Facebook and dissemination of warnings, critical information

[Dan Robinson]

I manage two weather-related Facebook pages. Over the past few months, I've seen a dramatic decrease in the number of people that see the posts, especially now that Facebook has rolled out promoted posts. With many entities using Facebook to get the word out on warnings, watches and weather hazards, this is significant.

Facebook shows page admins how many people have seen the posts you've made. During the last 2 weeks, most of my page posts are reaching less than 5-10 percent of the total 'likes' to the pages. This includes instances where I've posted time-sensitive information meant to give a heads up on weather conditions.

With the NWS and many TV mets integrating Facebook into their dissemination of warnings and information, this is a troubling development. It appears that for the time being, everyone should use a service like Twitter to ensure that critical information is reaching the audience.

There is no way around Facebook's recent changes. The selecting of the 'show in news feed' on your page settings does not work any longer. In past weeks, I don't even see some of my pages' posts in my own news feed! This weekend I'll be shifting the social media emphasis on my online presences from Facebook to Twitter.

 

[Jeff Duda]

When I chased in the Texas panhandle last month and we got on a tornadic cell, I got a text message sent via the Lubbock WFO telling me I was in a tornado warning. I'm not subscribed to anything relating to the Lubbock WFO, so I was impressed to see my phone get a message telling me about the threat. It even made a different sound on my phone and the text was a different color. I would think all WFOs should do that. It's the most convenient since you don't need to apply or subscribe to anything to get the word.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

When I chased in the Texas panhandle last month and we got on a tornadic cell, I got a text message sent via the Lubbock WFO telling me I was in a tornado warning. I'm not subscribed to anything relating to the Lubbock WFO, so I was impressed to see my phone get a message telling me about the threat. It even made a different sound on my phone and the text was a different color. I would think all WFOs should do that. It's the most convenient since you don't need to apply or subscribe to anything to get the word.

Jeff -- were these WEA messages? The FCC is working with providers to push emergency alerts (including severe weather warnings) to cell phones . See http://www.ctia.org/consumer_info/safety/index.cfm/AID/12082 for more information. If what you had was a WEA message, then you should look forward to getting those from any tornado warning should your phone happen to be connected to a cell tower that's within a tornado warning area. [I think WEA activations are done on a tower-by-tower basis -- I may be incorrect).

 

[Jeff Duda]

I have absolutely no idea, Jeff.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Case in point, this morning I posted a "heads up" about freezing rain in the northern USA to the icyroadsafety.com FB page. Right now the page has 151 likes, and only 19 people saw that post. Pretty useless for trying to raise awareness of an issue or try to keep people informed.

 

[Morgan Palmer]

I think WEA alerts are great, but NWS and local agencies need to be very careful about what they send, lest people think of it as a "cry wolf" message. Certainly there shouldn't be any Amber Alerts sent through WEA. (I'm all for finding missing children, but I don't think "Child Abduction Emergencies" belong on the NWS network in the first place.)

Properly used, WEA alerts are exactly what polygon warnings were meant for, and could be a great thing... so long as they're truly used for actual emergencies.

I might suggest WEA alerts not be used for tornado warnings (dime a dozen in parts of the plains), but instead for "Tornado Emergencies."

 

[Shane Adams]

I couldn't agree more with Dan. In fact, we received the email notice from FB last night that our "fan" page (which I scheduled for deletion a few weeks back) was to be terminated today. The reason we killed it? Exactly what Dan mentioned. We had 749 "likes" and for the weeks I tracked it, the most views any post received was about 130. Pathetic. Facebook has devolved into something that caters to the type of people who like to build storefronts for attention but have no desire/plans to do anything with it. It's now tailor-made for all those "Super Storm Team" type pages that get their rocks off on seeing how many "likes" they can generate, while simultaneously generating ZERO content. If you want to get "likes" to build self-esteem, Facebook is your place. If you want to move forward with actual content/business type ventures, I'd suggest moving to Twitter or back to the traditional website itself.

I used to loathe Twitter because of the character limits and relative aesthetic "blandness" compared to FB, but have come to realize it's much more powerful when it comes to actual ACCOMPLISHING things. These days, I've whittled my FB page down to real-world friends/acquaintances only, and basically post whatever I want because I honestly no longer value my FB account or the reputation it gets me. Twitter is where I pass along the things that really matter.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

This is interesting. Yesterday there was a post on my personal Facebook wall from a place that was posting photos of something they were selling, and in their post they basically reflected Dan's statement. "Since not everyone is seeing our posts...." is how it began. I have also been wondering why I would post something on my fan page and would get so little views. Thanks to Dan for bringing attention to this. I've never really messed with Twitter, but maybe it's worth looking into to stay truly connected to followers.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

The thing with Facebook is that even though people like a page, it isn't a guarantee they will see your posts. Facebook only allows content to be shown to about 15% of people who like your page for free. After that you have to pay to promote a post to get everyone seen. That's complete BS if you ask me. So much for the promises that FB would remain free...

 

[rdale]

People using Facebook as their source of weather information really don't care about their safety in the first place.

WEA alerts do include Amber, but they can be turned off separate from emergency alerts. The big problem with WEA: they do NOT use the polygon, but are county based. Problem 2 - Flash Flood Warnings are required to be sent, even in areas where FFWs are used just for urban puddles. Nothing like waking someone up at 3am to alert about some traffic detours to get WEA turned off forever on that phone.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Not sure if they changed this, but severe thunderstorm warnings are NOT included in the WEA... even if they are for "destructive winds" that far exceed the typical warning threshold... or extremely large hail. Like Rob said, I'd be kind of pissed to wake up to a flash flood warning (or even lake effect snow warnings, which are included), but not the threat of confirmed bowling-ball sized hail, or winds of 100mph.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I finished making the cutover to Twitter today. I think these new developments are a stark reminder of the importance of having a web 'anchor presence' that is in your complete control, IE a web site/blog - an online 'homestead' that is completely free from corporate interests. I suppose Facebook's latest decisions shouldn't come as a complete surprise, and neither will Twitter be immune to the same problems sometime down the road.

The prevalence of social media as a realtime info source isn't one to scoff at. Most people I know are probably as likely to see a FB or Twitter post as an SMS text. That's just from observing how many are tied to their phones day in and day out. Anyway, the point being, if there was ever any hope of using Facebook as one of many paths to get critical information to people, it's out the window now.