Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
#2It seems likely this was a mistake, and not the result of dishonesty or malicious intent. That said, such an enormous mistake should have never been made in the first place, especially by a company such as Facebook.
Re: Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
#3Their response focuses entirely on the issue of them charging them for a name change, and almost completely ignores the bot issue.
I personally don't see that as a big issue, it would make sense that they don't let pages change names willy-nilly. This response is peculiar
Re: Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
#4It seems likely this was a mistake, and not the result of dishonesty or malicious intent. That said, such an enormous mistake should have never been made in the first place, especially by a company such as Facebook.
Can we please see some actual numbers! Given the advertiser's "popularity" it's possible they were over-charged something like $4 for a few hundred clicks in which case it's certainly not an enormous mistake.
Re: Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
#5There was a "miscommunication" about the name change. I'm a little bit more concerned about the whole "80% of our clicks were a sham" thing. But that could be just me.
Re: Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
#6No mention from FaceBook of bots and how they're planning on handling fake-accounts in the future. Is FB trying to deflect the issue by muddying the water with the "name-issue"? If so, bots must be a bigger problem for them than I thought...
Re: Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
#7Their response focuses entirely on the issue of them charging them for a name change, and almost completely ignores the bot issue. I personally don't see that as a big issue, it would make sense that they don't let pages change names willy-nilly. This response is peculiar
yeah, makes you wonder if there's someone internally who's been scamming companies
Re: Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
#8Isn't it always a miscommunication with Facebook, and always the user's fault - not abuse by Facebook - and us users simply don't understand that it's actually a feature they're so kindly providing us?
Re: Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
#9It seems likely this was a mistake, and not the result of dishonesty or malicious intent. That said, such an enormous mistake should have never been made in the first place, especially by a company such as Facebook.
Can we please see some actual numbers! Given the advertiser's "popularity" it's possible they were over-charged something like $4 for a few hundred clicks in which case it's certainly not an enormous mistake.
Read the original article - it was around $150 he wants refunded.
Re: Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run
#10Their response focuses entirely on the issue of them charging them for a name change, and almost completely ignores the bot issue. I personally don't see that as a big issue, it would make sense that they don't let pages change names willy-nilly. This response is peculiar
yeah, makes you wonder if there's someone internally who's been scamming companies
IMO it's more likely to be that they know full well those bots are skewing the figures underpinning their valuation and their general popularity with investors. They're trying to quietly move the narrative away from that part by focusing on the naming issue.