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

Facebook, I want my friends back

dangerousminds.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 195 posts

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#91

Post by wgoodwin »

wtvanhest wrote: post #68

OK, I get that DangerousMinds posts a ridiculous amount and would definitely be deleted from my account and probably should have to pay for advertising on an ad platform, but what about other use cases: I run a nonprofit alumni association here in Boston and I use FB as a way to update alumni of changes in events so that we can limit the numbers of emails we send. We were using Facebook as sort of an information plat…

Agreed, entirely. I realized that I've been using FB as a surrogate for an email newsletter for side web projects. I also realized that many people I know use the feed as a surrogate for RSS to the feeds of their friends' lives. In both cases, FB isn't the answer: it's neither MailChimp nor FeedBurner.

I don't begrudge FB trying to monetize their service. It's just that their service isn't what most people seem to be using it for. Thus their paid options will seem like bizarre value propositions to the average user.

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#92

Post by janeesah »

alexsb92 wrote: post #52
thenomad wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any large-scale statistical tests backing up your assertion that if you push 10 posts a day to peoples' Facebook feeds, your readership will shrink? I don't disbelieve your assertion that you personally would find it annoying, but I know a good number of large, successful blogging brands do indeed push to social media multiple times a day, and it seems to work for them. Several of said brands have indeed…

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…

Through this type of self selection (those who don't want all the posts will unlike, those who do will continue to subscribe), the blog may end up with a user base of the most engaged fans rather than a larger user base that causes higher "sponsored post" fees.

The most important metric for businesses using social media is engagement rather than raw reach, IMO.

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#93

Post by tomasien »

dasil003 wrote: post #54
tomasien wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post misses the biggest logical point that is vitally needed: there was no Newsfeed in the beginning. At all. Then there was a Newsfeed. Then it showed more than just wall posts. Then there were TOO MANY things on it, so they scaled it back. The Newsfeed was an experiment, and it worked, but it needed tweaking. That's why this happened. That they now allow you to pay to promote is secondary to the original origi…

> 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?

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#94

Post by sarah2079 »

patmcguire wrote: post #49

I could tell the general path the HN discussion was going to take - free service, free country, etc. - but the bigger issue is all the companies that have been paying Facebook millions for page like campaigns. I'd be angry if I'd given Facebook money under the old system only for them to change the value of what I got from them. The basic takeaway is that the rules that were in place where I might be willing to pay $…

This is a really good point. If I had spent money on advertising in the past to get more likes I would feel pretty cheated. I wonder what impact these changes are having on sales for that type of advertising?

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#95

Post by macspoofing »

kscaldef wrote: post #17
tomasien wrote: post #3

Look I can understand the "oh it's so convenient that you can now pay to promote your posts" but the "turning down the volume" on the Newsfeed was done because our Newsfeeds were getting overrun. People added too many friends, thousands more than the 150 it's been proven we can reasonably empathize with, and people were doing more and more on the network. You can STILL see posts of your favorite bands by going to the…

I object to Facebook making this decision for me. I _didn't_ add too many friends. My newsfeed _wasn't_ overrun. Yeah, I had to hide a few annoying Apps, but no big deal. And then, one day, I stopped seeing posts from lots of people, including many of the people I most wanted to see posts from. It took a while before I even realized this was happening. Then I slowly had to go through and fix the settings for people t…

>I object to Facebook making this decision for me.

That's a funny way to characterize a SaaS service. They make service decisions for you all the time. Don't like Timeline? Too bad. Want the 2007 version instead of the current one? Too bad.

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#96

Post by kevinpet »

I'm not sure what the internal thinking at Facebook is, but I suspect the hierarchy is something like:

1. Advertisers 2. Real users 3. Social media marketing scum

If they think most users would prefer not to see 10 posts per day after accidentally clicking a like button, then they're probably going to do that.

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#97

Post by reinhardt »

tensor wrote: post #81
jrockway wrote: post #42

If I'm reading this correctly, the problem is that something that the author thinks should be free costs money, so Facebook is now "demanding that a $365 million dollar ransom gets collected from all the Mom & Pop businesses who use Facebook." Uh huh. "Mom & Pop business" seems to be the new "won't somebody please think of the children" line designed to extinguish all rational thought. I'm getting a little tired of i…

You talk about rational thought, but then go off on a tangent hoping all small business disappears? I'm curious what has made you so hateful towards both people who hold some ideal (that you don't share), and towards small businesses. In particular, the best restaurants in the world are small, not chains. Chains are always mediocre by their very nature. Unlike in software, which can be replicated and exported perfect…

> In particular, the best restaurants in the world are small.

So are the worst.

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#98

Post by macspoofing »

Lasher wrote: post #85

This doesn't make sense to me as a user or as a page admin. As a user, if my friends post something I want to see it. If my daughter's karate school or my favorite band posts something, I want to see it. If they're spammy, I'll unsubscribe. I would like to make this decision for myself, not have it made for me. If it has to be made for me, I would prefer it be made based on some approximation of relevance and quality…

>So I pay Facebook to gain exposure to build a following of 10,000 fans and now I have to pay again if I want to reach them all??

There's a disconnect between what you think "Like" should be, what Facebook thinks "Like" should be and what the user thinks "Like" should be.

I never saw "Like" as being akin to signing up for a mailing list. Certainly not to the extent that I would be spammed with however many posts per day each "Liked" service serves up. It seems like Facebook agrees with me. I think they made a reasonable decision here for the good of the end-user.

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#99

Post by reinhardt »

sequoia wrote: post #24

The whole premise of this article is "Facebook gave me this access to their platform for free hitherto, so I'm entitled to this access on those same terms in perpetuity; it's unfair for them to start charging for it." I don't see the author explaini why s/he is entitled to these same terms forever.

Not exactly:

"Had Facebook debuted the Promote “option” with a more reasonable rate card that would apply to frequently updated blogs and media outlets—something akin to “book rate” at the post office—we’d have been willing to pay between $7 to $10 a post."

They're basically haggling about the price.

Re: Facebook, I want my friends back

#100

Post by stan_rogers »

thenomad wrote: post #76
alexsb92 wrote: post #52

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).

They may be looking for postings from their actual friends that happened while they were offline. Boredom is't the only reason for scrolling. And if you're pushing actual friends down the page by spamming my feed, well, I'm going to think a little less of you.
Post reply on HN