Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

samueljscott.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 286 posts

Re: Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

#101

Post by LegitShady »

hyperdimension wrote: post #33
GekkePrutser wrote: post #25

I can't read the source article (site is down) but judging from the header I'm kinda glad LinkedIn is not selling many ads. The last years it's become an even more fake stream of glossy PR marketing crap filled with stock photos of smiling faces, and people commenting how much they adore the company line. I get enough of all that on the company's own sites, thank you. I get that people don't want to be critical in pu…

I don't really use LinkedIn that much, so this confuses me: > And the membership fees for being invisible are ridiculously high now. Do you mean simply having an account? Or are there now fees for, e.g. avoiding recruiters? I thought that the business model of LinkedIn had only companies/recruiters pay to reach (free) users.

They have fees at both ends - if you want to recruit,if you want to see who is looking at your profile, etc.

Re: Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

#102

Post by PragmaticPulp »

gk1 wrote: post #88
socrates1998 wrote: post #52

LinkedIn is one of those things you have and probably only use when you need a job or are desperate for clients. No one is there to get decent information or to genuinely connect with people. It's the digital equivalent of the super fake networking seminars people go to. Everyone is a seller and on one is a buyer. Makes sense that their ad network is sketchy and buggy.

I know plenty of technical founders who are quite active on LinkedIn. Without disclosing any names, I can assure you they are not looking for new jobs or desperate for anything. At one point I was convinced that everybody is leaving FB just because I and a few people I knew were leaving FB. Years later it's still a dominant social network. Beware of confirmation bias and the firehouse effect[0]. [0] https://www.goodr…

I know several very active founders on LinkedIn as well, but it’s clear that they’re all using LI for the intended purpose: Building their personal brand and business network. They may not be actively looking for jobs or desperate for clients, but they are working the system to elevate their own status.

It’s possible to find halfway decent content on LI, but it takes a lot of work to filter out the fluff. Even then, you have to be honest about why people are doing it in the first place: Networking and brand building. No busy founder is going to frequently take time away from their growing business to write LI content without expectation of personal or business gain.

That’s not to say you can’t find diamonds in the rough, but you need to be realistic about the context to separate it from the brand building.

Re: Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

#103

Post by audiometry »

I logged into LinkedIn yesterday and it took me to a special page where it excoriated me for using “automated tools” to make fake activity or something. It demanded I click an “acknowledgement that I will henceforth comply” or I was subject to account termination.

Frankly I felt like refusing and telling LinkedIn to fuck off. I have no idea what it was accusing me about. I almost never use the site. I have a 25 year career in an industry where I am known and the industry knows me, so LinkedIn is zero value to me. I would never find a job there nor look for a candidate there.

So whatever their systems are doing, they’re incompetent and generate false positives.

Shamefully, however, I clicked “I will comply”. Bah bah bah bleets this Sheeple.

Re: Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

#104

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

bradstewart wrote: post #62
derwiki wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of reason is exactly why I started using one time credit cards (privacy) for new service signups.

What do you use to generate the one-time numbers?

Most of the banks offer it online as part of the service?

Re: Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

#106

Post by XMPPwocky »

motohagiography wrote: post #86
antsar wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only matters if you can prove there was fraud.

If LI were still a public company, this behaviour would destroy their stock price. There is something to be said for public markets and accountability.

Is there? To me, it seems like either this behavior would hurt their profits, in which case it doesn't really matter that much whether they're public or not (they get hurt either way), or it wouldn't but a public company would have more backlash, in which case it seems like an efficient market would have actors that look for companies getting backlash, buy the cheap stock, and then enjoy the (unaffected, by assumption) profits.

Re: Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

#107

Post by jd115 »

The biggest mystery for me is why so many people believe so strongly in Facebook Ads. I have never gotten ANYTHING other than bot traffic from FB, or anything above 0% conversion, after repeatedly (mis-)spending thousands on FB ads. I must really be going all backwards about it, or something.

(P.S. this is for content that otherwise gets a very healthy conversion rate from organic traffic)

Re: Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

#108

Post by summerlight »

mgav wrote: post #19

A pay-for-performance model (e.g. pay per sale) eliminates all the risk for advertisers. Does this exist anywhere, aside from affiliate deals? I'd be happy to pay 50% for each digital product sale, since those are 96% profit.

https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/7528254

Google has a such product but I think it is nowhere close to the majority of ad spending. A part of the reasons is that it needs campaigns' conversion volumes to be above a certain threshold (so their model has a reasonable amount of training data) while advertisers may exploit the system by not reporting legitimate conversions. So Google requires them to be eligible by some unknown criteria.

Re: Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

#109

Post by fakedang »

searchableguy wrote: post #64
fakedang wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure Facebook will be lower than this in terms of awareness of adblock, considering the number of oldies there (including my relatives) who can't distinguish between sponsored content and original content. I'm honestly surprised LinkedIn has such high numbers, since I assumed the LinkedIn crowd would be more technologically savvy.

Tech savvy crowd and engineers probably only use linkedin once a full moon to fill out their details. The rest are recruiters, PR, management, students, and so on. Those are the regulars. You don't use linkedin when you have a job unless that is your job.

I meant tech savvy as in the younger crowd, who would know about adblockers. That would include students, tech workers , bankers, the whole lot.

Back in my old firm, I knew a ton of bankers and consultants who used LinkedIn regularly (mostly for stalking top performers).

Re: Ad Fraud on LinkedIn

#110

Post by gk1 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #102
gk1 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know plenty of technical founders who are quite active on LinkedIn. Without disclosing any names, I can assure you they are not looking for new jobs or desperate for anything. At one point I was convinced that everybody is leaving FB just because I and a few people I knew were leaving FB. Years later it's still a dominant social network. Beware of confirmation bias and the firehouse effect[0]. [0] https://www.goodr…

I know several very active founders on LinkedIn as well, but it’s clear that they’re all using LI for the intended purpose: Building their personal brand and business network. They may not be actively looking for jobs or desperate for clients, but they are working the system to elevate their own status. It’s possible to find halfway decent content on LI, but it takes a lot of work to filter out the fluff. Even then,…

> Building their personal brand and business network.

That's the very purpose of LinkedIn, no?

Post reply on HN