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

Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#91

Post by downandout »

dandare wrote: post #89
downandout wrote: post #62

Google, through its Adsense program, has turned this kind of behavior into an art form [1]. Facebook must have decided that their legal team is now strong enough to perform the same scam without legal consequences. The elements of the scam are essentially the same between the two: 1) Pay on a net-30 basis, so that in most cases publishers send two months of traffic before they are paid; 2) Wait until the last minute…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or at least some evidence. Any evidence. And no, possibility does not count as evidence.so,do you have any evidence for your extraordinary claims?

First, it's happened to me personally with $40k, and a friend of mine with $200k. Neither of us were sending them any invalid traffic. They seem to choose the publishers to whom they do this almost at random; another friend of mine makes over $100k/mo with them and has had no issues.

Second, both the Business Insider article I linked to and a simple Google search for "Adsense lawsuit" will turn up scores of people that have gone through precisely the same experience. This isn't an isolated incident, it's simply the way they do business.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#92

Post by vonklaus »

dandare wrote: post #89
downandout wrote: post #62

Google, through its Adsense program, has turned this kind of behavior into an art form [1]. Facebook must have decided that their legal team is now strong enough to perform the same scam without legal consequences. The elements of the scam are essentially the same between the two: 1) Pay on a net-30 basis, so that in most cases publishers send two months of traffic before they are paid; 2) Wait until the last minute…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or at least some evidence. Any evidence. And no, possibility does not count as evidence.so,do you have any evidence for your extraordinary claims?

> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This doesn't seem extraordinary. I commented the OP should provide more, and I was skeptical, but it doesn't seem extraordinary. In fact, given OPs post and the parent(and numerous others) anecdotes; it seems quite ordinary and logical.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#93

Post by dhimes »

tluyben2 wrote: post #86
annnnd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked for online advertising platform for a while and I must say it's difficult here to decide who to trust. In case of Google I would way G, but with Facebook... who knows. It is simply incredible what scammers do to get the money from advertisers (except delivering any value, that is) and what lengths they will go to to get "their" money. Of course G and FB can't reveal their countermeasures, so we must trust th…

If they indeed can distinguish between those then they surely are frauding publishers out of money. As they use the fraudulent clicks story a lot: if they can recognize them, why ban the publishers and not just remove those clicks/views? Makes no sense. It is just a perverse incentive and powerplay (after all these years there is no competition).

So if they are refusing to pay the publishers are they refunding the advertisers for clicks? If they are doing that then they can argue that they are doing their best.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#94

Post by annnnd »

tluyben2 wrote: post #86
annnnd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked for online advertising platform for a while and I must say it's difficult here to decide who to trust. In case of Google I would way G, but with Facebook... who knows. It is simply incredible what scammers do to get the money from advertisers (except delivering any value, that is) and what lengths they will go to to get "their" money. Of course G and FB can't reveal their countermeasures, so we must trust th…

If they indeed can distinguish between those then they surely are frauding publishers out of money. As they use the fraudulent clicks story a lot: if they can recognize them, why ban the publishers and not just remove those clicks/views? Makes no sense. It is just a perverse incentive and powerplay (after all these years there is no competition).

Because they must not allow publishers to try guessing which methods might be able to escape the scrunity of G. If they can recognize 99.997% of fraudulent clicks and fail at 0.003%, you can be sure that those 0.003 will soon balloon to 10% if publishers are allowed to experiment unchecked.

But yes, it is a powerplay. They can afford this, so they do.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#95

Post by annnnd »

dhimes wrote: post #93
tluyben2 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they indeed can distinguish between those then they surely are frauding publishers out of money. As they use the fraudulent clicks story a lot: if they can recognize them, why ban the publishers and not just remove those clicks/views? Makes no sense. It is just a perverse incentive and powerplay (after all these years there is no competition).

So if they are refusing to pay the publishers are they refunding the advertisers for clicks? If they are doing that then they can argue that they are doing their best.

Can't say for Google, but we did. It is only fair.

It is in interest of Google that the advertising market works for everyone involved (with a notable exception of fraudsters, of course).

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#96

Post by legulere »

sdoering wrote: post #46
TillE wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hey we're both businesspeople But you're not. Facebook is about a billion times more powerful than you. You're not peers. They literally won't even talk to you.

No. You are peers. Both are businesses doing business. They have a business relationship. > They literally won't even talk to you. And exactly this is, why the system is broken. If you are the elephant in the room and you do not have to care for the flies even if there would be regulations protecting the flies then this is not a good situation. This would be some kind of Feudalism. At least in practice. To clarify: I…

Being peers is often set as an axiom or a prerequisite when thinking about the theory of business transactions. However often in the reality it isn't the case. This is why you need antitrust laws, consumer protection laws, regulation, unions, etc.

The problem here is that there is a hole in the system. Not being paid or being paid late is very common for smaller contractors in several industries.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#97

Post by kumarm »

huhtenberg wrote: post #36

In http://imgur.com/B86pJHi.png , what are the columns exactly, does anyone know? The 7th column in particular, with the %-ages. If that's a click-through rate, then the numbers look inflated.

It appears its Fill Rate. (Click Through rate is around 2%).

It appears to me that dev is involved in shady stuff (The fact that dev posted this in several forums without ever posting link to his app should be noted).

Post reply on HN