141–150 of 195 posts
If you want to know what your friends are up to, call them... maybe?
> 'I despise it.' Hear that beleaugered holders of Facebook stock? That kind of talk would make my blood run cold. How many companies can you name that you actively despise? Actually? Quite a few. I despise Comcast. I despise the big-4 cell phone companies (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint). I despise the oil companies (BP, Chevron, Texaco, et. al). Notice a pattern? Despite my (and presumably many others) despising t…
I believe most of the others are.
The more salient characteristic of these companies is that they 1) dominate their respective markets (as monopolies or one of a small number of oligopolistic suppliers), and 2) are spectacularly unresponsive to customer/user sentiments.
"We don't care, we don't have to. We're the Phone Company".
Facebook has a level of PR software as service which is free. They have another which is premium. If a company wants to spam their "fans," they have to pay.
If a business wants to have a high level of control over communications with it's fans, customers, likers, or whatever they are called, there's no free lunch. Either pay a third party (e.g. Facebook) or invest the hard work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 F…
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?
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.
I'm not seeing how this is unfair. Facebook is a business and the companies which set up fan pages are not typically charities (and so what if they were). Facebook has a level of PR software as service which is free. They have another which is premium. If a company wants to spam their "fans," they have to pay. If a business wants to have a high level of control over communications with it's fans, customers, likers, o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say it all depends on the reach. If a company publishes 10 posts a day, without promoting them, then I would think that only a few of the fans will get more than 2 or 3 of the posts that day (if we're to go with the 10%-20% estimate in the article). Now if you were to promote all those 10 posts, and 99% of your fans would see them all, then most will get annoyed. And if they don't get annoyed within the first…
Your fans will only see them all if they're on Facebook 24/7, surely? (Or if they're drilling down through the timeline, bored).
Who isn't? :). Don't you always scroll the timeline down until you find a post you've read when checking Facebook last time? I certainly do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't like it, you can always deactivate > your account like I did. ...and he can also gripe about it in a public forum in the hopes that if enough people do so, Facebook will change it's behavior. It wouldn't be the first time FB changed their policies due to grumbling users.
yawn You have to be delusional to believe that Facebook will change the functionality of a major feature because of a few people who are complaining about it on Hacker News.
I will say, if your posts show up so frequently in my stream, I will unlike your page. Facebook is definitely saving you from a lot of unlikes. Facebook is not Twitter - it's baby pictures from your friends.
I trust Facebook to control what to display to me MORE than I trust advertisers to post only things I would be interested in. That they can pay money ($200?) to get it there, that filters it too. They'll only pay for interesting stuff presumably. So thank the Lord Facebook pages don't get to control my stream directly.