm never on for too long there. 

ER: Pinterest, as I said before, is a black hole. A black hole of fun garden ideas, make-your-own laundry soap, and fancy cupcakes; I can't allow myself to go there more than once a month. I have posted my blog links there, but I don't know that anyone goes to Pinterest to look for blog posts.

SKA: My time is limited with the twins and writing so I really don't do much internet time-wasting. Our chats are—obviously—work, so that is clarified. I guess if I must choose one, I would go with Pinterest as well. I don't go on too often . . . maybe once a month? But when I do, I stay there for quite some time. The good thing is, even if I get nothing done, I sign out feeling like I'm the biggest DIY-er out there. The plans in my head are endless . . . I still have yet to do one project I thought of or try one recipe I liked from there. 

ER: I'm right with you on that one. I've made one cool project and have made laundry soap. Loved them both but now I'm burnt out. 

So what social media sites do you think are most valuable to your goals, personally and professionally?

SKA: I think Goodreads for sure, though I haven't been too active in the forums and such. Facebook and blogging suck most of my online time, but I think they're both also beneficial to my goals. I don't know, I like them, so I'm sticking to them for now.

ER: What do you think about people who are really disciplined about their social media time? Are they doing well, or are they missing out on things that may be time-sensitive? I think it would take twice as long to go through Facebook posts, tweets, or any online threads, if I only logged in once or twice per week. I mean, I know the world would keep spinning even if I didn't check in on Goodreads each day, but sometimes there is so much activity on the threads that it would be impossible to catch up if I missed more than one day.

SKA: I think I'm exhausted for them.

ER: Clearly, these people are abnormal and overly disciplined, don't you think?

SKA: Absolutely.

ER: It pretty much all boils down to using the sites you need, visiting the sites that are beneficial to you, and minimizing the use of those which yield no fruit. Last words on how to tame that monster?

SKA: Social media is a beast, but once you tame it you ARE the beast!

ER: Genius. Sheer genius. [Wipes away a tear.]

Next time, we'll be focusing on blogs. Our blogs, your blogs, everyone's blogs: what makes us visit them, and what makes us keep coming back. Well . . . I guess you'll have to come back to find out.

As always:

You can find S.K. Anthony in a number of places. She's on Twitter @SKathAnthony, her website is www.skanthony.com, her Facebook page is S Katherine Anthony, and on occasional occasions, she'll be right here with me, drinking coffee and laughing it up over our latest plans and schemes. And possibly even talking about books and writing. 

You can find me here. I'm always here.

If I Took MS Word at Its Word...

One of my favorite YouTubers is blimeycow. Jordan and his family are witty, sarcastic, and touch upon so many of my own pet peeves. Spelling creativity on the Internet is one of his big ones—so much so, in fact, that he's dedicated more than one video to the enlightenment of the more 'improvisational spellers' out there. Here's one of my favorites:

MORE Spelling Tips for the Internet

I don't like reading Facebook posts or email from people who can't spell, who use only texting/Internet shorthand, or who can't string together a coherent sentence, for the sole reason that it's distracting and irritating. (OK, that's not a sole reason. Two reasons, then.) I'm not talking about the occasional typo; I'm referring to genuinely awful writing. I find myself wondering if they have any idea how it looks to others,especially when I'm reading things poorly written by homeschooling friends.

Think about it. When we tell people we homeschool, we're telling them a couple of things, whether we've said the words aloud or not. 1. We prefer to teach our children, because we don't think the government schools are going to teach them what we think is important; 2. We're capable of doing a better job of it on our own. The second item is shot down immediately when we can't even express ourselves in print.

Don't get me wrong: I know the value of a good teacher's edition as well as the next person, but in my heart, I feel we should make every effort to not look like a bunch of inarticulate homegrown hicks who never made it through primary school. It's hard enough to dispel the homeschool myths others believe; why hand people more ammo to use against us? Most people who read my written words will never get to know me well enough to discern whether I'm a brilliant science-minded person who has a tough time with spelling, or someone they should actively prevent from voting in the next election. (For the record, I am neither.)

But I digress...

I've been thinking lately that word processing programs may be a teeny tiny bit to blame for the steady decline of good grammar and correct spelling. After all, not everyone texts, so I can't blame phones. Not everyone uses Twitter, so I can't blame the "only 140 characters" rule. However, students everywhere use word processing programs to do their school writing. My children are no exception. Only one of them is a naturally good speller, so I've been able to closely monitor the lack of good advice provided by MS Word as they do their language arts assignments.

I have a confession to make that may surprise some of you: I don't like using spell-check. There are many "real" words that just happen to not be the "correct" words for what I'm trying to say, and spell-check will never catch that. I especially don't like using a grammar program. When I first started using MS Word, I thought it was pretty cool that it not only had a spell-check feature, but also a thesaurus and a grammar-check. Cool, yes, until I actually used it. *shaking my head sorrowfully* So, so, so not cool anymore.

I've come to the conclusion that MS Word's grammar "help" feature was created by someone who knows nothing about grammar and punctuation. In fact, the suggestions are so entirely wrong that I'm beginning to suspect someone out there is having a good laugh at how he or she pulled one over on "The Man" by programming in grammar suggestions/corrections that are the complete opposite of correct. Perhaps the higher-ups at Microsoft don't know any better, but I'll bet their administrative assistants do.

My best guess is the scenario in which the Head Honcho in Charge of Word Processing Programs (yes, yes, I'm sure there is someone out there with exactly that title) attends a diversity seminar and comes home all fired up about hiring a bunch of people from all over the world so he can show he's not a bigot. It just so happens that the person he hires to create MS Word's grammar portion of the program does not speak English as a first, second, or third language. "Not a problem," says Head Honcho. "We'll just have you read through social media sites and learn English by immersion. I'm a genius!"

I have thought this through, and am firmly convinced this is exactly what happened. Why else would Word suggest I change "I'm" to "I are"? Or "it's" to "its" when I'm clearly using a conjunction to say "it is"? Those examples are small potatoes compared to what I've run across while editing a book.

One of these days, I'm going to take every suggestion MS Word puts forth and see what I end up with. Perhaps the next Kindle #1 download?