3 ms·

Compare it to google's problem filtering out automatically generated splogs, though - it took them years to make progress against that. Real human social activ

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.

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.