3 ms·

I didn't really understand this criticism. If one were to say that American's on average watch almost 4 hours of television per day[1], is it at all misleading

by nkurz 8y ago

I didn't really understand this criticism. If one were to say that American's on average watch almost 4 hours of television per day[1], is it at all misleading that this might not be done in a solid block? All the other criticisms aside, I'm just fine with saying "1 minute per day" even if this involves several short videos. [1] Yes, this actually is the correct figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption. 3 hr 58 min per day; 35.5 hr per week; 77 days per year. And if you are thinking to yourself "Well I don't watch any!", remember that this just means someone else is watching twice the average to make up the difference.

swsieber 8y ago
A minute is a small time. Small enough that it can be comprised fully of mistaken video starts. Given that the videos auto-play, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the count was from videos autoplaying as people scrolled theough.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Disagree. Five seconds is in that category, one minute is in the “ha ha my cat fell off my bed isn’t that cute” category.
  - eigenvector 8y ago
    The 1 minute can just be 5 seconds 12 times, which is pretty easy to accomplish with autoplay while scrolling Facebook while never deliberately watching anything.
    - kazinator 8y ago
      Vegging in front a TV for two hours can be accomplished without deliberately watching anything. It's a captive pair of eyes that can be subliminally programmed, even if no deliberately watching.
      - eigenvector 8y ago
        But even if you passively watch TV while doing something else - like cooking for instance - you at least show the intent to do that. Your TV doesn't turn itself off and play in the background even if you actively don't want it like web auto-play videos attached to unrelated content (your social feed) do.
- kazinator 8y ago
  So, in other words, you are in no way misled by Facebook's wording. Just other people might be and that's wrong!
smelendez 8y ago
Both the TV and FB numbers are potentially misleading. The FB numbers likely include accidental plays and plays by people who watch a few seconds trying to identify what a video is, then move on. Nobody would say they watched football last night if they flipped past ESPN and left the game on for a few seconds to see who was playing, but if Facebook were showing the game they would count these people as viewers. A lot of people who don't watch a lot of TV hear the TV numbers and picture someone sitting on the couch watching the screen for four hours a day, when it's more likely people who leave the TV on while doing other things. If you called these people on the phone and said what are you doing, they'd probably say "making dinner" or something similar, not "watching TV."
- jstarfish 8y ago
  > If you called these people on the phone and said what are you doing, they'd probably say "making dinner" or something similar, not "watching TV." While it only ever measures a sample size of participants and thus is still misleading, that's not how the Nielsen metrics work. You have to opt into the program and self-report your usage, specifically what shows you actually watch.
nitwit005 8y ago
Usually with online video an HTTP request gets sent at different points to note how far they got in the video (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Ad_Serving_Template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Ad_Serving_Template). You normally see an exponential drop off, with many people watching only a few seconds. A lot of those minutes are likely people accidentally watching a few seconds of auto-playing video as they scroll through facebook. I'd note that television viewing statistics are also likely inflated, at least for a normal person's definition of "watching TV". How often have you been in front of a TV in a bar or airport, but no one is actually watching?
- reaperducer 8y ago
  I'd note that television viewing statistics are also likely inflated, at least for a normal person's definition of "watching TV". How often have you been in front of a TV in a bar or airport, but no one is actually watching? TV viewing in bars and other public locations is specifically excluded from TV viewing numbers. The same is true for hospitals, asylums, prisons, nursing homes, and even college dormitories. Also, the way it works is that the broadcast only gets counted as viewed if someone watches for 300 continuous seconds. And then credit is only given for the 15-minute block (:00-:15, :15-:30, :30-:45, :45-:00) in which that 300 second span happened. And if the 300-seconds spans a 15-minute boundary, then it doesn't count at all. For example, if someone watches a TV program from 6:01pm until 6:07pm, the broadcaster gets credit for 6:00pm-6:15pm. If someone watches from 6:11pm-6:19pm, it doesn't count at all. I'm not sure why this is defined as "300 seconds" and not "five minutes." When I was in broadcasting, I used the phrase "five minutes" twice and was harshly corrected by my bosses both times, so there must be a reason.
Gatsky 8y ago
The TV stats are determined by an independent body (Nielsen). Facebook calculates it’s own stats and they obviously have a huge incentive to publish the most favourable usage statistics possible.

by nkurz 8y ago

swsieber 8y ago

A minute is a small time. Small enough that it can be comprised fully of mistaken video starts. Given that the videos auto-play, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the count was from videos autoplaying as people scrolled theough.

ben_w 8y ago
Disagree. Five seconds is in that category, one minute is in the “ha ha my cat fell off my bed isn’t that cute” category.
- eigenvector 8y ago
  The 1 minute can just be 5 seconds 12 times, which is pretty easy to accomplish with autoplay while scrolling Facebook while never deliberately watching anything.
  - kazinator 8y ago
    Vegging in front a TV for two hours can be accomplished without deliberately watching anything. It's a captive pair of eyes that can be subliminally programmed, even if no deliberately watching.
    - eigenvector 8y ago
      But even if you passively watch TV while doing something else - like cooking for instance - you at least show the intent to do that. Your TV doesn't turn itself off and play in the background even if you actively don't want it like web auto-play videos attached to unrelated content (your social feed) do.
kazinator 8y ago
So, in other words, you are in no way misled by Facebook's wording. Just other people might be and that's wrong!

smelendez 8y ago

Both the TV and FB numbers are potentially misleading. The FB numbers likely include accidental plays and plays by people who watch a few seconds trying to identify what a video is, then move on. Nobody would say they watched football last night if they flipped past ESPN and left the game on for a few seconds to see who was playing, but if Facebook were showing the game they would count these people as viewers. A lot of people who don't watch a lot of TV hear the TV numbers and picture someone sitting on the couch watching the screen for four hours a day, when it's more likely people who leave the TV on while doing other things. If you called these people on the phone and said what are you doing, they'd probably say "making dinner" or something similar, not "watching TV."

jstarfish 8y ago
> If you called these people on the phone and said what are you doing, they'd probably say "making dinner" or something similar, not "watching TV." While it only ever measures a sample size of participants and thus is still misleading, that's not how the Nielsen metrics work. You have to opt into the program and self-report your usage, specifically what shows you actually watch.

nitwit005 8y ago

Usually with online video an HTTP request gets sent at different points to note how far they got in the video (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Ad_Serving_Template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Ad_Serving_Template). You normally see an exponential drop off, with many people watching only a few seconds. A lot of those minutes are likely people accidentally watching a few seconds of auto-playing video as they scroll through facebook. I'd note that television viewing statistics are also likely inflated, at least for a normal person's definition of "watching TV". How often have you been in front of a TV in a bar or airport, but no one is actually watching?

reaperducer 8y ago
I'd note that television viewing statistics are also likely inflated, at least for a normal person's definition of "watching TV". How often have you been in front of a TV in a bar or airport, but no one is actually watching? TV viewing in bars and other public locations is specifically excluded from TV viewing numbers. The same is true for hospitals, asylums, prisons, nursing homes, and even college dormitories. Also, the way it works is that the broadcast only gets counted as viewed if someone watches for 300 continuous seconds. And then credit is only given for the 15-minute block (:00-:15, :15-:30, :30-:45, :45-:00) in which that 300 second span happened. And if the 300-seconds spans a 15-minute boundary, then it doesn't count at all. For example, if someone watches a TV program from 6:01pm until 6:07pm, the broadcaster gets credit for 6:00pm-6:15pm. If someone watches from 6:11pm-6:19pm, it doesn't count at all. I'm not sure why this is defined as "300 seconds" and not "five minutes." When I was in broadcasting, I used the phrase "five minutes" twice and was harshly corrected by my bosses both times, so there must be a reason.

Gatsky 8y ago

The TV stats are determined by an independent body (Nielsen). Facebook calculates it’s own stats and they obviously have a huge incentive to publish the most favourable usage statistics possible.