A search engine’s ultimate mission is to serve the most relevant information it can. But from a search perspective, the emergence of social media has essentially expanded what’s relevant.

While many refer to this subject matter as social media optimization (SMO), I prefer social search optimization due to the specificity. The end game is simple, and nothing new under the sun: maximizing the visibility of relevant content for those looking for it.

But First, a Real War Story

My good friend, Valerie, was recently looking for a job. In anticipation of the process, she updated her LinkedIn profile and did some house cleaning on her Facebook page.

Considering what any recruiter might do, she then did a Google search of her own name, and pow! The third search result was displaying a comment she made about a video within the Facebook page of the hit TV show, “Lost.”

Commenting about Sawyer (“the hot guy”) in the video, she wrote, “mmmmm, finger lickin’ good!” To her shock, those were the words displayed front and center in the search result, with a link to the video right under her good name.

This is specific to an individual, but we can probably all recall a popular pizza maker who experienced ugly search results tied to their name in a different way — yet still driven from social media.

Understanding Social Search: Two Sides

Social search varies in scope and definition, but most recognize it as the addition or inclusion of social content in the context of online search.

One side of social search is dedicated to understanding peoples’ search habits (online and offline) for the purpose of improving the user experience. Think about how juicy this subject matter might be to a company like Google, which is constantly testing and changing the waters (algorithm) to serve the most relevant search results.

With search now implementing social content within the results, social interaction design (SxD) enthusiasts continue analyzing what works and what doesn’t for people seeking information under various circumstances.

Brynn Evans, a respected thought leader in the field, has identified three categories of social search that fit this focus:

1. Collective Social Search: For example, Twitter Trends as a crowdsourcing approach to search via real-time “harvester” tools.
2. Friend-filtered Social Search: For example, Google Social Search, which yields results that may include tweets, blog posts, images, status updates and other results from your friends and contacts.
3. Collaborative: For example, Google’s acquisition of Aardvark, which enables two or more people working through an IM platform to get answers to questions).

Each of the three search types maintain a value unique from traditional, keyword-based search engines — ultimately relying on people (beyond Google PageRank) to deliver the most meaningful results.

The second side of social search, typically more applicable to marketing, is one of “social objects.” Social objects may consist of Facebook entries, YouTube videos, blog posts, comments, Flickr images, Yelp reviews, Scribd documents and much more.

Social objects are the elements that help drive conversations, and may consist of content directly indexed or associated through meta data (keywords that describe the content).

What Does it All Mean?

To reference Brian Solis’s viewpoint: The future of marketing starts with publishing, therefore every company is a media company. As you may have surmised, social objects are the new low hanging fruit of search optimization.

That means applying some of the same search engine optimization (SEO) strategies you’ve used on traditional web pages to applicable social objects. From smart keyword-targeted tags and titles (of your videos, pics, posts, etc.), to the effective use of keywords in comments and Facebook profile descriptions — your opportunity to optimize social assets for increased search visibility now abounds.

When I checked in to Room 214, I was not listed in the “Person/People Here Now” area at the top of our new Room 214 Places listing. However, a few of my colleagues did show up here:

Turns out, some users’ default privacy settings allows this information to be displayed by default, while some others (like myself) do not. If you go to your privacy settings (Account > Privacy Settings > Customize settings), you can see what your privacy settings are for Facebook Places. The difference between showing up in the “People Here Now” area or not depends on that one little “Include me in ‘People Here Now’ after I check in” checkbox. Personally, I don’t have any issue with having my friends being allowed to see where I am checked in, but the kicker here is the “and people checked in nearby” bit after that. Essentially, if you have this checkbox enabled, anyone on Facebook (all 500 million+ users) who is checked in nearby can see where you are and when exactly you are there. That is definitely something you will want to consider when thinking about your Facebook privacy.

On top of that issue, the other big thing we immediately noticed was the ability to check in your friends for them. With or without their permission. The screenshot below is an example of exactly what I’m talking about – I had nothing to do with that particular check-in that Wendy posted. This can be particularly troublesome if you’re wanting to stay off the grid and not let people know exactly where you are at any given time. I mean, think of how pissed Batman would be if Robin was always checking in for him all over Gotham City.

That being said, you have the option to disable this feature. Go to your privacy settings and scroll down to the “Things others share” section and then disable  “Friends can check me in to Places”. Pretty simple.

These new options in your privacy settings will have a huge impact on your privacy. Make sure you set them appropriately to your own comfort level. Facebook Places is going to be huge and will definitely not be going away any time soon. There is no doubt in my mind that many, many users are going to be furious with Facebook Places if the uproar over past privacy concerns is any indication. Facebook users even go crazy over minor cosmetic changes to the News Feed.

Facebook places, powered by Bing Maps (Microsoft is looking smarter and smarter for this search partnership) has a real opportunity to compete with Google Places as the go-to for local business listings and information. Oh yeah, Foursquare? Best of luck to ya.

Just make sure that you are smart with your own privacy settings with Facebook Places.

I have to admit, there are some pretty innovative Foursquare campaigns out there that help drive traffic and sales for local businesses. But what about entertainment brands? Bravo was the first TV network to partner with Foursquare and, according to Mashable, is one of the top five brands on the platform. They offer tips from their “Bravolebrities” on restaurants, bars, and stores.

History Channel provides Foursquare users with historical facts about locations they check-in to around the country.

MTV took some of their hottest celebs (DJ Pauly D anyone?) and gathered their tips and stories from local hot spots to share with fans.

All of these campaigns are missing something. The bottom line! If you’ve spent any time in the entertainment industry, you know it’s all about ratings and advertising dollars. None of these Foursquare campaigns contribute to that bottom line, because they don’t push traffic to the networks’ websites and they don’t encourage tune-in.  Branded Foursquare campaigns are far from cheap, and we have yet to see any published results from these entertainment campaigns to suggest they’re worthwhile for the brand.

A recent Forrester study finds that only 4% of U.S. online adults have ever used a service like Foursquare. These users skew heavily male and are most receptive to coupons and offers. My conclusion? Leave Foursquare for the retail-based brands.

Don’t get me wrong. I find the History Channel Foursquare tips very cool, and I always want to know what The Situation is doing, but these campaigns are not going to make me tune-in.

What are your thoughts?

A few weeks ago, Paul Adams of Google put out a truly insightful analysis of our online social spheres. He explores how our online connections differ from our offline ones, how we identify friends (as opposed to connections), who we are truly able to keep tabs on, and how all of these things collide in the online space. He argues that targeting people based on perceived influence ignores that we are most connected with roughly 3-10 people who we truly trust. Based on this, it could better serve brands to focus on the breadth of marketing messages, and not individual influencer outreach, to actually impact the end consumer.

And Do You Listen to Them?

This is a scenario that is somewhat contrary to the way we build connections on Twitter. Twitter is not comprised of our inner circle. We are likely to have multiple degrees of separation from some of the people we follow. Paul points out that proximity is more important than perceived overall influence, so hitting multiple people with fewer connections may be the best way to influence the end user. We trust those with close proximity to us more than we trust those who have “influence”, which would suggest that examining Facebook connections is a greater indicator of a sphere of influence.

Trust vs. Influence

Here’s a question, though: Is there a difference between people who influence us and people who we trust? And if there is, how might you hone product or brand outreach based on that?

Klout, the current hot influencer score, takes into account number of followers, importance of followers, reach of information and velocity of information, among other things. It does not, however, take into account quality of information or impact of information. I may retweet Lance Armstrong, but I’ll likely buy a bike shoe that my boyfriend loves. So are there types of information that spread better through influence, and types that spread better through trust?

Identifying Many Kinds of Influencers

A recent review of our  influencer outreach here at Room214 led us to determine that, in entertainment, we were dealing with two types of influencer: the Identified Influencers and the Eager Masses. Under these two separate strategies, we’re reaching out the the people who have big voices and spread through Influence, as well as smaller individuals who are simply excited about entertainment products and spread to friends through Trust . In one, we hone and personalize. In the other, we give access to many people who, through their simple passion, have the ability to spread the word.

Every industry is different, but I think it’s important to start to acknowledge the importance of the voice of the everyday (and often quite passionate) consumer.

What I found most interesting about the new feature was its endlessness.  If you do “Like” a Recommended Page you are not sent to its landing page, but stay on your home News Feed.  Within seconds, the “liked” page fades away and is replaced by a new band, movie, brand, etc. that you’ve loved for years.  If you get tired of “liking” every pick Facebook throws at you, you also have the option of removing a recommendation.  In which case, a new winner pops right up.

I find this perpetual perfectness of picks to be addicting, and I don’t think I’m the only one. This is great news for page managers of any kind.

Before this change, Pages were only able to recruit new ”people who ‘like’ this” through person-to-person interaction.  You had two options:

1. invite your friends to a page you “liked”
2. notice a page your friend “liked”–either on your News Feed or on their  personal profile.

If you didn’t have a friend who had already “liked” the page, you would not be able to “like” it yourself unless you searched for it.

By adding Recommended Pages, “likes” are now generated through what could be called public-to-person interaction.  The pages recommended to you are not only things your friends “like”, but also pages specific to your current likes and interests. These pages are decided by the actions and overall behavior of Facebook’s 400 million users. Recommended Pages are in-your-face, accurate, and seemingly infinite.

What does this mean for businesses, bands, and celebrities?  It means an influx of “likes” from a demographic most suited to liking your product, music, or career.  It means customers and fans more likely to be influential brand advocates. Most importantly, it means constant, incredibly-targeted marketing that doesn’t cost you a dime.

How much of an effect do you think Recommended Pages will have?  Do you find them intriguing or annoying?

Preface

In part 1 of this tutorial we walked through obtaining an oAuth 2.0 access token from Facebook via an iPhone (or any iTouch device).  If you wish to go back and review the oAuth 2.0 process in some detail HERE.

Facebook Login and Extended Permission Dialogs

In the second part of this tutorial I’ll show you how to leverage my pseudo-API to:

• Login to Facebook using oAuth 2.0
• Request extended permissions for your mobile application (photos, videos, publish stream and offline access)
• Get your profile data
• Get your friend list
• Get your feed
• Post to your feed
• Post a photo (via a local image (UIImage) not a url)
• Get metadata
• Delete a feed post (via a Post)
• Get search results
• Get (and display) the author’s avatar

Convention

There are 2 APIs being talked about in this tutorial. To avoid confusion, I’m going to refer to them consistently as Facebook’s  ‘Graph API’ and my ‘pseudo-API’*.  Facebook’s Graph API is the stuff we’re interacting with via HTTP Get and Post calls.  The pseudo-API is the Objective-C/iPhone code that’s facilitating the interaction.

*-I call it a pseudo-API if for no other reason I haven’t proven to myself it supports 100% of the Facebook Graph API functions.

An aside about my API design philosophy:  I could have written the pseudo-API to be much more robust and feature rich, with exceptions, logging, auto-magical json parsing, full featured functions like ‘getMyWallFeed’, etc.  However with robustness and features comes complexity and dependencies.  I kept everything aside from the absolute core functionality required to read/write data from/to the Facebook Graph API out of this implementation.  In short, I’ve left it primitive enough that anybody should be able to extend/wrap it easily, if they see fit.

The pseudo-API has only 3 classes.  The core functionality lies in the FbGraph.m file.  The other two classes support this core class.  FbGraphFile is used when uploading a file to Facebook.  FbGraphResponse is, I would hope, self-explanatory.

We’re going to skip over the steps required to create a Facebook application.  I covered that in Part 1:  iPhone, Facebook, oAuth 2.0 and the Graph API.  A Tutorial.  If you completed part 1 of the tutorial, you can use the same Facebook application without modification here.

Sample Code:

http://github.com/reallylongaddress/iPhone-Facebook-Graph-API

Creating the FbGraph Object

Before we can interact with the Graph API, we need to make a connection to it. And before we make a connection to it, we need a FbGraph object instance.  We do so like:

self.fbGraph = [[FbGraph alloc]initWithFbClientID:client_id];

Where:

FbGraph *fbGraph;

And

NSString *client_id = @"123145257717248";

The client_id should be YOUR Facebook application id.  I’ve left my application ID in here for no other reason than the tutorial code will work ‘out of the box’.

The login process

Now we have our fbGraph object instance, we’ll want to ask Facebook for a login screen.  Additionally we’ll need to let Facebook know the extended permissions we’re requesting for our app.  Here’s the code to do that:

[fbGraph authenticateUserWithCallbackObject:self andSelector:@selector(fbGraphCallback:) andExtendedPermissions:@"user_photos,user_videos,publish_stream,offline_access"];

There are 3 major things to note in this line (found in oAuth2TestViewController).

1)  We’re asking the fbGraph object to initialize the authentication process by calling the function: authenticateUserWithCallbackObject

2)  We’re setting a callback object (self) and a callback function (fbGraphCallback).   This object and function will be called upon completion of the oAuth authentication process.

3)  We’re requesting extended permissions:@”user_photos,user_videos,publish_stream,offline_access”

When this function is called, the pseudo-API will find the root application window**, stick in a UIWebView, and ask Facebook for a login screen (passing along your client_id and requested extended permissions):

NSString *url_string = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/authorize?client_id=%@&redirect_uri=%@&scope=%@&type=user_agent&display=touch", facebookClientID, redirectUri, extended_permissions];

**-There’s a second authenticateUserWithCallbackObject function that allows you to specify a specific view you wish the login screen to be anchored/rendered in, if you don’t want it to render within the root view of your application.  Look at the FbGraph class for further details.

Note the ‘display=touch’ parameter.  It tells Facebook we’d like a login screen optimized for an iPhone/iPod touch screen.

Now that the process is started the UIWebView will render the login window that Facebook has returned to us.

After you’ve successfully authenticated to Facebook, you will be presented with a second screen with an extended permissions request dialog.  2 things to note here:  First, all permissions are unified into a single step.  Second, after you’ve approved the permissions, you won’t have to complete this step or see this screen again (so long as you don’t revoke the permissions).

Under the Hood of the Authentication Process

There’s some http redirects involved with the oAuth 2.0 (User-Agent flow) login process.  The FbGraph object is a UIWebViewDelegate, one of the functions associated with this delegate class is: webViewDidFinishLoad.  This function is called several times during the authentication process.  When the URL contains “access_token=” we’re golden.  We’ve successfully logged into Facebook.  When the pseudo-API sees this string, it parses out our oAuth access token, stores it to a class level variable, removes the UIWebView we inserted and finally calls the callback function we defined, returning control to your application.

The Rest of the Pseudo-API

The core of the pseudo-API is about 250 lines of code (including whitespace and comments), which is very little indeed.  This is possible because the Facebook Graph API does everything via simple HTTP Gets and Posts.  In fact, once you’ve figured out how to do Get and Post with the Graph API, you’ve pretty much figured out everything.

If you’re familiar with the current Facebook Connect implementation, you’ll immediately notice Graph API is immeasurably less complex and more consistent.

So, I could go through and explain how everything works in painful (and highly repetitive) detail…but I’m going to peace out, let you read over the code, dissect it, add some breakpoints and get your hands dirty.

FYI:  There is very intentionally very little UI in the app. Rather than having you, the reader, have to figure out my UI conventions as well as Interface Builder, I’ve kept it simple and dumped most all output to the debugger console.  The code is simple, the pseudo-API is simple, the Graph API is simple……

I hope you take a look at my pseudo-API and agree, it’ simple…that’s the idea.

If you find this post useful, if you include this code or the concepts you learned here in an app, if you extend this into a more full featured API….I’d love to know!

Happy hacking.

Dominic

ddimarco@room214.com

@dominicdimarco

Sample Code:

http://github.com/reallylongaddress/iPhone-Facebook-Graph-API

I opened Facebook this morning and as 10,000 others did in the last hour, saw and clicked on the talking mint. I was kicked over to a “Like us” landing page and clicked the like button.

I then agreed to install the mentos coupon app (and let it have access to my friends and profile information). After that, I was sent out of Facebook to SmartSource coupons which for security and fraud prevention wanted to run / install a java apple, promising coupons afterward.

Coupons may or may not print. Around this point I began to remember the portion of behavioral economist Dan Ariely’s ‘Predictably Irrational‘ that dealt with the lengths people are willing to go to for “Free.” “Free” is like a bug zapper for consumers. You may know better, but it’s not likely you’ll be able to stop yourself. These free Mentos were becoming more and more of a bother. I flipped back to Mentos Facebook wall to see how excited everyone else was about their free mentos…

The Mentos page admin seems to be on top of the situation, changing the profile picture over to a text explanation of the expiration date (there was also confusion about the coupons expiring yesterday instead of a month from now.) While writing this post, 10,000 more users have “liked” Mentos. How far would you go for free candy?

Throwing money into the abyss?

I was quite excited when Kiva first opened its (virtual) doors. Kiva harnessed the power of storytelling, as well as ease of online payment, to help online individuals make a difference they felt connected to. I was equally excited when I watched the rise of crowdsourced funding in the startup world. I believe there is value in this. I know some people who argue that it’s just like buying a lottery ticket; you’re putting in money with no real chance at return. I like the idea, however, of supporting projects that I see as having social value but are not in the non-profit sector.

Small money to big money

So I gave money to Diaspora, the damn-the-man Facebook rival that got some attention this spring. A small part of me wanted the t-shirt that came at the $25 donation level so I could sport it like an indie band shirt. A large part of me was simply excited by the fresh-thinking college boys who were going up against a giant. At $25, I wasn’t in for much, so I committed. It turns out that 6,478 other people felt the same way. The project came it at 2006% of its original goal.

Let the crowd decide

Diaspora utilized Kickstarter, a website that allows startups to raise funding through micro-payments. Here’s why I think Kickstarter has it right: The model is set up so that, if a startup hits its goal, donors are charged. If it doesn’t hit its goal, the assumption is that the idea isn’t strong enough to fund, and no donors are charged. Neat. It takes the wisdom of the crowd and applies it to projects.

So now this idea is hitting public radio. Why is this so incredibly cool? Because individuals can pitch stories, multiple individuals can provide funding, and then a professional produces it. Many ideas are pitched, only the good ones get funded, and we all enjoy a better public radio. To me, this is huge incentive to fund. I’d certainly prefer to give money for a story than to give money for an NPR tote bag.

By any measure, the World Cup is a pretty big deal. 2010’s games will land among the most watched sporting events in history. This time it’s not just about eyes on televisions, though. The last time the world cup came around, Facebook had about 7.5 Million users. Twitter was less than three months old with 500 users. This time? Twitter is peaking at ~3,000 tweets per second when goals are scored.

The experience for the non-attending fan is far richer than before. Aggregators like tweetbeat add context and commentary while watching matches (especialy with the sound off). Location-based networks are helping to bring fans together in the real world. I set off on a rainy Satruday morning to catch the first U.S. match vs England. Foursquare let me know which bars and restaurants the largest groups of people were gathered at and which teams they supported. I ended up at the Drafthouse, which happened to have the biggest U.S. crowd.

For matches during which I’ve been away from televisions and computer, I’ve been using the new version of Hot Potato. This service offers threaded discussions with people who are having the same experience as I am. I was happy when notifications (SMS or Push) became available for sports scores; I’m even happier now with my fully interactive experience. Although the games are taking place 9,000 miles and 8 time zones away, I’m having a better time than I’ve had attending other sporting events in person. [Go USA!]

I recently caught up with Gary for a podcast, and am sharing a condensed version of our discussion with you as part of this post. Additionally, I’ve included my “Top 5 Things to Know” based largely on my experience and discussions with Lauren Maynard, who works with the tool almost daily as Room 214’s Director of Research.

Social-Media-Monitoring-Podcast-With-Crimson-Hexagon

Podcast Show Notes
1. We discuss the original intent of Crimson Hexagon’s technology, and Gary references the “disaster” of attempting to use documented practices for extracting meaning from large volumes of textual content.

2. Gary discusses how Crimson Hexagon overcame the challenges associated with common linguistic analysis by developing something I have come to refer to as their “proportional estimate” methodology.

3. I ask about the accuracy of data and validation methodology. Gary explains in detail.

Note: Gary sometimes refers to posts, tweets, blogs, etc as “documents.” Between his knowledge of the subject matter and natural train of thought, you may find yourself needing to listen to certain sections more than once. The last two minutes of the podcast, when he talks about people/messages basically saying the same thing over and over again, are my favorite.

The Top 5 Things You Need to Know about Crimson Hexagon
I’d like to quickly preface this by saying Room 214 is a tool-agnostic agency. My objective is not financial compensation from Crimson Hexagon for saying nice things about them or even selling their offerings.

It is instead to evaluate, recommend, use and help optimize business intelligence and social media monitoring tools from any number of technology providers my agency deems praiseworthy. This is the best way we know how to continue matching effective solutions to our clients’ requirements (ok, end of my pitch).

1. Crimson Hexagon Accounts for Consumer Variation

Consideration of varied language use is important because it can vary greatly by consumer segment. For example, 12 year olds and 45 year olds might describe something they love very differently, but at the core their statements are both saying, “We love this” or “We are going to watch this.” Identification and categorization of both types of conversation is valuable.

2. Crimson Hexagon Research Enables a Thesis

Using the same set of keywords, and assuming a given volume of subject matter, a question can be asked and subsequently answered. Example: For a TV show, questions ranging from intent to view to sentiment reaction can be answered. Most tools require manual sorting through piles of posts based on keywords and inferred trends. Crimson Hexagon can factually and correctly capture trends pertaining to the question being asked within a given set of posts.

3. Crimson Hexagon Enables the Training of Their Algorithm

We have been at this kind of work (leveraging social media business intelligence and monitoring tools) for about three years, so can appreciate that many of these tools are essentially in their infancy. Still, it wasn’t that long ago we joked about providers needing to activate the “army of midgets” behind the Wizard of Oz curtain in order to get calibrations/adjustments done due to poor data filtering or off-target monitoring.

Today, one of our favorite things about Crimson Hexagon is the ability to make their tools work more effectively without the need to give them a call. This is a huge time saver, allows us to better optimize the tools for relevant results and positions our analysts in the driver’s seat when it comes to delivering value.

4. Crimson Hexagon Helps Narrow the Research

The first steps of keyword refinement are made easier with Crimson Hexagon’s visualizer functionality. The visualizer helps us understand how to better narrow a search, and may even reference items that might be missing. This has made our process more efficient, providing automated assistance towards cleaner, more targeted results.

5. Crimson Hexagon Understands Customer Service

This might sound cliché, but we are all basically in the customer service industry (living in the “thank you economy”). We have somewhat of a unique partnership, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that Crimson Hexagon responds to us very quickly. We’ve had other “partners” that didn’t. This makes a huge difference, because the more we use their tools, the more we need to work through nuances. They have consistently demonstrated a willingness to help refine searches, take feedback and give tips and insights with respect to updates.