A couple of days ago I talked about boring content and today I saw a post from a friend on a social network recently that was mildly dissing Klout and Linkedin endorsements. My friend thought they were useless and trivial, a complaint I have heard often. I can agree with that assessment, after looking at what is identified as their most popular content.
But here's the thing: I'm pretty spread throughout the "social-verse." I use Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Google+, Youtube, etc. I write 6 blogs on various subjects, I have a Klout account and I get endorsements from a lot of people. My Klout account gives me some insight on what my score is based on. Most of what I see has to do with conent I consider important: a recent essay on FB, strings of discussion on Linkedin, links to significant articles on technology through Twitter and a handful of persona, humorous observations. It's not trivial to me and apparent it isn't to a large number of people.
And in the Linkedin endorsements, I have made a careful choice as to what subjects I want endorsements in and who I get them from. Every person who has endorsed me for a particular skill has actually worked with me in that capacity or has observed my work. I do keep getting endorsements for doing press releases, which I have not done for three years now, and I reject all of them, but the people endorsing me remember how well I used to do them, so that's nice.
My point here is that I am in control of my social network presence and, more importantly, I pay attention to my audience regarding the content I share. As a result, what I want to see disseminated widely is actually being disseminated widely and what is trivial to my life, which I avoid sharing, is not.
Social media is what you make of it. If it seems that your participation and response is trivial, that's not the fault of the mechanism. That is true for an individual and an organization. It's also why some succeed and some fail to make an impact in social networks.