So, if you’re looking for the real #ScottAllen, you’ve found me.    I’m also on Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, LinkedIn, Instagram, Empire Avenue, and just about everywhere else on the social web.

I am NOT…

• K. Scott Allen aka @OdeToCode (I consider myself an ex-coder)
• The 1964 Olympic bronze medalist in men’s figure skating (I took lessons at Ice Capades when I was 8…does that count?)
• Director of the United Heritage Center at The Dell Diamond (though I live right around the corner)
• A Seattle architect (though my cousin is)
• An investigative reporter for The Boston Globe (though I used to be a Guide for About.com)
• A killer rock guitarist (I try, but…)

Those are all very fine other Scott Allens who you’ll easily find on Google. But they’re not #ScottAllen (sorry, guys — I call dibs!).

Seriously, though…if you haven’t started laying claim to your name and started making your fame, better hop in the game and get on your way to #HashtagFame.

OK, that was #lame.

Anyway… #GetThePoint? #WhatUGonnaDoAboutIt?

Why?

Because when I decided to connect the new Facebook page of my fledgling business, Klout took it upon itself to switch me from an “individual influencer” to a “brand influencer”, replacing my substantial personal Facebook activity with my nearly non-existent Facebook page activity.

Maybe it told me it was going to do this, but not nearly clearly and obviously enough if it did – I certainly didn’t notice anything telling me the potential consequences.

Forewarned is fore-armed. Don’t make the same mistake I did!

A few weeks ago, I did a post about Wikipedia’s fundraising ads, entitled Jimmy Wales, Serial Killer?, which got retweeted by a few people. Well, thanks to that, Klout decided that “Wales” and “Serial Killer” were topics I was influential about (sorry, didn’t get a “before” snapshot). Now, they weren’t among my top 3, which were “Social Media”, “Internet Marketing” and “SEO”, but it was in my top 15.

I decided to have a little fun with it, so I posted on Twitter and Facebook, and sent out a shareholder mail on Empire Avenue, asking people to give me +K in “Wales” and “Serial Killer”. Within 5 minutes:

Awesome!

I think, though, I may have overdone it, because within an hour:

LOL! Oh well… makes for a great blog post. I wonder what kind of perks that’ll trigger for them to send me?

Feel free to +K me in Social Media and help me get back to normal. Or not.

Several more have Skyped me.

Sure, it’s just a simple act – some might argue it’s only slightly more social than a poke, but I disagree. Frankly, I think this is really what the social web is all about: using distributed cognition to truly enhance relationships.

How so?

Ever heard of Dunbar’s number? Basically, it’s the theory that the size of our social network is limited by the size of our neocortex, and for human beings, the maximum number of “close” relationships we can theoretically have – the number of people whose names and faces you remember easily, who you can remember details about them, like what they do for a living, the last conversation you had with them, etc.

But what happens when our capacity for social relationships is no longer limited by our brain capacity?

Some people think that tools like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and even CRM or contact management systems have created an illusion of having more “real” friends than we actually do. I suppose, for some, that’s true.

I look at it differently, though. I look at these tools as distributed cognition. Essentially, we’re making our brains larger by using external tools to enhance our memory. I can “remember” hundreds of people’s faces, because they’re right there when I interact with them. I can call them by name – one of Dale Carnegie’s most important tips for winning friends and influencing people. I can easily recall the last conversation I had with them with a couple of mouse clicks. I can see what they’re up to and ask specific questions about it rather than wasting my time and theirs with small-talk questions like “So what are you up to these days?”  LinkedIn already knows, so I already know.

Social media isn’t just a way to have a bunch of trivial relationships; used properly, it’s a way to treat more than 150 people that you truly care about like you treat those 150…like you would if you were smarter, or had better memory.

This isn’t a new concept, by any means. It’s the same principle behind The Mackay 66, a collection of 66 questions that uber-networker Harvey Mackay used to build the strong relationships that allowed him to build a phenomenally successful company in the face of much larger competitors. It includes information such as the client’s college fraternity/sorority, children’s interests and birthdates, their immediate and long-term business objectives, health conditions, etc. Before every call, Harvey would pull out the client’s file so he could have that information at his fingertips. As he gleaned little bits of information during the course of the conversation, he would note it in their file.

As a result, his customers were constantly amazed at his apparently great memory, and the remarkable personal interest he took in them.

Cynics might say that it’s just a brilliant ploy to manipulate people. Harvey will tell you that it’s just the only way he could keep track of the information that helped him show how much he truly cared about people. And that’s also good business.

So this is why you should wish your Facebook friends happy birthday. Congratulate your LinkedIn contacts on their promotion or new business venture. Comment on their blog about how adorable their new baby or puppy is. It’s not being manipulative. It’s not being trivial. It’s acting like you want to act towards people you truly care about, and like you would on your own, if you were just smarter. Let social media make you socially smarter.

P.S. In the 30 minutes it’s taken to write this post, 7 more people have posted to my Facebook wall and 4 more have Skyped me. What a great way to start the day!

Benito Apolinar, 36, was arrested this week after fighting with his wife of 15 years, from whom he had recently separated. He had posted an update on Facebook about the anniversary of his mother’s death and became angry when he noticed his wife had not clicked the "Like" button.

So when he went to drop his children off on Tuesday night, he confronted her:

“That’s amazing everyone Likes my status but you, you’re my wife. You should be the first one to Like my status,” he allegedly told her.

They argued, and when he refused to leave the property, a fight ensued, during which he allegedly punched her and pulled her hair. Police said he had been drinking (surprise!).

Apolinar has pleaded not guilty and is due to appear in court on December 22.

via MSN News – Image: Sam Michel

Really, I’m not suggesting you do this…it’s for educational purposes so you can recognize it when you see it. Still funny.

via yasrsly

Bad idea. Really bad idea. If I choose to tell the world where I am 24/7, that’s my prerogative. I can even live with people tweeting things like “I’m at #BATHH with @ScottAllen @LaniAR @KateBuckJr & other cool peeps.” But the idea of people creating structured, archived data about my location is just really unnerving. The potential for misuse is staggering.

I echo Laurie Ruettimann’s sentiment:

More on what’s wrong with Facebook Places at Social Media Today.

I considered shelling out the $400-$500 for a badge, but then I thought about how I had spent my most productive time the past few years, and it was mostly hanging out in the hallways, going to lunch with people I only see once or twice a year, and at the parties. Sure, without a badge I won’t be able to attend the panels, the awards, the official parties, and a few other things, but I realized I could also pretty easily find other people, places and parties to replace those official activities.

I started looking for resources online, but all I found was a few random blog posts – nothing comprehensive. So I figured I’d try to organize something myself – it would put me in the information flow, plus be a good networking opportunity, right?

I set up a Twitter ID and a Facebook group named SXSW Badgeless.

Well, obviously I hit an underserved niche. The SXSW Badgeless Facebook group had 1,000 members on the first day. Wow! And then 1,000 more the second day, and so on, and so on – 10,000 members in 10 days!

And then – BAM!

Hello,

We have removed or disabled access to the following content that you have posted on Facebook because we received a notice from a third party that the content infringes or otherwise violates their rights:

[Group: SXSW Badgeless]

We strongly encourage you to review the content you have posted to Facebook to make sure that you have not posted any other infringing content, as it is our policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers when appropriate.

If you believe that we have made a mistake in removing this content, then please contact us at ip@facebook.com.

The Facebook Team

Huh???

OK, let’s be clear here…

First of all, naming a group “SXSW Badgeless” constitutes fair use of the trademark:

1. First and foremost, the use of “SXSW” is descriptive. How can you possibly organize a group of people who don’t have a SXSW badge without referencing SXSW?
2. The purpose of the use was not for profit.
3. The use doesn’t damage SXSW in any way. It doesn’t keep anyone from buying a SXSW badge – it’s merely grassroots community organization of those people who are making their own decision not to.

But Facebook doesn’t seem to care about any of that. I wasn’t given any opportunity to explain myself – or change the name of the group – before they shut down the group. They have no process for intellectual property conflict resolution.

I tried writing them back (twice), as they said to do, but I still have received no response from Facebook.

Here’s what really gets me…

See that? 486 Results!

Clearly, SXSW Badgeless was unfairly and prejudicially singled out. Basically, it got big enough to get on their radar, and they didn’t like it. Too bad.

I’ve been wronged, as have the other 10,000 people who wanted to use Facebook to communicate with each other.

But I’m not willing to sacrifice my Facebook account on the altar of fair use righteousness. So instead I bought the domain unSXSW.com and have set up a site there to aggregate all the information I can find about unofficial (and official, but open-to-the-public) activities during SXSW. You can also follow @unSXSW on Twitter.

For the record, I love SXSW. It’s a great event, and I wish them well. But I also hate brand bullies and won’t cave to them. I understand and support intellectual property rights, but not when they impinge on the 1st Amendment.