3 ms·
That is an important question that wasn't clear in the article. If they counted those sub 3 sec views in the count but not in the duration then it would definit
by daveguy 10y ago
That is an important question that wasn't clear in the article. If they counted those sub 3 sec views in the count but not in the duration then it would definitely be fraudulent. If they didn't include sub 3 sec in the count or in the average then it is a valid technical decision. I am guessing they were included in the count but not in the duration.
They should have a histogram of durations.
- arcticfox 10y agoThat distinction makes all the difference to me. IMO one answer is fraud and the other is borderline valid / no big deal.
- dismantlethesun 10y agoIt looks like they didn't count it in either metric. Peoples' complaint is that they excluded it from all averages and all reports, which inflates their average duration of video watched because videos less than 3 seconds aren't included at all.
- prostoalex 10y ago> If they counted those sub 3 sec views in the count but not in the duration It sounds like this was exactly what was happening. From the article: "Video views of under three seconds were not factored in, thereby inflating the average. Video views of under three seconds were not factored in, thereby inflating the average. Facebook’s new metric, “Average Watch Time”, will reflect video views of any duration."