11–20 of 57 posts
[deleted]
Facebook's ad engine is the closest one to the Facebook social graph. Facebook's argument may be valid that ads on the articles served by Facebook will convert better.
That 30% might be made up by not paying a 3rd-party ad engine's commissions, plus the increased effectiveness of Facebook's ads.
Sadly, this looks like one more step in the walled garden web direction, somewhat like AOL sites back in the day. I am amazed publishers are apparently going along with this. They must be very desperate for views if they are willing to relinquish this much control.
I'm pretty sure Facebook knows about this, it seems like a platform lockin play.
If this catches on, I don't see how it does anything but set a very bad precedent.
Bad for who though? Isn't it good for the writers? More people viewing the content? Isn't it good for the users? A better experience?
Users - I'd rather not get my information from facebook.
Edit: The new feature allows remote tracking by the news outlet.
"- Compatibility with comScore traffic measurement
- Compatibility Google Analytics to understand the audience
- To make sure Google Analytics worked across all its content
- Compatibility with BuzzFeed’s internal analytics tools
- Control of design to make Instant Articles look and feel like BuzzFeed articles
- Ability to work with BuzzFeed on special formats like quizzes
- Monetization"
And no chance of disabling tracking...
If this catches on, I don't see how it does anything but set a very bad precedent.
Bad for who though? Isn't it good for the writers? More people viewing the content? Isn't it good for the users? A better experience?
Accurate metrics seem to drive down the quality of publications. Websites with near-omniscient metrics often find that the best way to drive traffic is to deliberately produce shit-tier articles that drive clicks through controversy or pandering.
In the absence of accurate metrics, the writers/editors are forced to simply try their best to produce the best quality material. Their notion of what the "best quality" will be is informed by their background, generally set at universities.
Writers who are not driven by metrics will push on society. Writers who are driven by metrics will be pushed by society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad for who though? Isn't it good for the writers? More people viewing the content? Isn't it good for the users? A better experience?
Bad for society. Accurate metrics seem to drive down the quality of publications. Websites with near-omniscient metrics often find that the best way to drive traffic is to deliberately produce shit-tier articles that drive clicks through controversy or pandering. In the absence of accurate metrics, the writers/editors are forced to simply try their best to produce the best quality material. Their notion of what the "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad for society. Accurate metrics seem to drive down the quality of publications. Websites with near-omniscient metrics often find that the best way to drive traffic is to deliberately produce shit-tier articles that drive clicks through controversy or pandering. In the absence of accurate metrics, the writers/editors are forced to simply try their best to produce the best quality material. Their notion of what the "…
It's not the metrics, it's advertising as a business model.