4 ms·

Ok, what am I not understanding here? If they are only counting a view as over 3 seconds. And then only averaging the those views what is the problem? They tel

Ok, what am I not understanding here? If they are only counting a view as over 3 seconds. And then only averaging the those views what is the problem? They tell me 1000 people viewed it (over 3 seconds), and then say the average view time was 10 seconds for those 1000 users. How is this an issue? Why do I care that 9,000 people scrolled past it and weren't counted in the viewer numbers? Now if they were reporting this as 10,000 viewers and saying 10 second average, I see the problem. Is that what was happening? Or what am I missing?

oneloop 10y ago
My suspicion (based on nothing) is that they averaged viewing over viewings with length >3 seconds, but _counted_ all views. I.e. suppose your ad was displayed 5 times for 0.1 seconds and 5 times for 5 seconds. They would report this as "10 views, with average viewing time of 5 seconds".
- tedmiston 10y ago
  I wish your comment was at the highest level. Everyone seems to be attempting to make the same point in the other subthreads. The example here makes it crystal clear.
  - oneloop 10y ago
    My guess was almost correct. The issue was indeed that they use "views with >3 secs" in some metrics and use "all views" in other metrics. Do one of the other, don't mix them up. http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/facebook-gave-ad-agencies-inflated-video-viewing-metric-2-years-173676 http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/facebook-gave-ad-agenc... > UPDATE: Facebook authored a blog post today to futher explain the metric-based miscue. David Fischer, vp of advertising and global operations, wrote: "About a month ago, we found an error in the way we calculate one of the video metrics on our dashboard – average duration of video viewed. The metric should have reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who played the video. But it didn't – it reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by only the number of 'views' of a video (that is, when the video was watched for three or more seconds). And so the miscalculation overstated this metric. While this is only one of the many metrics marketers look at, we take any mistake seriously."

oneloop 10y ago

My suspicion (based on nothing) is that they averaged viewing over viewings with length >3 seconds, but _counted_ all views. I.e. suppose your ad was displayed 5 times for 0.1 seconds and 5 times for 5 seconds. They would report this as "10 views, with average viewing time of 5 seconds".

tedmiston 10y ago
I wish your comment was at the highest level. Everyone seems to be attempting to make the same point in the other subthreads. The example here makes it crystal clear.
- oneloop 10y ago
  My guess was almost correct. The issue was indeed that they use "views with >3 secs" in some metrics and use "all views" in other metrics. Do one of the other, don't mix them up. http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/facebook-gave-ad-agencies-inflated-video-viewing-metric-2-years-173676 http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/facebook-gave-ad-agenc... > UPDATE: Facebook authored a blog post today to futher explain the metric-based miscue. David Fischer, vp of advertising and global operations, wrote: "About a month ago, we found an error in the way we calculate one of the video metrics on our dashboard – average duration of video viewed. The metric should have reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who played the video. But it didn't – it reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by only the number of 'views' of a video (that is, when the video was watched for three or more seconds). And so the miscalculation overstated this metric. While this is only one of the many metrics marketers look at, we take any mistake seriously."