3 ms·
Awesome. There are so many lies being exposed in this article. For one, One advertiser told me how he paid $200 to an Indian operation for 2,000 Facebook acco
by pj 17y ago
Awesome. There are so many lies being exposed in this article.
For one, One advertiser told me how he paid $200 to an Indian operation for 2,000 Facebook accounts. That means FaceBook's account numbers must be highly inflated. Their growth is inflated.
For two: In our original post we quoted one advertiser who at least wanted to see the traffic from the spam bots Why would someone want to see traffic from a bot? That means even the advertisers are participating in some sort of lie. The bots will never purchase anything, they only increase traffic numbers, which are then used to lie to someone else. It's a lie pyramid.
It seems simple to alleviate some of the frauded advertisers' concerns by simply following the redirect to the ultimate destination. Any online advertising is so gameable that the value of these ads is vastly overstated.
This kind of fraud will get more sophisticated on both sides of the equation. The advertisers will have to monitor more carefully. The fraudsters will hide themselves better. Robots to do the fraud are extremely cheap.
ROI on ads will continue to decline. Fraud will continue to increase. All these rules are designed by people, so people can get around them. I'm reminded of the confessions of the poker bot maker from a few days ago.
- DarkShikari 17y agoFor one, One advertiser told me how he paid $200 to an Indian operation for 2,000 Facebook accounts. That means FaceBook's account numbers must be highly inflated. Their growth is inflated. Facebook only counts active accounts (used in the past month), not total accounts registered. This means the stated number of accounts is not (Number of real accounts + Number of spam accounts) but is actually (Number of real accounts + Number of currently used spam accounts) I suspect the two expressions above are very different from each other.