4 ms·

Author of the Damn Interesting post here. Internally we worried that there would be some fallout from abandoning our Facebook page--by the numbers we had more f

Author of the Damn Interesting post here. Internally we worried that there would be some fallout from abandoning our Facebook page--by the numbers we had more followers there than any other social media platform, by far. But the response from our audience has been almost 100% positive, even from our Facebook followers[1]. It put only a tiny dent in our site's daily traffic. It resulted in many new subscribers to our email list. There was a flurry of new donations, with attached supportive comments about the amputation. Facebook was exactly the gangrenous thing it appeared to be, and we are better off without it. If you will permit me the indulgence of quoting my own post: > Some call it a “necessary evil,” but if that’s the case let’s do all we can to make it unnecessary. For any organizations considering the same move, I cannot recommend it enough. It feels like cutting off contact with a toxic acquaintance--equal parts relief and optimism. [1] https://www.facebook.com/DamnInt/posts/10158097374656961 https://www.facebook.com/DamnInt/posts/10158097374656961

cable2600 5y ago
How can you tell the real people from the spambots? I am on a Bitcoin group on Facebook and spambots keep making their way through the registration process.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  Then your mods are terrible. FB's moderation tools are primitive, but they do exist. Your group should require a moderator's approval to gain posting privileges, and require a few questions to be answered as well: - Do you agree not to make posts advertising any business or profit-making entity on this group? - Do you agree that all of your posts and comments on this group will be individually written by you? Reject any user who doesn't say yes to both of those and set all new users to post approval for the first week. It's a lot of work because, as mentioned, FB's tools are crap. Your problem might be exacerbated by the subject matter.
- mikro2nd 5y ago
  If I interpret OP correctly: It's not the spambots that are the problem. It's Facebook that's the problem.
cs702 5y ago
Thank you for posting this here. It is exactly the kind of public service announcement other organizations need to see, because it will encourage them to question and reevaluate the benefits and costs of their relationship with Facebook. If enough organizations change their behavior, I'm hopeful the folks at Facebook will be forced to change their behavior too. I mean, shouldn't be possible for Facebook to be profitable without also doing all those toxic/evil things?
sgregnt 5y ago
Interesting, if you had more follower on facebook than any on other social media, and turns out, these are the core followers that are not abandoning you after you left facebook. Wouldn't that suggest that Facebook algorithms actually did an excellent service for you and your audience? If so, my reading is that Facebook does a great job overall matching audience with content, and opening a Facebook page seems like a great move!
- cwkoss 5y ago
  No, it suggests that people liking Damn Interesting on Facebook were already readers and that Facebook wasn't providing more than "a tiny dent" of additional traffic. Facebook likes to try to take credit for 100% of the traffic they send from their platform, but seems like the people they were reaching would have gone anyways.
  - sgregnt 5y ago
    I dont understand where does your claim come from that the users were already readers of the blog before seeing it on Facebook. It says in the article that once facebook promotions were gone, people were not able to find the content, so much so, that they would reach out to the blog years after- to asked if the blog still operates... that sounds to me like facebook identifying new core audience for the blog. Which is a great service done by an ads company.
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      People who enjoyed DI liked their facebook page. Previously, this meant that those people would see DI articles on their feed. Facebook changed the algorithm so posts by pages you've liked show up rarely if they don't pay to promote them. Facebook wasn't identifying a core new audience, they were selling access to their original audience.
- DamnInteresting 5y ago
  You seem to be taking a single metric out of context and using it to draw a dubious conclusion. Facebook was showing each of our posts to very few of our fans. It was hiding our posts from a lot of people who wanted to see them. Myself, I would not categorize that as 'excellent service'.

cable2600 5y ago

How can you tell the real people from the spambots? I am on a Bitcoin group on Facebook and spambots keep making their way through the registration process.

dsr_ 5y ago
Then your mods are terrible. FB's moderation tools are primitive, but they do exist. Your group should require a moderator's approval to gain posting privileges, and require a few questions to be answered as well: - Do you agree not to make posts advertising any business or profit-making entity on this group? - Do you agree that all of your posts and comments on this group will be individually written by you? Reject any user who doesn't say yes to both of those and set all new users to post approval for the first week. It's a lot of work because, as mentioned, FB's tools are crap. Your problem might be exacerbated by the subject matter.
mikro2nd 5y ago
If I interpret OP correctly: It's not the spambots that are the problem. It's Facebook that's the problem.

cs702 5y ago

Thank you for posting this here. It is exactly the kind of public service announcement other organizations need to see, because it will encourage them to question and reevaluate the benefits and costs of their relationship with Facebook. If enough organizations change their behavior, I'm hopeful the folks at Facebook will be forced to change their behavior too. I mean, shouldn't be possible for Facebook to be profitable without also doing all those toxic/evil things?

sgregnt 5y ago

Interesting, if you had more follower on facebook than any on other social media, and turns out, these are the core followers that are not abandoning you after you left facebook. Wouldn't that suggest that Facebook algorithms actually did an excellent service for you and your audience? If so, my reading is that Facebook does a great job overall matching audience with content, and opening a Facebook page seems like a great move!

cwkoss 5y ago
No, it suggests that people liking Damn Interesting on Facebook were already readers and that Facebook wasn't providing more than "a tiny dent" of additional traffic. Facebook likes to try to take credit for 100% of the traffic they send from their platform, but seems like the people they were reaching would have gone anyways.
- sgregnt 5y ago
  I dont understand where does your claim come from that the users were already readers of the blog before seeing it on Facebook. It says in the article that once facebook promotions were gone, people were not able to find the content, so much so, that they would reach out to the blog years after- to asked if the blog still operates... that sounds to me like facebook identifying new core audience for the blog. Which is a great service done by an ads company.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    People who enjoyed DI liked their facebook page. Previously, this meant that those people would see DI articles on their feed. Facebook changed the algorithm so posts by pages you've liked show up rarely if they don't pay to promote them. Facebook wasn't identifying a core new audience, they were selling access to their original audience.
DamnInteresting 5y ago
You seem to be taking a single metric out of context and using it to draw a dubious conclusion. Facebook was showing each of our posts to very few of our fans. It was hiding our posts from a lot of people who wanted to see them. Myself, I would not categorize that as 'excellent service'.