Fol­low­ing up on last week’s post about how Face­book is chang­ing the mean­ing of “like” online, I’ve been notic­ing more dis­con­cert­ing behav­ior on Target’s Face­book page.

Until yes­ter­day, Tar­get hadn’t posted any­thing to its wall since July 26th. It wasn’t clear if they were build­ing a strat­egy inter­nally, but the new post makes it obvi­ous that they’ve decided to ride out the storm by ignor­ing it and let­ting their cus­tomers duke it out on their wall. The new post links to spe­cials for col­lege stu­dents and makes absolutely no ref­er­ence to the con­tro­versy. As of this morn­ing, there are 303 com­ments on that post and 367 peo­ple “like” it.

Tar­get clearly isn’t going to men­tion the issues, respond, or engage in a con­ver­sa­tion on Face­book. Inter­est­ing strat­egy, and we’ll see how it plays out. But as I’m watch­ing this case study develop, some themes are emerg­ing and rais­ing some prob­lem­atic flags.

As one might expect after what seems like an eter­nity online, the com­menters are no longer mostly peo­ple upset with Target’s actions. And pre­dictably, as seems to hap­pen with so many dis­cus­sions about pol­i­tics and homo­sex­u­al­ity, the dis­cus­sion is devolv­ing pretty quickly. Some users are flag­ging each other for bad behav­ior, just because they dis­agree with the person’s opin­ions. Some are insult­ing other com­menters, and the whole wall is becom­ing a ref­er­en­dum on a polit­i­cal issue. I haven’t read every com­ment, but I’m con­fi­dent Godwin’s Law is proven there somewhere.

None of this is new behav­ior to be sure, but has this hap­pened before on such a main­stream company’s page, espe­cially while the com­pany itself is ignor­ing it? The fact that it’s Tar­get makes for some inter­est­ing issues.

For exam­ple, if you read a sam­ple of the com­ments closely, you’ll find a poten­tially wor­ri­some infor­ma­tion lit­er­acy prob­lem. If you go back to the begin­ning of the com­ments thread on the August 12 post, there are some users whose entire com­ment con­sists of, “If you don’t like Tar­get, why do you ‘like’ this page?” or “If you don’t like Tar­get, why did you become a fan of them?”

It’s unclear to me whether these folks real­ize that users have to like the page in order to com­ment or if they’re just being snarky about it. Even though these folks had to “like” the page them­selves in order to leave their own ques­tion­ing com­ments, I’m lean­ing towards believ­ing that they truly don’t real­ize that “like” now means “com­ments enabled.” As David Lee King said on my pre­vi­ous post, “it looks like the ‘Like’ but­ton is really an entrance fee/ticket, or the ‘door’ to the event.…” But there’s a large group of peo­ple out there that don’t real­ize that “like” now has sub­text and is loaded with new mean­ings and require­ments. I worry that they truly don’t under­stand that the boy­cotters have no choice but to “like” Tar­get if they want to par­tic­i­pate in the discussion.

Other com­menters hon­estly can’t seem to under­stand why some­one who is upset with Tar­get would be post­ing on the company’s wall in the first place. It seems that there’s still a dis­con­nect between “a company’s web pres­ence” and an inter­ac­tive, com­mu­nity.” Heck, this is true even for Tar­get, which con­tin­ues to ignore the com­mu­nity and treat its page as a one-way announce­ment chan­nel. A lot of folks par­tic­i­pat­ing in this thread haven’t made the men­tal leap from “Just Tar­get” to “Tar­get + Oth­ers” as a new norm, even though they’re able to scratch their heads in the com­ments themselves.

Close read­ing of the threads also makes it clear that quite a few Tar­get fans didn’t know any­thing about the con­tro­versy until they vis­ited the Face­book page and saw the com­ments. This fur­ther con­firms the ongo­ing switch from a small num­ber of “offi­cial,” main­stream news sources to per­sonal news streams on social net­work­ing sites. More and more peo­ple are get­ting their news online from their net­works, not from news­cast­ers. (Inci­den­tally, if you need to make a case for why your library should be on Face­book, this is a pretty good rea­son — in order to be part of your users news stream.)

Over­all, there’s a lot going on here, and I encour­age you to keep tabs on Target’s page to see how it plays out. It can be dif­fi­cult to dip into the emerg­ing inci­vil­ity and dis­re­spect, but it’s edu­ca­tional, espe­cially for any orga­ni­za­tion that has a Face­book pres­ence. These types of cases are illus­trat­ing how the shift from us going out to find infor­ma­tion to it com­ing to us, fil­tered through our net­works, will have an impact on orga­ni­za­tions. They also expose a whole host of other issues, from infor­ma­tion lit­er­acy gaps to pri­vacy con­cerns. For exam­ple, I was going to erase the names of the com­menters in the screen­shots, but tech­ni­cally it’s all pub­lic infor­ma­tion, so why hide it? Do the peo­ple leav­ing rants and invec­tives on the Tar­get post/wall truly under­stand that those com­ments are com­pletely public?

On Face­book, 831 peo­ple “like” con­fu­sion, but I’m not sure any­one really likes it in the Tar­get context.

Sub­ti­tle: Or, Using Like to Tar­get Tar­get

If you’re watch­ing the Tar­get Face­book page right now, you’re see­ing another social media dis­as­ter on par with Nestle’s débâ­cle back in March. It’s like watch­ing a train wreck in slow motion, but it’s another great case study for us about what not to do online.

Hint: don’t set your page to show only your posts first and then aban­don it when con­tro­versy arises. If you’re not famil­iar with the cur­rent con­tro­versy, you can go here to read about Target’s dona­tion to a homo­pho­bic guber­na­to­r­ial can­di­date in Min­nesota. Be sure to click on “just oth­ers” on Target’s wall to see the angry, for­mer cus­tomers and porno­graphic spam.

I’m sure they’ve spent the last few days bring­ing in con­sul­tants to come up with a strat­egy for how to deal with this, but it’s sur­pris­ing that some­one hasn’t already said, “We need to at least post *some­thing* on our Face­book page and acknowl­edge what’s hap­pen­ing.” So far, Tar­get doesn’t seem to be learn­ing from oth­ers’ past mis­takes, so don’t fall into the same trap if this ever hap­pens to you.

I think that’s the biggest, imme­di­ate take­away for libraries and non­prof­its (well, for every­one, really), but per­son­ally I’m more fas­ci­nated right now by how peo­ple have been forced to give the term “like” dif­fer­ent mean­ings in dif­fer­ent con­texts because of the box Face­book has forced them into, which this sit­u­a­tion illus­trates so well.

We first saw this type of attempt to sub­vert the term “is” in Facebook’s early years. Long-time users remem­ber when your sta­tus update auto­mat­i­cally included the word “is” so you were forced to use adjec­tives, present pro­gres­sive tense, or future tense. Noth­ing could hap­pen in your past unless you were cre­ative in your use of lan­guage, which some peo­ple went out of their way to be. Oth­ers just started ignor­ing the “is” and writ­ing what­ever they wanted. You might also remem­ber the peti­tion many of us “signed” ask­ing Face­book to remove the “is.” It all seems so quaint now, but those two let­ters went from being a new way to describe our­selves to being too restric­tive pretty quickly.

Now we’re run­ning into another limit that the Face­book one-size-fits-all box forces on us — “like.” We’ve all seen, and maybe even writ­ten, “dis­like” on a friend’s sta­tus update when they say they have a cold or some­thing bad has hap­pened. And yet we still go ahead and click on “like” in order to sig­nify some type of sol­i­dar­ity, even though the term is wholly inac­cu­rate. Some­times we specif­i­cally go out of our way to add a com­ment “I don’t really ‘like’ this” or “lik­ing even though I don’t like.” But we don’t really have any other options, do we?

And even though Mark Zucker­berg has said Face­book might some­day add a “dis­like” but­ton (which it won’t out of fear users’ “dis­like” of com­pa­nies will drive adver­tis­ers away), that wouldn’t really cover it, would it? My range of emo­tions doesn’t run the gamut from A to B, but instead includes a mil­lion shades of grey in between, just as I don’t always talk solely in the present pro­gres­sive tense.

So when an issue like the Tar­get con­tro­versy comes up and I want to leave a com­ment on Target’s wall say­ing I’m now boy­cotting them and why, I have to first “like” Tar­get in order to leave that com­ment. Talk about cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance. I can then add my thoughts and if I want to show sup­port for other pro­test­ers, I can “like” their com­ments, which I do (some more than oth­ers), but “like” prob­a­bly isn’t the word I would have cho­sen given my shades of grey.

The only sat­is­fac­tion I can really get is when I leave my com­ment and then “unlike” Tar­get, but *that* update doesn’t get posted to my wall — only the “like” does.

“I do not think that word means what you think it means”

I recently read Jaron Lanier’s book You Are Not a Gad­get, which for the most part I loved. I wrote a lit­tle about Lanier’s take on the future of author­ship, but it also made me think about the way web­sites force our life­size selves into one-size-fits-all tem­plates. (Sorry I can’t quote a rel­e­vant piece, but I’ve lent my copy out, so I don’t have it handy — a blog post for another day.) At least soft­ware like Word­Press lets blog­gers choose from a vari­ety of tem­plates and even edit them, but it made me glad that I’ve per­son­al­ized my own site to be truly unique, just like me.

How­ever, Face­book now has 500 mil­lion users, most of whom don’t have their own web­sites as a unique pres­ence for them­selves online. Instead, we have hun­dreds of mil­lions of aver­age users who all look the same and con­form to Facebook’s inter­face con­straints as their major rep­re­sen­ta­tion on the web. If it wasn’t for the pic­ture, it would be dif­fi­cult to tell one John Doe FB pro­file from another in Google’s search results.

The low­est com­mon denom­i­na­tor used to be a yel­low page list­ing, but now it’s become Facebook’s pro­files. At least a Face­book user can per­son­al­ize the text in her pro­file, but we’re all stuck with “like.” That word is tak­ing on a lot more respon­si­bil­ity since we have to fig­ure out ways to use it to con­vey other mean­ings. How do we indi­cate when “like” means don’t like, favorite, book­mark, agree, dis­agree, sup­port, bum­mer, share, read this later, funny, and more?

Face­book even­tu­ally wised up and removed the “is,” but how will it route around adver­tis­ers to pro­vide the spec­trum beyond “like?” It’s box­ing itself, as well as us, into a cor­ner, which I def­i­nitely don’t like.

I’m one of the many peo­ple who doesn’t like some of the recent changes to Facebook’s default pri­vacy set­tings, and I agree com­pletely with Anil Dash that if those defaults aren’t good enough for Mark Zucker­berg, then maybe they should be changed.

How­ever, I think I’ve dis­cov­ered a way to par­tic­i­pate on Face­book with my friends and still be com­pletely hid­den from the web, even more so than in the past, but I need your help to fig­ure out what’s going on.

A cou­ple of days ago, by pure chance I noticed that the pub­lic ver­sion of my Face­book pro­file had dis­ap­peared from Google’s search results com­pletely. If you’d searched for me in the past, you would have got­ten a link to my pub­lic pro­file, which dis­played my name, pic­ture, friends list, some groups I belong to, and (I think) some pages I’ve fanned.

After this week’s changes to Facebook’s defaults, how­ever, that pro­file no longer comes up at all in a search on Google or Bing. In fact, if you’re not logged in to Face­book and you click on a link to my pro­file with my per­sonal URL (which I assure you does still exist), you’ll get a “page not found” error.

I’ve con­firmed this with oth­ers, even peo­ple who I’m friends with on Face­book. If you’re logged out, there’s no way to get to my pro­file. My the­ory is that one of two things is caus­ing this to happen.

1. I’ve always been wary of pro­vid­ing Face­book with too much infor­ma­tion, so I never filled out any interests.
2. A cou­ple of days ago, I went to Face­book to read my feed and got a popup win­dow ask­ing me to link my pro­file to one of the pages for my high school, col­lege, grad­u­ate school, and my city net­work. I didn’t want to do that, so I clicked on the “ask me later” but­ton, which should mean I’m not part of any net­works right now.

I’m sure Face­book thinks it’s pun­ish­ing me for not par­tic­i­pat­ing in its new adver­tis­ing sys­tem, but this is a pretty sweet spot for me to be in because my Face­book account is one of the very few that I truly keep pri­vate and where I’m only adding “friends” now (as opposed to any­one who friends me). I get to par­tic­i­pate with my friends the way I always have and don’t have to deal with all of the new “like” crud and pri­vacy issues. And I think any true friends can still find me, as I believe that any­one logged in to Face­book can still find my pro­file. In fact, I think I’m still show­ing up on other peo­ples’ “rec­om­men­da­tions” side­bar, because I’m still get­ting friend requests from peo­ple I don’t really know.

This is great, and I’m very happy with this setup, inad­ver­tent as I think Face­book meant it to be. I’m also not will­ing to change it to test what’s caus­ing it, so this is where I need your help. I don’t want to add any inter­ests or link my pro­file to a net­work in order to find out if that changes any­thing, because I may not be able to undo the change. So I’m ask­ing for your help in answer­ing the fol­low­ing ques­tions so that we can all fig­ure out what’s going on. Hope­fully those of us who want to be pri­vate on Face­book can truly do that now. It would also be help­ful to have this infor­ma­tion so that we know if/when Face­book fig­ures this out and changes it.

Please leave answers in the com­ments, and thanks for your help!

1. If you’re logged out of Face­book, can you see my pro­file? http://facebook.com/shifted
2. If you’re logged in to Face­book, can you see my profile?
3. If you’re not friends with me in Face­book and you can see my pro­file, what do you see? Please be spe­cific in list­ing which pieces (eg, name, pic­ture, groups, etc.)
4. Does your pub­lic pro­file dis­play in search results?
5. If your pub­lic pro­file dis­plays, either when oth­ers click on it or in search results, do you have inter­ests listed in your profile?
6. Can you com­pletely remove your inter­ests from your profile?
7. Have you seen the popup win­dow ask­ing you to link your pro­file to spe­cific pages/networks?
8. If your pub­lic pro­file dis­plays, is your pro­file linked to any of these pages/networks?
9. Can you remove your pro­file from being linked to any of these pages/networks?
10. If you go through these steps of remov­ing inter­ests and links to pages/networks, does that remove your pub­lic pro­file alto­gether, the way it did mine?
11. I’ve also unchecked the box to allow per­son­al­iza­tion in my pri­vacy set­tings. If your pub­lic pro­file isn’t dis­play­ing, have you done that?

Adden­dum: I think Polly found the actual answer (noted in the com­ments below). There’s a set­ting in the pri­vacy –> search set­tings that may finally remove your pro­file com­pletely from pub­lic view.

Make sure you uncheck the “allow” box, and if you want even more pri­vacy, change the “Face­book search results” set­ting to “friends only.” I should also note that I know for a fact this set­ting either wasn’t there or wasn’t work­ing prop­erly last month, as I had a debate with some­one about pri­vacy and looked at my pub­lic pro­file while not logged in, so some­thing def­i­nitely changed recently to allow for this level of pri­vacy. What I’m unsure of now is whether that “allow” box is checked by default or not (ques­tion #12?). I have to say that if that box is not checked by default, I’m pretty impressed with Facebook’s new stance.

And as Phil noted in his com­ment, make sure you change the pri­vacy –> pro­file infor­ma­tion set­tings to man­age what your friends can share about you. That’s a really impor­tant one.

The big deal: It looks like Face­book has indeed changed its stance on pri­vacy and has defaulted the “allow” in the search set­tings to opt-in, rather than opt-out. I think this is new, and it’s very wel­come in my opin­ion, espe­cially since you can fur­ther nar­row the “Face­book search results” set­ting. Has any­one seen that “allow” box checked by default?

If this is true, pro­files have dis­ap­peared from Google, right? Is this a pre­emp­tive move on Facebook’s part to take over peo­ple search from Google? I don’t know, but it seems like some­thing has changed.

I’ve been mulling over this post for sev­eral weeks now, but a con­ver­sa­tion that hap­pened on Twit­ter today prompted me to finally write and pub­lish it. It started when Ken­ley Neufeld wrote a post about par­tic­i­pat­ing in ALA and tweeted the link. Cyndi E. engaged Ken­ley in a con­ver­sa­tion about ALA fol­low­ing its mem­bers back on Twit­ter, which led Ken­ley to ask ALA’s Mid­win­ter Meet­ing account what its fol­low pol­icy is.

Well, I work for ALA, and I run that account (along with three oth­ers), plus my per­sonal one. The “royal” ALA has no offi­cial social media pol­icy, although there is an inter­nal staff task force work­ing on one. I’m not on that group and I haven’t wanted to step on any toes, which is why I haven’t said much online about this topic, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t thought through some things for the accounts I man­age. Given today’s con­ver­sa­tion, I thought I’d share my approach and solicit feed­back for what you think is and isn’t working.

Before I go any fur­ther, though, I want to note that I kind of fly by the seat of my pants with this stuff at work. I already have a cou­ple of full time roles (as does pretty much every­one at ALA HQ), and track­ing what’s said about MPOW online is pretty near impos­si­ble these days. Amongst the good and bad about the Amer­i­can Library Asso­ci­a­tion, the term “ALA” also gets used for A List Apart (espe­cially when they pub­lish a new issue), the abbre­vi­a­tion for “Alabama” in news reports, Ala Moana in Hon­olulu, ala mode, “ala” mean­ing “in the style of,” in Span­ish, and more. I do the best I can, but no one per­son could catch it all unless it was their only job respon­si­bil­ity. I know a lot of folks strug­gle to get sup­port from the top in their orga­ni­za­tion, and I’m lucky that this isn’t one of the bat­tles I have to fight.

All of which is my way of say­ing, your mileage may vary, even within ALA. These are just my thoughts for how I’m han­dling four Twit­ter accounts at work, and I’d love to hear how you think I could do this bet­ter. Maybe this list willl even give you some pro­ce­dural ideas for your own institution’s efforts.

I mainly mon­i­tor and man­age Twit­ter and Friend­Feed accounts, so that’s where I focus my efforts. I’m lucky that oth­ers have taken on the man­tle of man­ag­ing ALA’s Face­book, LinkedIn, Sec­ond Life, and YouTube pres­ences. These are the guide­lines I’ve been fol­low­ing for Twit­ter (I still need to imple­ment most of these on FriendFeed).

1. My goals for the accounts are to lis­ten, answer ques­tions, inter­act, and inform.
2. I fol­low most pub­lic accounts that fol­low us, as long as its not a spam­mer, bot, or “social media expert” who has thou­sands of fol­low­ers. I don’t have any­thing against the gurus, but they’re not the audi­ence I want to inter­act with. It may take me a week to log in and fol­low all the new folks, but that’s my goal. I’m some­what pas­sive about this because of the lack of an easy way to han­dle fol­low­ers from one source, although right now I’m actively try­ing to fol­low any human being who say they’re attend­ing our Mid­win­ter Meet­ing this week. I do this to make it eas­ier to lis­ten and respond, plus it gives these folks the abil­ity to direct mes­sage us.
3. The excep­tion to rule #2 is that I don’t fol­low pri­vate accounts. I real­ize some folks make their accounts pri­vate to avoid spam­mers, but I can’t tell those from the folks who truly want their tweets to be pri­vate. As an orga­ni­za­tional account that mul­ti­ple staff mem­bers might have access to, I don’t want to expose those tweets or set up a sit­u­a­tion where some­one might acci­den­tally retweet some­thing private.
4. I try to do more than just click a book­marklet, so I’ll rephrase con­tent to get it down to 130 char­ac­ters or some­how add value to the head­line of a press release. I try to be human and avoid mar­ket­ing speak, and I don’t get hung up on cap­i­tal­iza­tion, even though my under­grad­u­ate degree is in journalism.
5. I do my best to shoot for 130 char­ac­ters to pro­vide for easy retweetability.
6. Although this doesn’t apply to all orga­ni­za­tions, I’m a big believer in the “right of first tweet.” Within ALA, there’s no one “mas­ter” Twit­ter account for the Asso­ci­a­tion as a whole. Instead, every office, divi­sion, round table, etc., has its own account. In order to help build the audi­ence for those accounts and give credit, I try to not announce news first that really belongs to other ALA units. Instead, I do my best to retweet their tweets. That doesn’t always hap­pen, but I think it’s their right to have the first shot at it.
7. Some­thing new I’ve been try­ing lately is to avoid retweet­ing some­one else’s con­tent imme­di­ately after they tweet it, espe­cially if they’ve used a hash­tag. Instead, I use Hoot­Suite to sched­ule the tweet at a dif­fer­ent time of day in order to try to reach a dif­fer­ent audi­ence that may not have seen the orig­i­nal one. If it was a morn­ing tweet, I’ll sched­ule the retweet for the after­noon, and vice versa.
8. I’m cur­rently using bit.ly to shorten URLs so that I can get sta­tis­tics for how often links are being fol­lowed. I also try to use cus­tom bit.ly URLs for links I know I’ll re-use a lot. I fer­vently wish Hoot­Suite would get rid of the frames on its ow.ly ser­vice or at least give URL cre­ators the option to turn them off. Until then, I’ll keep using bit.ly.
9. I delib­er­ately retweet from indi­vid­u­als, not just other ALA units or orga­ni­za­tions. My take on it is that we’re all in this together, and we’re all part of the con­ver­sa­tion. Of course, that doesn’t mean I’ll be retweet­ing every­thing posted to the #nopants tag.
10. Rather than count­ing the num­ber of fol­low­ers as a met­ric, I’ve started track­ing con­ver­sa­tions. I still haven’t found what I con­sider to be an opti­mal way to do this, but for the moment, I’m clip­ping tweets to a note­book in my Ever­note account (I’m on the free ser­vice for now) so that I can find them again. Because it’s so dif­fi­cult to track the term “ALA,” I haven’t found an easy way to report out what’s being said about us, other than by man­u­ally writ­ing up an email.
11. Per­son­ally, I have an unlim­ited text mes­sag­ing plan (I <3 texting), so I use notify.me to have Twit­ter men­tions sent to my phone via SMS so that I get imme­di­ate alerts when some­one men­tions or directs a tweet to one of the ALA accounts. If you don’t want to go the SMS route, you can have the noti­fi­ca­tions sent to an email address, instant mes­sag­ing account, or to a desk­top app/widget. And this setup doesn’t nec­es­sar­ily mean I respond right away, espe­cially if I’m out with friends, watch­ing a movie, or if it’s late at night. I’ve worked hard to bal­ance my work and per­sonal lives, and so far it’s work­ing fairly well. But the notice gives me a heads up, and I can then assess the urgency.

Those are the var­i­ous Twit­ter issues I’ve thought through so far. Based on some other prob­lems that have come up at work, I have some gen­eral advice for other orga­ni­za­tions using social sites.

• Did you know that the per­son who cre­ates a Face­book page can never be removed? Never, ever, ever, ever plus a day. The only way is to delete the person’s account, which an orga­ni­za­tion can’t do if it’s a per­sonal account. So be care­ful about who cre­ates your organization’s page(s), because you’ll never be able to remove that per­son as an admin. You can add other admins, but you can’t remove the orig­i­nal cre­ator. Add my voice to the cho­rus of frus­trated users who wish Face­book would change this pol­icy yesterday.
• Be very care­ful when you’re set­ting up your bit.ly links. If you acci­den­tally paste in the wrong URL (which I’ve done), you can’t go back and change it. Ever, as in ever plus a day. If you mess up a cus­tom URL, you’ll never be able to get it back. Ever. Did I men­tion ever?
• And speak­ing of bit.ly, if you haven’t already done this, you might want to go grab the most obvi­ous cus­tom bit.ly URLs for your orga­ni­za­tion so that some­one else doesn’t use/steal/hijack them. Espe­cially if you want a short and easy way to point to your own site on Twit­ter and get sta­tis­tics for num­ber of clicks. You can decide if you want to do this on other URL short­en­ing ser­vices, too.

So those are some quick thoughts that have been swim­ming around in my head. I’d love to hear your thoughts about how I can do this bet­ter, and what you’d like to see from the ALA accounts I run.

Now that I’m on a smart­phone that has a real web browser and is capa­ble of mul­ti­task­ing (the Palm Pre), In fact, I find myself expect­ing it to act like my lap­top. I’ve stopped car­ry­ing my lap­top or my net­book to work each day because I can do so much on my phone, but I’m still notic­ing where deci­sions made by web design­ers make my mobile life easier.

So here’s mobile devel­oper tip #1, my two cents: use plu­g­ins and wid­gets that let users auto­mat­i­cally share your con­tent on sites like Twit­ter, Deli­cious, Face­book, etc., because you’ll make the user’s life eas­ier. Granted, not all phones sup­port the Javascript that pow­ers this type of ser­vice on a web page, but more and more will, so con­sider get­ting ahead of the curve and adding it now.

The alter­na­tive for me as the reader (acknowl­edg­ing each person’s sit­u­a­tion is dif­fer­ent) is to:

1. Leave the site up in a card until I get home in the evening and can man­u­ally book­mark it on my lap­top. This works about 50% of the time.
2. Email the site to myself so I can book­mark it later on my lap­top. This works about 80% of the time but is annoying.
3. Try remem­ber­ing to revisit the site later on my lap­top to book­mark it. This works 0% of the time.

As a result, I’m find­ing that I’m far more likely to book­mark some­thing if there’s a direct link to post it to Deli­cious, and that work­flow will con­tinue for me until there’s a Pre app that makes this eas­ier, which means I really appre­ci­ate sites that offer this. Even bet­ter is if you can add it so that it appears in your RSS feed so that it shows up in places like Google Reader and Blog­lines, too.