Friday, October 26, 2012
I admit it. I didn’t completely tell the truth about the square thing. In fact you can have images that are wider than they are tall… but they will still be seen as Shareable Squares in two out of three places on Facebook.
If you post a wide picture on your personal timeline, Facebook will crop it to 296 pixels high to 398 pixels wide. Scaled up for our purposes, it becomes 806 pixels high to 1084 pixels wide, and you can use that size as long as you keep all relevant information in the center 806 x 806 pixels.
Yesterday I posted a wide 806 x 1084 image on the Reid Rosefelt Marketing page. It appeared as a 403 x 403 square, the same as everything else I post there. When I shared it to my personal page it was also square. They both look like this:
But on the timeline, it appears 296 to 398, like this:
And when you click on it anywhere, it’s full 806 x 1084:
For those of you who remember Sally Field blubbering “You like me! You like me!” when she won the Academy Award for the second time with Norma Rae, there’s a little joke here because you can’t see that her right hand is clutching the Oscar unless you click on the picture.
Okay, so I’ve said it. As long as you don’t crop any vital information out, it’s fine to go with 806 pixels by 1084 pixels. But my point is still the same. You wouldn’t put up an ad anywhere with a third of the text cropped out, so why do it on Facebook? You know what? Some people actually think it’s a good idea because it forces people to click… which is a reaction that the Facebook algorithm recognizes. To me this is an unfortunate example of the kind of thinking that is too often found in the social media world—worrying more about pleasing the Facebook algorithm than about selling the product.
* * *
Don’t forget to post the Shareable Squares you’re making to my Facebook Page and I’ll re-post them. I want the page to be all about you and your ideas. Also, please subscribe to my mailing list as my posts in Facebook won’t always get to you.