371–380 of 412 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google had to be good because there was competition in the search space. Facebook doesn't have to be good because they're the only viable social network.
So was myspace at one point. You can certainly argue that fb has way more mindshare than myspace ever did, and be right, but nothing is eternal on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding the word "fake" in this context. He means they are inauthentic likes, aka likes from real people who don't actually like what they're clicking the Like button on.
The problem is that he's intentionally buying likes from people he KNOWS aren't responsive. The simple solution? Stop targetting the unresponsive countries. It's not rocket science. It's actually super-brain-dead obvious. If you're buying likes from India -- and no Indians are responding to your content -- then why would you keep buying likes from India? This is stuff you can spend $5 to figure out. It is very, very,…
Specifically, clickfarmers are liking the ads whether they have been targeted or not, in order to thwart automated detection. So you can't escape it.
So far the only way around this that I've seen mentioned in this thread is to not advertise your facebook page at all, and instead advertise links to an external page that redirects back to your facebook page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sincerely hope names like this become widespread if they accurately describe the job. Very helpful to have a bright red "KEEP OUT" sign.
I'm a soon-to-be graduated student and am job hunting, so identifying dead ends is presently very relevant to my life. What about a title like this smells fishy to you? I'm not being pedantic, I really want to know how to avoid crappy jobs.
I get contacted by recruiters every week, so I find any talk about a shortage of jobs in this field to be laughable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey everyone -- sorry to hijack the top thread but I’m an ads engineer at Facebook so I feel qualified to respond. I posted this over on reddit too but it's still pending approval. In the case of this ad — I think we actually delivered on what was asked for. The targeting specs were fairly broad (cat lovers in four countries). Getting 39 people who like cats to like a page with a cute cat picture in 20 minutes sounds…
There's a brave (and perhaps naive) engineer. I think you'll find this audience a bit skeptical, but there's a bigger issue. If people are paying FB for relationships with people that want to be engaged with a product, they will quit paying as soon as the ROI is proven to be negative. And I think you'll only get one chance! If you honestly think the guy with the $20k ad spend is going to "try again just to make sure"…
That person has already replied with more info on his case, but you should also note that for some people $20k is big enough to never risk that mistake again, while for others it really isn't. I spend around that much each month on Facebook and that's a "well we'll put a little into FB" amount in the scheme of things. Sure, I've had other clients for whom a badly spent $1k was a problem, too. My point is to not jump to assumptions that an adspend is big because it sounds big to you.
(He'll, just this morning I sent a mail to a video website saying that a $15k spend delivered shit results and that we should try again.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Some people consider working for Monsanto a "dead end", because not many other companies would want to hire a person like that afterwards. Is this even true? I know it's the kind of thing that's hard to explicitly source, but I have a hard time believing that many companies (let alone most) would blacklist someone for working for Monsanto. I feel like the actual reason to avoid Monsanto would be if it's incompatible…
I can't say from direct personal experience, but I had a friend reject a Monsanto job offer, explaining that such a first job could become a negative influence on the rest of her career. I'm not in her field, so I don't know what different kinds of employers think.
For a facile example, I have a friend who got into environmental law and was very aware that she could either make peanuts defending the environment (at a non-profit) or make bank helping companies destroy it (she has chosen the former so far). If she suddenly had to deal with huge medical costs for a sick kid or something? One would have to be a complete asshole to judge her sight unseen for having a certain company on her resume.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish we are sufficiently close to a time, when automated comment-comprehending and comment-curating software - like browser extensions and plugins - are widely available, thanks to advances made in the areas of (textual) Deep Learning and (textual) Artificial Intelligence. Perhaps then, clumsy comments like the one made by joe_the_user: One guess would be that click-farm people like stuff at random to "seem legitim…
Including this one, ironically. x0054 called out the problem, no need to pile on with nothing more of any particular value to add.
History is rife with far wilder inventions than the comment-curating 'contraption' that I describe, that have been conceived and crafted, drawing from a far smaller source of inspiration than the clumsy comment made by joe_the_user.
In all probability, the sort of thing, I describe, would never materialize in the foreseeable future. It could just be a figment of my imagination.
The leaps and bounds that are required for such comment-comprehension - especially the two step thing needed for the software to assimilate the contents of the video and then contextually-observe that joe_the_user has not viewed the video, just by reading his comment - are probably far too great for the current state of Deep Learning and AI (someone well versed in these areas could chime in).
Or perhaps such advents in content curation - unbeknownst to us - are already afoot.
Surely then your quick dismissing of my "value-less" comment could be the butt of jokes for posterity.
Time will decide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent $46k on Facebook ads last year, with very healthy ROI. First, I want to say THANK YOU for the many improvements to the ad system that have recently taken place. Second, I want to say that you have a LOT of work left to do. Facebook marketing is hard. Too hard. I have many suggestions, but here's one of them: Allow the same targeting options when posting directly to the page, as when posting an ad. For example…
I do analytics for a major brand you have definitely heard of. We spend way more than $46K/year. I agree with Jacob here. If you are willing to work at it, facebook can give you a very healthy ROI. It is not nearly as easy as with Google though. - Buying likes is basically a waste of time unless your goal is to stroke someones ego or are trying to generate some sort of "social proof" - Re-targetting via Custom Audien…
Last year, we had great success with buying likes -- but for it to work you need to execute very well in terms of regularly publishing highly engaging content to your page. I'd love to compare notes some time. Send me an email if you are interested. (Google my name.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not. This is as much of a Facebook problem as it is Google's problem that people send SPAM to people on the internet. This guy doesn't know how to market. People think that advertising is a magic button that you push and you get results. Hilarious.
And let me guess... you get great results with your Facebook campaigns? My marketing teams have spent a lot of time with a variety of advertising campaigns. The Facebook has always been by far the worst, an order of magnitude worse than everything else we tried even though it's supposed to have greater targeting ability. Snarky comments on HN aren't going to make me believe that Facebook advertising is anything but o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent $46k on Facebook ads last year, with very healthy ROI. First, I want to say THANK YOU for the many improvements to the ad system that have recently taken place. Second, I want to say that you have a LOT of work left to do. Facebook marketing is hard. Too hard. I have many suggestions, but here's one of them: Allow the same targeting options when posting directly to the page, as when posting an ad. For example…
Jacob, that makes perfect sense. Yes, I suspect people are getting good ROI that know how to navigate the fakes. But the reality is that facebook could easily create "don't allow likes from someone with more than 5+ likes in their account" rule. Why not? You're probably not getting any mind share from them anyways.
"don't allow likes from someone with more than 5+ likes in their account""
The # of likes by the user is a good proxy for how diluted the quality of the "like" is.
Probability_to_show_ad = constant * num_other_likes
That said, as long as Facebook has a counter-incentive to cleaning it up, we shouldn't expect this change. We need advertisers to revolt in large #'s before the financial incentives make this a priority for FB.