191–194 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BTW I was wondering about that, I have a recurring reminder to check it every week and months after it was "launched" it still says I'm not eligible (I live in the USA). Do you know when it is actually going live?
How does one check it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a site guideline I fervently disagree with. Throwaways with no reputation to back them up should be treated as irrelevant - they don't face any social costs and indeed they accomplish their goal almost immediately and there is no mechanism, none whatsoever, to undo their damage. The problem is the fundamental information disparity. The guidelines want us to treat anonymous astroturfers with the same deference…
You're only counting the cost of one side. Anything will look bad if you evaluate it that way. The other side is that internet users massively project "astroturfing", "shill", "spy", "foreign agent" and so on, onto other commenters and opinions they happen not to like. That's actually the larger problem; in fact, based on countless hours I've spent investigating these phenomena on HN, it is overwhelmingly the larger…
Edit: To continue to refute your own bad argument, you wrote here:
> (1) don't comment about shilling (astroturfing/bots/trolls/spies) unless you have specific evidence, keeping in mind that the presence of opposing views is not evidence
But the reason disinformation works online is that such information isn't readily accessible. You've tautologically put user "adgineer" above reproach. Even asking whether the user has a conflict of interest is against the rules, as you've told me personally before.
To summarize, dang, you have a bad argument here: HN policy encourages astroturfers and disarms the community from asking people about potentially disingenuous behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so dumb question. Why _wouldn't_ you optimize for conversions then? Unless you want some immeasurable branding value type lift. Sorry for the dumb question but if you're implying one particular bidding mechanism benefits from FB algorithmic experience in a way that's meaningfully more accurate (serving the ad to the guy or girl with the condition), why would anyone do anything different?
Almost everyone who cares about performance does bid for conversions. Sometimes companies add extra layers of targeting on top of it though.
Non conversion optimised ads can work for small audiences of really high value, but that's a pretty niche use-case.
FB ads engineer here. Every time I read these threads, I'm 1. Flattered by how sophisticated HN thinks our systems are (they're not. and we're not that smart. FB's A-team stopped working on ads a long time ago) 2. Entertained by how HN thinks ad targeting works (we don't want to know everything about YOU. we want to know basic info about all of our users.) Hypertargeting doesn't work. Targeting small audiences doesn'…
It's documented fact that certain political entities have made heavy use of microtargeting in Facebook ads. Such entities would seem to be less sensitive to traditional ROI concerns, regardless of whether your bit about microtargeting never being worth it is actually true (spoilers: it is not true. maybe for some advertisers, but not for all).