

When Will The Social Sharing Button Madness Stop - craigagranoff
http://www.craigagranoff.com/blog_posts/social-bookmarking-and-sharing-buttons-when-will-the-madness-end/

======
bradleyland
This one is going straight in to the echo chamber. I doubt that anyone willing
to put 10+ social media icons on their blog is prepared to hear this argument.
Those of us who recognize how abhorant it is have already trimmed that list
down.

This disconnect stems from the difference in a core belief about design and
motivation. If you believe that sharing is driven by the mere opportunity to
do so, you're going to bury your blog in this stuff. If you believe that good
design sells itself, you'll prioritize good design in the belief that sharing
will follow naturally. This is the argument that must be made.

~~~
mark_integerdsv
Although I think your point about design is very astute, I disagree with your
assertion that those who need to hear this are lost cases.

I have seen some insanely huge, hover as you scroll social sharing panels on
blogs of people whom I consider to be luminaries in the field of technology
and design. Maybe it's a case of outsourcing the blog design or using
templates just because they are there... Let's face it: slapping together a
Wordpress template plus Disqus comments and some other frills then calling it
'web design' is all too common these days.

I think that getting some dialogue going on the topic is very worthwhile and I
ask that people like yourself, with such astute observations on the topic not
take the shoulder shrugging stance and speak out.

------
victork2
Not to mention if you care about the privacy of your users every share button
is a little tracking device that probes into your users habits and pages
visited. (Ghostery can help you see the extent of the tracking that is taking
place)

I get really mad at share buttons because there's no way to know beforehand if
you are going to get to a page filled with those.

From observation I came to a simple law about these share buttons: _the amount
of content is inversely proportional to the number of share buttons on the
page_.

~~~
esrauch
Regarding Ghostery, there is really no way of observing what is being logged
and what isn't on the server. Only some sort of legal inquiry can reveal that
(eg what happened with Facebook in Ireland)

You could also use noscript or disable third party cookies in browser settings
if you really don't want social media buttons.

~~~
superkerplunk
I've used AdBlock to disable iframes with URLs matching Like, Tweet buttons
etc. It has worked pretty well for me so far.

------
Groxx
It'll probably stop once this is implemented in browsers, so every article
declares a basic set of sharable info, and the social buttons install
themselves and read that info. Until then, every one is running in a sandbox,
they'll never share info, they'll never allow an intermediary, and they'll all
be competing for screen space and article install-base regardless of your
existence on a network or the number of networks.

I, for one, find it crazy that I can Like and maybe +1 a blog entry, but I
can't Pinboard it or ReadItLater or Orkut it without the _site_ implementing
those buttons, despite them all doing roughly the same thing with roughly the
same data.

~~~
blhack
Isn't this basically what bookmarklets are supposed to do?

Facebook's open graph tags are everywhere (you kindof need them to make "like"
work properly), and what you're describing could be implemented using a
javascript bookmarklet that read the tags.

~~~
Groxx
Well, kind of. Bookmarklets you have to click to use, and perform a strange
action to install. An integrated 'share' button could do more, like render
those Tweet +1 Like buttons inline, and show if you've already <verb>ed it.
And have an _infinitely_ larger install-base; in my mind, this would be built
in, and sites you can share to would register themselves with your browser,
which would make it a one-click operation for people.

But yeah. Pie in the sky. This would require Google and Facebook (aka, The
Internet) to give up absolute control over all that information, which they'd
probably fight unless it can demonstrate some other kind of gain.

------
theorique
If only each blog post or web site came with a unique address that enabled us
to copy and paste it and send it to people ... oh, wait. Never mind.

~~~
mark_integerdsv
Good point! It seems that what would make most sense is to move the sharing
buttons onto the browser, no?

Mobile Safari does a great job of this with the bookmark/mail link to this
page/add to home screen/etc. button, heck even Twitter is catered for as of
iOS5. Maybe if desktop browsers had similar functionality we'd see less of
this noise on the page.

Good deal that too: get the crud off the actual page and sacrifice but one
toolbar button that (like the search bar) has a pull down with all of your
selected networks. That makes it more elegant in appearance and opt-in by
default.

...seems so obvious, maybe there are already extensions for this?

~~~
nooneelse
The "share" icon/menu-item is very common in Android applications too. Seems
like the more modern apps and OS's are on top of this and desktop browsers
just need to catch up. Firefox does have a "Send link..." menu item, but that
appears to assume one means to use email... a somewhat dated assumption.

------
jugglinmike
I believe Web Intents (<http://webintents.org/>) are designed to address this
problem. Specifically:
<http://examples.webintents.org/intents/share/share.html>

~~~
groby_b
Yes, they are. They're in Chrome 19, if you're inclined to try them out, and
the Chrome Web Store already has a bunch of extensions that use them. (Search
for 'intents' or use the intent picker's suggestions)

------
dredmorbius
On webpages, I've lately taken some glee in using RIP (the Remove It
Permanently) plugin to permanently remove these buttons, and generally the
entire bleeding div or iframe they're associated with, from the page and site.

On my phone (android), I'm aggravated every time I want to mail a URL to
myself or someone else, as it's menu -> more -> share page -> select one of
the _THIRTEEN_ share options, including "Share via barcode" (WTF!?), and
finally be dropped into my email app. Compare with scroll to top of page ->
highlight url -> copy -> home key -> email -> compose. One more step but far
less fussy navigation.

And no, you cannot pick a default that will persist for future iterations of
the action.

On a desktop, it's a really simple double-click URL -> terminal -> type "mutt"
-> paste URL. When doing stuff that is repetitive I've even written short bash
functions to, say, mail myself Craigslist postings, including the URL, the
body of the post, and using the post title to write the mail subject line.
Trivial.

Yes, the SN crap is madness. Usually a good sign the end is near.

~~~
nooneelse
"Share via barcode" can be useful. Say you want to tell someone some contact
info for you, but neither of you currently have any contact info on the other.
If your phones have screens and can read barcodes, which I presume they can,
no need for one of you to say some number or email address while the other
types it in. One person just shares via barcode, and then the person that just
got that contact info shares theirs back using that contact info.

Also, emailing or texting links to someone right there at the table with you
contributes to needless inbox clutter.

------
ntkachov
I put those drasted things on my blog... and took them off when I re-did it.
God forbid that I spend hours fine tuning the loading of my site only to have
some facebook script take up 12 connections loading 6 different iframes into
the client.

Buttons make your site slow. The only button I have on my site is a twitter
follow button. And I kept that in there, begrudgingly, because it waits for
onload before it starts downloading all of its crud and is a one-off cost.

~~~
thenomad
It's a particularly irritating damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't
situation. Avoid using buttons on your site? Then, as another poster pointed
out, you don't get nearly as many shares, and your page views go down. Use
buttons on your site? They slow your page down and, yes, your page views go
down.

My experience is that with tweaking and sane numbers of buttons, b) costs you
less visitors than a), but it's still a pain in the posterior.

~~~
ntkachov
Personally, I don't care much about blog views. I write, you can read. If it
helps you, great. I'm not out to make money with my blog and as such I
couldn't care less about how many readers I have. I do, however, care a ton
about how fast it loads and how competently it is built because that reflects
entirely on me.

------
jemka
Those buttons do serve a very important purpose, which is to make it simple
for visitors to share information. The problem is "website designers" crossing
the line between providing the user with a tool to share information and just
plain using that tool to "market" or "coerce" visitors into sharing.

I run a few sites and I know first hand these buttons are used. What I'd like
to see are A/B tests on the various button layouts and designs to show their
affects on sharing.

~~~
Domenic_S
> Those buttons do serve a very important purpose, which is to make it simple
> for visitors to share information.

Isn't it simple enough already? I mean, can you see a case where a visitor is
like, "Man I'd love to share this post on Facebook, but opening up Facebook
itself is just too much trouble."?

~~~
jemka
>Isn't it simple enough already?

Pick one:

\- click a button & sign in (if not already signed in), & click share

OR

\- Find the permalink of the information you want to share (not always obvious
to people. e.g. the links my mom sends me via email), open the service you
want to use to share, log in, navigate to the area of the service responsible
for sharing information, paste the permalink, click share.

The buttons not only make it more easy and convenient they add a suggestive
quality. Especially if the buttons include # of shares indicating a form of
popularity.

So no, it's not a matter of something being "too much trouble" or "easy enough
already". It's much deeper and if you really knew people well, you'd know
there is no such thing as "easy enough already".

~~~
StavrosK
Those were my exact concerns, so I built a service to help:
<http://www.yourpane.com./>

The low-down is that you install a bookmarklet and add some contacts. When you
want to share a page, you click the bookmarklet, select the people you want it
to go to, and click share. That's all.

The recipients don't even need a YourPane account, they just get an email
saying that you sent them a link. It's basically very streamlined link
emailing.

------
webwanderings
"Personally, I think a blog can get away with a little row of four or five,
maybe six of these icons and that’s all."

That doesn't really solve the problem. one is one too many.

I believe Firefox tried to solve this problem, but it didn't go anywhere. It
seems logical that a standards based browser solution should be adopted across
the board, but ....

------
nollidge
I think a happy compromise might be to have a dropdown widget labeled "Share"
(perhaps with Twitter & Facebook icons to further afford meaning).

I've seen this in some places, but my pet peeve with those is that they
usually open up on mouseover, but then don't collapse on mouse leave. IMHO,
they should be click-activated ONLY.

------
xpose2000
The social buttons are here to stay because the people in charge are desperate
for traffic. That is the #1 reason, desperation. Sometimes they end up
including them 2 or 3 times on the same page. We can thank people like
mashable and huffington post for the bad habits.

Perhaps in a few years the madness will stop and people will focus more on
fast loading websites, good content, and a good user experience.

Or maybe I'm wishful thinking.

~~~
thenomad
Sorry to disagree here, but it's not quite that simple.

The buttons are here to stay because people want traffic and _buttons
measurably increase traffic_.

I hope that they get faster and more friendly, but until they stop providing a
traffic boost, bloggers will keep using them.

------
gbog
I am surprised no comment mentioned the real obvious solution to this sharing
issue: a user should not need to share based on the recipient, sharing should
be based on the emitter. I mean, if I am a Facebook user, I should just need
this share button. Then my friends on Google plus should see this share in
their stream. Just like emails: the social content should flow freely and
transparently between social content clients.

------
zavulon
I think AddThis(<http://www.addthis.com/>) solves this problem rather
efficiently.

~~~
jrabone
I think DNT+ (<http://abine.com/dntdetail.php>) also solves this problem...

~~~
isomorphic
I use the "Social Widgets" list subscription for Adblock Plus. Just add:

<https://monzta.maltekraus.de/adblock_social.txt>

...as a filter subscription in Adblock Plus and you'll stop seeing most of
these sorts of "share" buttons.

------
mutewinter
Apropos.

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/facebook_likes>

------
nakor
As soon as search engines stop caring. As it stands, they care. See:
[http://raventools.com/blog/forbes-reports-that-google-
plus-w...](http://raventools.com/blog/forbes-reports-that-google-plus-will-be-
universal-ranking-signal-then-pulls-the-article/)

------
j_s
The article doesn't really get into the privacy implications of loading so
many tracking beacons, but there are ways to compromise (2 clicks):

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2957119>

------
bane
Sounds like an opportunity for somebody to come in and write a "click once
share everywhere" button.

------
rollypolly

      Hit the big boys like Facebook (once, please), G+, Digg, etc.
    

No offense, but you lose some credibility mentioning Digg next to Facebook and
G+.

~~~
joelrunyon
Was a little confused about this too. Made me check the publishing date.

~~~
craigagranoff
I corrected the post, added twitter and struck thru digg

------
rhizome
This isn't really so much about sharing buttons as sharing itself.

~~~
craigagranoff
Yes, it was a rant I had after going to this other site, or sites for that
matter.

------
zotz
spud:~ zork$ less /etc/hosts

127.0.0.1 facebook.com

~~~
pluies_public
You're going to need way more than that for all their subdomains, CDN, CDN's
subdomains, etc. Not to mention having to keep it all up to date in case they
roll out a new domain.

That said, I use the same technique. :)

~~~
Produce
Perhaps someone should create a repo on github containing all of the social
sites' hostnames. _looking at you_

~~~
dredmorbius
Run a nameserver and be authoritative for the entire domain.

Redirect at will.

------
gcb
Anyone can share stats of the traffic those buttons bring BACK to your site?

