6 ms·

Well I do have at least some data to back that up. I know that they are a walled garden that keeps a ton of user data for every account (even the subset represe

by rapind 14y ago

Well I do have at least some data to back that up. I know that they are a walled garden that keeps a ton of user data for every account (even the subset represented in Open Graph is significant). And it's with this knowledge that I make my conclusion. * Accounts subsisting of an unusual proportion of ad clicking activity compared to their other activities are likely bots. * New accounts with no history but high ad clicks are likely bots. Before a click is counted, check the source account for it's human rank (activity-to-clicks). If it's below a certain threshold (tuned over time) than don't bill your customer for it. The algo's to determine human rank can start fairly simple and become more complicated and accurate over time. In terms of their current sophistication I would definitely call this an easy problem from a tech standpoint. Scaling to millions of concurrent users? Hard. Attracting and keeping millions of users? Hard.

monkeypizza 14y ago
Compare it to google's problem filtering out automatically generated splogs, though - it took them years to make progress against that. Real human social activity is a lot more random than real informational content in blogs - so fb's problem seems harder. Also, facebook banning accounts is a much stronger action than google just lowering the pagerank of suspected splogs. So overall I think fb's problem is harder than a currently google-unsolved problem.
- jonknee 14y ago
  Facebook has total control of the users very action since joining Facebook. Much easier than coming across a random HTMl page and deciding on if it's real (whatever real means, YouTube comments are real but are very low signal but a database that runs itself could provide lots of signal).
- Foy 14y ago
  He never said to ban the suspicious accounts, just don't charge companies for their clicks. The detection part aside, it's a simple fix. I just wonder why FB hasn't already. (Is it because it'd hurt their revenue when they need it the most?)
- publicfig 14y ago
  But in the same respect, the fact that real human social activity is much more random is a reason why this should be easier. Bots are inherently pattern based, and while there are bots that could work to maintain fake interactions in order to pass a wide-sweep analysis of low-socializing accounts with a high ad response rate, it would do quite a bit to take a first attack on some of the more obvious bots, which are the ones that many of the people who had these problems noticed. Now of course I'm simplifying this to a nearly absurd degree, but I do think there are reasons for Facebook to want to ignore these issues and that even a minimal step up in bot-prevention could go a long way when it comes to their advertisers.
  - monkeypizza 14y ago
    I suppose a naive bot would not be "random" enough, and would obviously not be human. But on the other hand, since valid human behavior includes much more senseless, random, and repetitive actions (compared to blogging), a well-done bot would be harder to detect.
    - publicfig 14y ago
      Oh, absolutely! I have no doubts that Facebook will always be a step behind the bots, and I don't think anyone feels or even expects otherwise. That's just part of the social networking climate right now, and all major (and even many minor) social networking sites have to deal with it. However, in many cases that were pointed out in both the article and the comments here, these people weren't having their pages liked and ads clicked through by advanced bots, but instead by obviously shill accounts. Now of course there is always the option that these are legitimate accounts with weird use patterns, but regardless there are methods of doing at least a significant sweep and remove some of the more obvious bots or at least offering them a chance of legitimacy confirmation (even something similar to CAPTCHAs for non-standard account usage that messes with advertisers campaigns). Like I said, I absolutely believe there will be bots that are incredibly sophisticated that might be difficult to detect, but I still think more could be done to stop the less sophisticated ones.
- TomAnthony 14y ago
  I come down on the side that it shouldn't be so difficult for Facebook to at least spot some of the 4 bots per human. However, even if you assume it is a hard problem - thats more reason that they should have listened (and responded!!) when a company identified this problem with some hard data to back it up.
jiggy2011 14y ago
The bot masters then just have to figure out roughly what your activity/ad clicks rate is. They can do this over time by looking at statistics. Then they make some bundled crapware browser plugin that gets installed by legit facebook users that will click ads at that interval + some random time. Possibly do the ad clicks in background so that the user does not know.
- rapind 14y ago
  How exactly are they going to know they're being flagged as bots? When all you're doing is discounting those bot clicks to the advertiser it becomes far more difficult to test your limits as a bot (you would need to be a paying advertiser, just to analyze the human to bot threshold). It's similar to hell-banning, in that the user's generally unaware they've been hell-banned. Take a minute to think about the effort a bot account has to go to in order to even come close to gaming a system that tracks their behaviour. Let's assume that in order to be deemed human you need at least a few characteristics like "account older than 1 day", "friends from other non-suspicious accounts", "a photo or at least comments on a friends photos", and a "certain amount of click activity". Now let's take that criteria and make it difficult for a bot to even know if they're being flagged as a bot where the only indication is a reduced bill at the end of the day / week / month to the advertiser. So bot makers would have to pay to test and would at best receive delayed feedback on their success. Isn't this starting to seem extremely difficult, and generally unscalable from a bot perspective? It doesn't have to be impossible, there just needs to be lower hanging fruit, of which there are plenty should FB implement a system like this. And should this fairly simple solution still have a few holes that a very elite few bot coders are able to game, you've still got tons of data and time to use to tune your algos. It just doesn't make sense that one of their advertiser's is being charged for 80% bot clicks, until you start to question Facebooks motivations.
  - AznHisoka 14y ago
    I agree. This is an easy problem, considering FB's resources. Only a logged in FB user can click on ads. Not random crawlers. That alone makes this problem 100 times easier than what Google has to face with invalid clicks. No excuses.

by rapind 14y ago

monkeypizza 14y ago

Compare it to google's problem filtering out automatically generated splogs, though - it took them years to make progress against that. Real human social activity is a lot more random than real informational content in blogs - so fb's problem seems harder. Also, facebook banning accounts is a much stronger action than google just lowering the pagerank of suspected splogs. So overall I think fb's problem is harder than a currently google-unsolved problem.

jonknee 14y ago
Facebook has total control of the users very action since joining Facebook. Much easier than coming across a random HTMl page and deciding on if it's real (whatever real means, YouTube comments are real but are very low signal but a database that runs itself could provide lots of signal).
Foy 14y ago
He never said to ban the suspicious accounts, just don't charge companies for their clicks. The detection part aside, it's a simple fix. I just wonder why FB hasn't already. (Is it because it'd hurt their revenue when they need it the most?)
publicfig 14y ago
But in the same respect, the fact that real human social activity is much more random is a reason why this should be easier. Bots are inherently pattern based, and while there are bots that could work to maintain fake interactions in order to pass a wide-sweep analysis of low-socializing accounts with a high ad response rate, it would do quite a bit to take a first attack on some of the more obvious bots, which are the ones that many of the people who had these problems noticed. Now of course I'm simplifying this to a nearly absurd degree, but I do think there are reasons for Facebook to want to ignore these issues and that even a minimal step up in bot-prevention could go a long way when it comes to their advertisers.
- monkeypizza 14y ago
  I suppose a naive bot would not be "random" enough, and would obviously not be human. But on the other hand, since valid human behavior includes much more senseless, random, and repetitive actions (compared to blogging), a well-done bot would be harder to detect.
  - publicfig 14y ago
    Oh, absolutely! I have no doubts that Facebook will always be a step behind the bots, and I don't think anyone feels or even expects otherwise. That's just part of the social networking climate right now, and all major (and even many minor) social networking sites have to deal with it. However, in many cases that were pointed out in both the article and the comments here, these people weren't having their pages liked and ads clicked through by advanced bots, but instead by obviously shill accounts. Now of course there is always the option that these are legitimate accounts with weird use patterns, but regardless there are methods of doing at least a significant sweep and remove some of the more obvious bots or at least offering them a chance of legitimacy confirmation (even something similar to CAPTCHAs for non-standard account usage that messes with advertisers campaigns). Like I said, I absolutely believe there will be bots that are incredibly sophisticated that might be difficult to detect, but I still think more could be done to stop the less sophisticated ones.
TomAnthony 14y ago
I come down on the side that it shouldn't be so difficult for Facebook to at least spot some of the 4 bots per human. However, even if you assume it is a hard problem - thats more reason that they should have listened (and responded!!) when a company identified this problem with some hard data to back it up.

jiggy2011 14y ago

The bot masters then just have to figure out roughly what your activity/ad clicks rate is. They can do this over time by looking at statistics. Then they make some bundled crapware browser plugin that gets installed by legit facebook users that will click ads at that interval + some random time. Possibly do the ad clicks in background so that the user does not know.

rapind 14y ago
How exactly are they going to know they're being flagged as bots? When all you're doing is discounting those bot clicks to the advertiser it becomes far more difficult to test your limits as a bot (you would need to be a paying advertiser, just to analyze the human to bot threshold). It's similar to hell-banning, in that the user's generally unaware they've been hell-banned. Take a minute to think about the effort a bot account has to go to in order to even come close to gaming a system that tracks their behaviour. Let's assume that in order to be deemed human you need at least a few characteristics like "account older than 1 day", "friends from other non-suspicious accounts", "a photo or at least comments on a friends photos", and a "certain amount of click activity". Now let's take that criteria and make it difficult for a bot to even know if they're being flagged as a bot where the only indication is a reduced bill at the end of the day / week / month to the advertiser. So bot makers would have to pay to test and would at best receive delayed feedback on their success. Isn't this starting to seem extremely difficult, and generally unscalable from a bot perspective? It doesn't have to be impossible, there just needs to be lower hanging fruit, of which there are plenty should FB implement a system like this. And should this fairly simple solution still have a few holes that a very elite few bot coders are able to game, you've still got tons of data and time to use to tune your algos. It just doesn't make sense that one of their advertiser's is being charged for 80% bot clicks, until you start to question Facebooks motivations.
- AznHisoka 14y ago
  I agree. This is an easy problem, considering FB's resources. Only a logged in FB user can click on ads. Not random crawlers. That alone makes this problem 100 times easier than what Google has to face with invalid clicks. No excuses.