P.S. I like the RSS Graffiti application. We have used Yahoo Pipes to accomplish similar functions, but have switched to RSS Graffiti on some of our own pages. It’s easy to use and works well. I’m looking forward to combining Pipes and RSS Graffiti for greater control and customization of feed content.

@heather: Although I been a Mashable reader for a very very long time I often find myself frustrated reading Mashable. Every so often I also express my frustration in comments. I discovered your blog through the “Mashable Changes its Facebook Posting Strategy” and it really catches my attention because it gives me a a different angle to “the Mashable question”. Although you are right about Mashable’s writers not engaging in conversation, I never really had noticed it. My main focus and complaint about Mashable lately (last year or so) is that more often than not I read stories that seem to be “paid for”, or anyway mainly serving some “greater purpose”, other than giving me information. I mean that I -annoyingly often- see stories that concentrate on creating an impression and shaping opinion about a brand and always wonder “why am I reading this?!”. Of course I see Mashable from a distance and -in its own field- it’s been a great success. Even for a dissatisfied reader like me, Mashable still is among the main sources of information about “all things social”. Mashable (at least in a commercial level) is following what I prefer to call “the edge of the web” (instead of just “social web”) and despite it’s flows it still gives you a good feeling of what’s going on there. So I’m really curious to see how this evolves. After all Mashable started as just another blog but in many ways it’s not “just another blog” anymore. Thanks for this story.
Yannis

@msherr – I love our chats as well! I’m not here to argue, I just like talking about this stuff and enjoy learning through talking through various points/opinion. Like I said in the beginning, I don’t think we’re coming at this from opposite sides, just varying view points and I think that’s ok and even good.

From my perspective, I think the commenting/responding piece equates to an administrative decision and follow-through which can be handled many ways. Along the same lines of what Katie suggests: If you have several admins, have them take responsibility for the posts they push up to Facebook, monitor them, and ‘sign’ with their initials.

Bank of America help (@BofA_Help on Twitter, not Facebook) does this in their interactions which are managed by six customer service employees sharing a singular account.

From a brand/brand perception standpoint, the approach seems impersonal and more of a way of getting the fan-based activity to occur to ensure stories get pushed into users’ feeds as opposed to authentic conversation that Mashable is encouraging. Of course there is value in the fans interacting with each other. I don’t think Heather’s intention was to make a blanket statement about participating in the conversation as a standalone statement. In my opintion, it’s the approach as a sum of its parts that feels off-brand for a trusted social media source like Mashable. My honest interpretation was that the Facebook Fan Page must have been outsourced and just wasn’t being watched by Mashable.

It’s only fair and respectful to note that I’m a huge Mashable fan and reader of its content (and will continue to be). Maybe that’s why the Facebook Fan Page approach seemed so ‘off.’

Thank you for responding. It’s reassuring to know that you are attuned to conversations about the Mashable brand. You have been a trusted resource to social media professionals and participants as the space is ever evolving.

The admin commenting issue you mention is definitely a challenge. We, and our clients, struggle with it as well. The best solution we’ve seen so far is admins signing their comments with their name or initials. It comforts fans to feel real people are there listening and engaging.

As for the asking questions but then not participating in the comments – I think it depends. A blanket statement saying that that’s bad is a little heavy handed. There’s a lot of community managers who’ll tell you that part of building a community is getting it to the point where it’s a thing of it’s own. The questions might be interaction bait, but I don’t think the conversation is lessened because Mashable itself isn’t participating. They bring up a topic, and let the community talk amongst itself. That’s not inherently bad. The nature of their business is to provide information and a structure/framework for a community to exist. They’re not in and of themselves a “product” or “business” in the way that we look at it normally.

I’m not saying they can’t or shouldn’t weigh in every so often, especially if the discussion is about them specifically. I just don’t think it’s a bad thing that mashable is essentially bringing together 33 people (comments) who are interested in a topic and talking to each other about it.

Thanks for this feedback – it’s super useful and we do indeed intend to engage more in our Facebook posts. The challenge with Facebook is that, contrary to what you mention above, page admins cannot reply with their personal accounts on our Facebook pages – all comments get posted as “Mashable”. This becomes extremely confusing when multiple admins want to weigh in on a topic, but the updates appear to be coming from one faceless person. We’re hopeful that Facebook will at some point allow us to post as ourselves, rather than using a single admin account for all admins, which makes it difficult to conduct conversations. If you know a way to do this, please do help us out.