4 ms·

I had hoped this article was going to be able how to convince your friends to communicate with a medium other than Facebook.

by engtech 14y ago

tomasien 14y ago
This post misses the biggest logical point that is vitally needed: there was no Newsfeed in the beginning. At all. Then there was a Newsfeed. Then it showed more than just wall posts. Then there were TOO MANY things on it, so they scaled it back. The Newsfeed was an experiment, and it worked, but it needed tweaking. That's why this happened. That they now allow you to pay to promote is secondary to the original origin of why the Newsfeed works like it works. I'm glad to have the option to pay to promote and I'm glad larger fan bases need to pay more. Now, when I have something legitimate to announce, I can pay to do it. When I just want to engage, I better engage well or else I'll get buried. GOOD!
- robbles 14y ago
  Can you actually get similar results to paying for promotion just by having really engaging, viral content? My understanding was that this doesn't work so well anymore. I think paid promotion should be a way of boosting the visibility of content, but definitely not at the expense of content that would have spread virally if it wasn't artificially limited.
- dasil003 14y ago
  > That they now allow you to pay to promote is secondary to the original origin of why the Newsfeed works like it works. Sure they had to scale it back, but the conflict of interests is real. People don't necessarily want to see only posts from those who are willing to pay. It's not that I begrudge them the opportunity to make money, but I think this clearly weakens Facebook's usefulness to users. It's one thing if Facebook is filtering to show me the posts with the most organic engagement in order to decrease noise in my feed. It's completely different if some of the pages I follow have very little chance of reaching me based solely on their inability or unwillingness to pay for access. OA hyperbole notwithstanding, I think Facebook are overreaching here.
  - tomasien 14y ago
    Company A changes Company A's product to support Company A is not a conflict of interest. I know people feel very strongly about Facebook and how it should act, but they are a company and a good one at that imo. People begrudging them for the individuals promoted posts is one thing that I can understand, but begrudging them charging brands for whom they've provided a platform FULL of amazing, free services?
    - dasil003 14y ago
      Did you read my comment? I explicitly said I am not begrudging them the opportunity to make money however they want. If you want to quibble over the denotation of "conflict of interests" fine, let me put it this way: It's not sustainable for Facebook to degrade the usefulness of their service in this way for a short-term cash gain. 15-20% throughput to fans is so low as to confound expectations, and I'm saying this will bite them ass.
      - tomasien 14y ago
        A much fairer critique. The argument over conflict of interest isn't trivial, the true meaning of that phrase denotes something pretty serious.
- waltermorgan 14y ago
  Bullshit. There are other ways they could have filtered Newsfeed- it didn't have to be an algorithm. People, fans, pages could do it themselves if only the platform enabled them.
  - tomasien 14y ago
    It does, nobody used lists or filters.
    - waltermorgan 14y ago
      It's a pain and hidden away-- just an after thought. They could make it a lot more obvious and a lot easier to use. They've got the resources to do better than what they've done with it.

I had hoped this article was going to be able how to convince your friends to communicate with a medium other than Facebook.

by engtech 14y ago

I had hoped this article was going to be able how to convince your friends to communicate with a medium other than Facebook.

tomasien 14y ago

This post misses the biggest logical point that is vitally needed: there was no Newsfeed in the beginning. At all. Then there was a Newsfeed. Then it showed more than just wall posts. Then there were TOO MANY things on it, so they scaled it back. The Newsfeed was an experiment, and it worked, but it needed tweaking. That's why this happened. That they now allow you to pay to promote is secondary to the original origin of why the Newsfeed works like it works. I'm glad to have the option to pay to promote and I'm glad larger fan bases need to pay more. Now, when I have something legitimate to announce, I can pay to do it. When I just want to engage, I better engage well or else I'll get buried. GOOD!

robbles 14y ago
Can you actually get similar results to paying for promotion just by having really engaging, viral content? My understanding was that this doesn't work so well anymore. I think paid promotion should be a way of boosting the visibility of content, but definitely not at the expense of content that would have spread virally if it wasn't artificially limited.
dasil003 14y ago
> That they now allow you to pay to promote is secondary to the original origin of why the Newsfeed works like it works. Sure they had to scale it back, but the conflict of interests is real. People don't necessarily want to see only posts from those who are willing to pay. It's not that I begrudge them the opportunity to make money, but I think this clearly weakens Facebook's usefulness to users. It's one thing if Facebook is filtering to show me the posts with the most organic engagement in order to decrease noise in my feed. It's completely different if some of the pages I follow have very little chance of reaching me based solely on their inability or unwillingness to pay for access. OA hyperbole notwithstanding, I think Facebook are overreaching here.
- tomasien 14y ago
  Company A changes Company A's product to support Company A is not a conflict of interest. I know people feel very strongly about Facebook and how it should act, but they are a company and a good one at that imo. People begrudging them for the individuals promoted posts is one thing that I can understand, but begrudging them charging brands for whom they've provided a platform FULL of amazing, free services?
  - dasil003 14y ago
    Did you read my comment? I explicitly said I am not begrudging them the opportunity to make money however they want. If you want to quibble over the denotation of "conflict of interests" fine, let me put it this way: It's not sustainable for Facebook to degrade the usefulness of their service in this way for a short-term cash gain. 15-20% throughput to fans is so low as to confound expectations, and I'm saying this will bite them ass.
    - tomasien 14y ago
      A much fairer critique. The argument over conflict of interest isn't trivial, the true meaning of that phrase denotes something pretty serious.
waltermorgan 14y ago
Bullshit. There are other ways they could have filtered Newsfeed- it didn't have to be an algorithm. People, fans, pages could do it themselves if only the platform enabled them.
- tomasien 14y ago
  It does, nobody used lists or filters.
  - waltermorgan 14y ago
    It's a pain and hidden away-- just an after thought. They could make it a lot more obvious and a lot easier to use. They've got the resources to do better than what they've done with it.