6 ms·

> Why wouldn't someone jump at an opportunity to prove the thing/service they provide actually works, unless they were unsure about it themselves? Because ever

> Why wouldn't someone jump at an opportunity to prove the thing/service they provide actually works, unless they were unsure about it themselves? Because everyone is already acting like they know it works, so the only way that experiment can change things is in a way that's bad for the person in question. In that situation, they should (from a local, selfish perspective) be resisting even if they're awfully sure it does work (and perhaps even if they're right!). Given that, I don't think the behavior has already given us an answer.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xapata 6y ago
The analysis is often performed by a different team, thus no conflict of interest.
- Paradigma11 6y ago
  And if the team doesn't get the desired result there will be a different team next time.
  - xapata 6y ago
    Depends which team has the power. Sometimes it's the team auditing the results that's more respected.
disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Facebook's ad research team have run a lot of experiments. The goal was to demonstrate an impact of in-store sales from internet advertising. They did the first studies in about 2008-10, and have continued running these studies ever since. They even built a tool so that advertisers can run these studies, and get a sense for the incremental impact of their ad. Google have a similar (less full-featured) system. Really, it's the rest of the ecosystem that has much of the fraud, and I think that a lot of people in the industry are aware of this.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > The goal was to demonstrate an impact of in-store sales from internet advertising. So the goal was to advertise advertising. A more scientific goal would be to see if there was an increase of in-store sales from internet advertising. Instead they were looking to design experiments that would show a positive effect, with the goal of giving advertisers a dashboard so they could run those experiments themselves.
  - hertzrat 6y ago
    To let those advertisers do the experiments themselves, and to relate the campaign to in store sales, would require Facebook and google to share a ton lot of internet-user tracking data
    - webmaven 6y ago
      > To let those advertisers do the experiments themselves, and to relate the campaign to in store sales, would require Facebook and google to share a ton lot of internet-user tracking data I think you are misinterpreting what "do the experiments themselves" implies. Certainly there is a JOIN with Google's or FB's data, but it can still happen entirely in a hosted sandbox with no data sharing necessary.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  A system to advertise how good FB's ad system is, built by FB who we know have fudged their numbers before? That isn't proof of anything.
- masonic 6y ago
  Heh. Just today, FB served me an ad claiming to be Macy's and talking about their closeout specials, accompanied by dozens of mourning comments. It was all phony.
- somedude895 6y ago
  Of course they'd say that. We've run Google's Local Campaigns, which are supposed to drive brick and mortar store visits, which they measure using GPS and "other signals". I checked with one of our most remote and least frequented stores, to see whether they could see any of the 100 daily visits that Google claimed to have generated, and they couldn't see a thing (avg daily visits were around 80 before during and after the campaign)
coliveira 6y ago
Not really, scientists for example also have their whole careers based on the truth of some theories that they use. However, they're willing to put them to proof in different ways. The reason they do so is that they have a high degree of confidence that these theories are true. This cannot be said of people doing advertisement.
- ssss11 6y ago
  I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say. Scientists’ whole careers are based on running hypotheses to prove or disprove their theories. That IS their career.
  - mkr-hn 6y ago
    And disproving a theory with lots of research backing it would be great. Imagine if someone found a huge hole in general relativity. There would be a boom in the grant writing industry.
- ACow_Adonis 6y ago
  The reproduction crisis in sciences suggest the self- interest is pretty wide spread. And the social stigma in science of being someone who tries to take down, discredit, or disprove your colleagues/superiors/ competitors theories is pretty substantial: IME there has historically almost been a taboo against attacking our speaking negatively about publications and your own sciences + faculties practices. The saying of sciences advancing one funeral at a time doesn't exist because they're all such great skeptics and falsifiers, and current scientific practice is heavily biased towards positive findings and contains general publication biases. indeed there's actually a LOT of common ground with advertising self-interest, since a lot of publication in science is effectively just advertising your brand...
- accountofme 6y ago
  Truth is relative. Sampling can skew results. Scientists are people too. We all have flaws.
  - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xapata 6y ago

The analysis is often performed by a different team, thus no conflict of interest.

Paradigma11 6y ago
And if the team doesn't get the desired result there will be a different team next time.
- xapata 6y ago
  Depends which team has the power. Sometimes it's the team auditing the results that's more respected.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago

Facebook's ad research team have run a lot of experiments. The goal was to demonstrate an impact of in-store sales from internet advertising. They did the first studies in about 2008-10, and have continued running these studies ever since. They even built a tool so that advertisers can run these studies, and get a sense for the incremental impact of their ad. Google have a similar (less full-featured) system. Really, it's the rest of the ecosystem that has much of the fraud, and I think that a lot of people in the industry are aware of this.

pessimizer 6y ago
> The goal was to demonstrate an impact of in-store sales from internet advertising. So the goal was to advertise advertising. A more scientific goal would be to see if there was an increase of in-store sales from internet advertising. Instead they were looking to design experiments that would show a positive effect, with the goal of giving advertisers a dashboard so they could run those experiments themselves.
- hertzrat 6y ago
  To let those advertisers do the experiments themselves, and to relate the campaign to in store sales, would require Facebook and google to share a ton lot of internet-user tracking data
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > To let those advertisers do the experiments themselves, and to relate the campaign to in store sales, would require Facebook and google to share a ton lot of internet-user tracking data I think you are misinterpreting what "do the experiments themselves" implies. Certainly there is a JOIN with Google's or FB's data, but it can still happen entirely in a hosted sandbox with no data sharing necessary.
Daho0n 6y ago
A system to advertise how good FB's ad system is, built by FB who we know have fudged their numbers before? That isn't proof of anything.
masonic 6y ago
Heh. Just today, FB served me an ad claiming to be Macy's and talking about their closeout specials, accompanied by dozens of mourning comments. It was all phony.
somedude895 6y ago
Of course they'd say that. We've run Google's Local Campaigns, which are supposed to drive brick and mortar store visits, which they measure using GPS and "other signals". I checked with one of our most remote and least frequented stores, to see whether they could see any of the 100 daily visits that Google claimed to have generated, and they couldn't see a thing (avg daily visits were around 80 before during and after the campaign)

coliveira 6y ago

Not really, scientists for example also have their whole careers based on the truth of some theories that they use. However, they're willing to put them to proof in different ways. The reason they do so is that they have a high degree of confidence that these theories are true. This cannot be said of people doing advertisement.

ssss11 6y ago
I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say. Scientists’ whole careers are based on running hypotheses to prove or disprove their theories. That IS their career.
- mkr-hn 6y ago
  And disproving a theory with lots of research backing it would be great. Imagine if someone found a huge hole in general relativity. There would be a boom in the grant writing industry.
ACow_Adonis 6y ago
The reproduction crisis in sciences suggest the self- interest is pretty wide spread. And the social stigma in science of being someone who tries to take down, discredit, or disprove your colleagues/superiors/ competitors theories is pretty substantial: IME there has historically almost been a taboo against attacking our speaking negatively about publications and your own sciences + faculties practices. The saying of sciences advancing one funeral at a time doesn't exist because they're all such great skeptics and falsifiers, and current scientific practice is heavily biased towards positive findings and contains general publication biases. indeed there's actually a LOT of common ground with advertising self-interest, since a lot of publication in science is effectively just advertising your brand...
accountofme 6y ago
Truth is relative. Sampling can skew results. Scientists are people too. We all have flaws.
- 6y ago