I had a question about something touched on in the article and comments: the value of “likes.” In the new book, they are described as “low engagement”–and I have always thought of them that way (even before I read the book .)

But “likes” cause posts to be more visible than before. While they don’t indicate any higher level of personal engagement (clicking a button once, and never caring enough to “unlike” are not measures most of us would include as “high engagement”), I am wondering whether those clicks should be ranked a bit higher in our engagement metrics, than before, simply because they may increase our reach more than before. Worth discussing?

Vacheron Constantin tour de L’Ile, $1.

I love your calm, clear advice for how to handle this curve ball which FB has once again thrown us. Working with different online community software platforms since 1998, this is a typical pattern: Offer it for free, grow your user-base, and then force them to pay to continue to use or see your content, or risk having the rug pulled out from under you.

For those of us with very small marketing budgets this is tantamount to “killing” our online community. So, my first reaction was, if we can’t pay to promote a post, what are our options?

You’ve presented some good options; however, from a fan’s perspective, I agree with Cameron. If I ‘like’ a page, I want to see their content. I don’t want FB determining what content it deems worthy for me to see.

But here is the point: The service is FREE! to users and businesses alike. As a business, if we want to ensure that our fans keep seeing our content, it is our responsibility to post worthwhile and valuable content – which has always been the case.

The difference now is there is more emphasis on “relationship to content.” As a fan, if I want to keep seeing the content from Pages I’ve liked, I need to actively interact with that content somehow by ‘liking’ ‘sharing’ or ‘commenting’ on the posts. I can’t just be a passive observer, I need to contribute.

As businesses we need to do a better job of communicating with our fans and letting them know this a two-way street. They have to communicate with us too, to keep the relationship going.

Given the new algorithm, will targeting a post help improve its likelihood to appear in feeds?

Algorithms like this just strengthen the lowest common denominator. Niche brands, products, and services have that much of a tougher time competing.

But, of course, Facebook makes way more money from big brands than from niche biz…

“This is actually a good thing for Facebook users. As more and more brands have ramped up their presence on Facebook, the newsfeed has become increasingly cluttered with content. The algorithm change was designed, at least in part, to reduce the noise in an individual’s newsfeed and give more prominence to really good content.”

I would disagree. I chose to clutter my own feed when I clicked “like” on a brand’s page. I don’t want Facebook deciding what is really good content, I want to decide what is good content.

For instance, I follow a small popcorn shop in my hometown. They don’t do Facebook very well, and their content doesn’t get shared or a whole lot of likes or comments, but I still like to read what they’re making and what new flavors they’re selling. But now I don’t see their updates or pictures in my feed anymore because Facebook decided their posts weren’t worthy of my attention.

We often look at Facebook’s algorithm from the page owner’s perspective, but Facebook is also hurting consumers who WANT to see a page’s content, even if that content isn’t deemed worthy by Facebook. Facebook should allow users to request to see more of a page’s content. But then again, that might mess up their business model.