5 ms·

FB audited a bunch of metrics and found issues with 4 out of 220. The narrative being pushed here is that all of them nefariously favored FB. The only problem w

by elgenie 10y ago

FB audited a bunch of metrics and found issues with 4 out of 220. The narrative being pushed here is that all of them nefariously favored FB. The only problem with that is that it's not true. > """Elsewhere, Facebook admitted to exaggerating the number of full views that video ads received""" You can tell they didn't do any homework, since the issue was that full views were under reported when the audio and video tracks were not the exact same length. The result is that full views were actually roughly 35% greater than what page managers saw reported. http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/11/an-update-on-metrics-and-reporting/ http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/11/an-update-on-metrics-and... goes into the details of what the issues with each metric calculation is. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether each was (a) important and (b) favored FB. That link also goes into FB's plans for next steps in making metrics externally audited and more transparent.

krige 10y ago
"FB investigated FB and found FB not guilty"
- shostack 10y ago
  Fwiw sounds like they are opening up to independent third party review with viewability vendors like Integral. Now if only they'd let me use DCM tags to measure impression data and VTs.
  - lifeisstillgood 10y ago
    DCM tags? VTs?
    - Mtinie 10y ago
      'DCM' = DoubleClick Campaign Manager tags 'VT', in this context, probably meant 'viewability tracking' or 'viewability targeting'.
      - cgvgffyv 10y ago
        And people worry we won't have enough jobs when the robots take over.
      - shostack 10y ago
        Actually in this case VT refers to View-Throughs, ie. post-impression performance or conversions that occur from someone who sees a display ad impression, doesn't click, but later converts.
        Mtinie 10y ago
        Ah, that makes better sense. Thank you!
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  A valid point, but it's ludicrous to report it as "FB found guilty".
  - krige 10y ago
    Well, yes, it was just a paraphrase, maybe a bit exaggerated in this context.
- DominikR 10y ago
  So what? That's what FB can do when they find an issue. You are free to sue them if you feel that you have lost money because of this. Go ahead, that's what courts are for. But I guess what many really want is for government to step in and use government force to punish FB until people feel that some kind of justice has been done. (burn the witch!) That's why democracy is fundamentally incompatible with liberty. On a side note: The media is attacking FB because they feel that FB doesn't censor and steer public opinion in the way they would like it to be. They are all up in arms claiming that Trump is FB's fault after they themselves have reported 24/7 on Trump. (but so biased, even Stalin would have cringed) That's the only reason why this article even exists.
sean_patel 10y ago
> You can tell they didn't do any homework, It's not a question of "doing their homework". That's the naive cop-out. The inflation of metrics and numbers is company-wide, and I am pretty certain most - if not all of it - is deliberate. Especially after 'Zuck' took the Company Public.
- elgenie 10y ago
  The NY Post are the ones that didn't do their homework. Their source for this article is FB trying for transparency. If you have proof of inflating metrics and numbers, especially deliberately, you're welcome to post some. Posting detailed reports of errors discovered during an internal audit when under no obligation to do so, on the other hand, is not in keeping with your conspiracy theory.
  - sean_patel 10y ago
    It's not a 'conspiracy theory'. See my other comment. I worked at the Ad Team for a few months. Saw it from the inside.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    >Posting detailed reports of errors discovered during an internal audit when under no obligation to do so You dont think a public company is obligated to audit internal controls and keep shareholders and regulators in the loop?
    - elgenie 10y ago
      A public company is obligated to report quarterly, in a prescribed format, a bunch of high-level information material to the business by Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X. A public company is not obligated to rush out details like "We’ve determined that the average time spent per article had been over-reported by 7-8% on average since August of last year. This was caused by a calculation error: we were calculating the average across a histogram of time spent, instead of reflecting the total time spent reading an article divided by its total views."
kingkawn 10y ago
'Actually roughly' is the best
- elgenie 10y ago
  If you need help parsing, it's "actually (roughly 35% greater)".
vthallam 10y ago
Forget about this article and consider the video metrics they inflated. They counted a 3 sec play as a video view and that's a big thing. 4 out of 220 is still a big number for a big company such as FB to be wrong at.
- elgenie 10y ago
  > They counted a 3 sec play as a video view and that's a big thing. 3+ seconds representing a single FB view has been the definition of a video view on FB since the metric became public.
  - Ralfp 10y ago
    And it was considered dishonest way to count views since then too: https://medium.com/@hankgreen/is-facebook-lying-about-video-views-4fc41450a266#.20xg2kkjx https://medium.com/@hankgreen/is-facebook-lying-about-video-...
    - saiya-jin 10y ago
      this is subjective evaluation, but they have been open about it and not lying on our faces. I get the big brother corp hate, but let's be reasonable and factual with it if we must go this way
      - Ralfp 10y ago
        > I get the big brother corp hate, but let's be reasonable and factual with it if we must go this way I fail to see how calling FB out on cherrypicking criteria for counting conversion on videos is invalid because those criteria were made know ealier. This is IMHO alike of arguments over e-bay auctions doing "image scam" not being scam because you knew what was sold, after all it was there in auction's description. It's still dishonesty.
  - dsr_ 10y ago
    It wouldn't be a problem if they discontinued autoplaying. The average FB user needs more than 3 seconds to find the X button.

by elgenie 10y ago

krige 10y ago

"FB investigated FB and found FB not guilty"

shostack 10y ago
Fwiw sounds like they are opening up to independent third party review with viewability vendors like Integral. Now if only they'd let me use DCM tags to measure impression data and VTs.
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  DCM tags? VTs?
  - Mtinie 10y ago
    'DCM' = DoubleClick Campaign Manager tags 'VT', in this context, probably meant 'viewability tracking' or 'viewability targeting'.
    - cgvgffyv 10y ago
      And people worry we won't have enough jobs when the robots take over.
    - shostack 10y ago
      Actually in this case VT refers to View-Throughs, ie. post-impression performance or conversions that occur from someone who sees a display ad impression, doesn't click, but later converts.
      - Mtinie 10y ago
        Ah, that makes better sense. Thank you!
Dylan16807 10y ago
A valid point, but it's ludicrous to report it as "FB found guilty".
- krige 10y ago
  Well, yes, it was just a paraphrase, maybe a bit exaggerated in this context.
DominikR 10y ago
So what? That's what FB can do when they find an issue. You are free to sue them if you feel that you have lost money because of this. Go ahead, that's what courts are for. But I guess what many really want is for government to step in and use government force to punish FB until people feel that some kind of justice has been done. (burn the witch!) That's why democracy is fundamentally incompatible with liberty. On a side note: The media is attacking FB because they feel that FB doesn't censor and steer public opinion in the way they would like it to be. They are all up in arms claiming that Trump is FB's fault after they themselves have reported 24/7 on Trump. (but so biased, even Stalin would have cringed) That's the only reason why this article even exists.

sean_patel 10y ago

> You can tell they didn't do any homework, It's not a question of "doing their homework". That's the naive cop-out. The inflation of metrics and numbers is company-wide, and I am pretty certain most - if not all of it - is deliberate. Especially after 'Zuck' took the Company Public.

elgenie 10y ago
The NY Post are the ones that didn't do their homework. Their source for this article is FB trying for transparency. If you have proof of inflating metrics and numbers, especially deliberately, you're welcome to post some. Posting detailed reports of errors discovered during an internal audit when under no obligation to do so, on the other hand, is not in keeping with your conspiracy theory.
- sean_patel 10y ago
  It's not a 'conspiracy theory'. See my other comment. I worked at the Ad Team for a few months. Saw it from the inside.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Posting detailed reports of errors discovered during an internal audit when under no obligation to do so You dont think a public company is obligated to audit internal controls and keep shareholders and regulators in the loop?
  - elgenie 10y ago
    A public company is obligated to report quarterly, in a prescribed format, a bunch of high-level information material to the business by Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X. A public company is not obligated to rush out details like "We’ve determined that the average time spent per article had been over-reported by 7-8% on average since August of last year. This was caused by a calculation error: we were calculating the average across a histogram of time spent, instead of reflecting the total time spent reading an article divided by its total views."

kingkawn 10y ago

'Actually roughly' is the best

elgenie 10y ago
If you need help parsing, it's "actually (roughly 35% greater)".

vthallam 10y ago

Forget about this article and consider the video metrics they inflated. They counted a 3 sec play as a video view and that's a big thing. 4 out of 220 is still a big number for a big company such as FB to be wrong at.

elgenie 10y ago
> They counted a 3 sec play as a video view and that's a big thing. 3+ seconds representing a single FB view has been the definition of a video view on FB since the metric became public.
- Ralfp 10y ago
  And it was considered dishonest way to count views since then too: https://medium.com/@hankgreen/is-facebook-lying-about-video-views-4fc41450a266#.20xg2kkjx https://medium.com/@hankgreen/is-facebook-lying-about-video-...
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    this is subjective evaluation, but they have been open about it and not lying on our faces. I get the big brother corp hate, but let's be reasonable and factual with it if we must go this way
    - Ralfp 10y ago
      > I get the big brother corp hate, but let's be reasonable and factual with it if we must go this way I fail to see how calling FB out on cherrypicking criteria for counting conversion on videos is invalid because those criteria were made know ealier. This is IMHO alike of arguments over e-bay auctions doing "image scam" not being scam because you knew what was sold, after all it was there in auction's description. It's still dishonesty.
- dsr_ 10y ago
  It wouldn't be a problem if they discontinued autoplaying. The average FB user needs more than 3 seconds to find the X button.