But I'm fascinated by how differently the different sites I use work.
On the 2nd of April, just over three weeks ago, hfnuala shared a link to an image over on FB that looked like this:
I promptly reposted it on Tumblr, that being my "canonical" place for images. From there, it gets automatically posted to my Twitter account and my "Andy Ducker's Links" Facebook page.
On Facebook it got shared 3 times, liked twice, and apparently 976 people have seen it.
On Twitter it's been favourited 110 times, retweeted 283 times, and goodness knows how many people have seen it. I am still getting multiple notifications per day that people are retweeting it. Which I find slightly boggling.
Twitter, of course, shows people _everything_ that their friends post, while FB filters them significantly. The FB page has 64 likes, but the average number of people who see each story is around 14. And next to the stats telling me that, is a handy "Boost Post" button, just waiting for me to pay £5 to share it with 760-2000 people, or £18 to reach 3,000-7,800. To which, no thanks. I don't feel the need to advertise, it would just be nice if the people who had "liked" the page got to see all of the links. (You used to be able to do this with this option, but that now seems to have vanished. Thanks Facebook!)
Oh, plus Twitter generally keeps attribution. If you retweet a retweet then it's the original tweet that people see. Whereas if I share something on Facebook, and then Bob shares it from me, then the person sharing it from Bob gives Bob attribution, and not the original link, so far as I can tell. Possibly this works differently with original content - Facebook also seem to be rubbish at explaining how their systems work.
On a related note, Tumblr allows you to reshare, and keeps the history, so if you reshare something from me, with my comments, then you can add your comments under them. Livejournal is particularly rubbish at this - it doesn't suit their format at all.
Original post on Dreamwidth - there are comments there.