The Human Touch

October 30, 2008 | Posted by: Thea Roberti

Anyone who has worked with me (and has been subjected to my maniacal rants on this issue) knows that I am a big proponent of human versus automated media analysis - at least as it applies to the world of traditional media. As we all know by now, however, social media requires a different mindset - not only from a strategic and tactical PR perspective, but from a measurement/analysis perspective as well.

The sheer volume of social media and vastly different metrics associated with social media lend themselves - and in some cases require - a certain level of automated analysis. The blending of that automated analysis with the necessary and appropriate level of human analysis, specifically as it relates to social media, is a topic that is currently getting air time in the measurement community.
Two recent blog posts do a good job of discussing this. Metrica's Measurement Matters blog contains a recent entry from Paul H. who sums up his opinion on the situation as follows:

"Are computers as good as humans for analysis - no. Would I trust a computer to measure my most important media - no. However for getting a litmus test on the ‘long tail' be it social media or competitor benchmarking then there is a definite use for automated analysis. Finally I feel that this is not a black and white issue - it is not a straight choice of computers vs humans. Why not get the best of both worlds with a hybrid model. An emphasis on humans for the important stuff with more automation combined with a certain amount of human checking for the rest."

In PR in Canada's blog, Christie Adams further underscores this sentiment in her post The Greatest Social Media Measurement Tool? People. Adams suggests that a hybrid model is not just a good idea, but rather that it is an absolute necessity:

"Technology has advanced to the point where it truly needs human interaction to achieve its full potential," asserts Adams, "Programs can identify patterns and tally totals of user behaviour, but they can't, and may never, explain the psychology behind it. Communicators-those who essentially interpret human behaviour as a livelihood, are necessary to translate the data into usable information...it's interesting how the more that technology advances, the greater the need for human involvement."

I agree with her, of course. It surprises me very little that the more technology advances, the greater the need for humans to make sense of the technology. Making sense of it all has been my job for 17 years, from my early days in the library world where there were nothing but paper catalogs, throughout my years as a "search professional" before Google existed and before anyone even knew how to use the Internet to extract information, and now as a media analyst who continually strives to answer the question "but what does it all mean?". That question has not changed with social media. The methodology through which we obtain our metrics - i.e. automation - might have changed, but our underlying goal of finding meaning within the data remains the same.