Facebook Downranks News Feed Links To Crappy Sites Smothered In Ads (techcrunch.com) 95
Facebook's New Feed algorithm is targeting links that send people to crappy websites filled with advertisements. According to their blog post, Facebook defines a "low-quality site" as one "containing little substantive content, and that is covered in disruptive, shocking or malicious ads." TechCrunch reports: The change could help Facebook fight fake news, as fakers are often financially motivated and blanket their false information articles in ads. High-quality sites may see a slight boost in referral traffic, while crummy sites will see a decline as the update rolls out gradually over the coming months. Facebook tells me that the change will see it refuse an immaterial number of ad impressions that earned it negligible amounts of money, so it shouldn't have a significant impact on Facebook's revenue. Facebook product manager for News Feed Greg Marra tells me Facebook made the decision based on surveys of users about what disturbed their News Feed experience. One pain point they commonly cited was links that push them to "misleading, sensational, spammy, or otherwise low-quality experiences... [including] sexual content, shocking content, and other things that are going to be really disruptive." Today's change is important because if users don't trust the content on the other side of the links and ads they see in News Feed, they'll click them less. That could reduce Facebook's advertising revenue and the power it derives from controlling referral traffic. Getting sent to a low-quality, shocking site from News Feed could also frustrate users and cause them to end their Facebook browsing session, depriving the social network of further ad views, engagement and content sharing.
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook Downranks News Feed Links To Crappy Sites Smothered In Ads
In other words, "Do As I Say, Not As I Do."
Re: (Score:2)
That's because links to crappy sites smothered in ads are a major source of revenue for them.
It is their only source of revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because links to crappy sites smothered in ads are a major source of revenue for them.
It is their only source of revenue.
I thought selling personal user info was a big part of their revenue stream.
Re: In other words... (Score:1)
They don't sell info.
They sell targeted advertising, which is far more lucrative. Your info is only valuable in bulk aggregate, why would they sell that data once when they can sell indirect access to it over and over?
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you sell the chicken that lays the golden eggs.
This is one thing people don't seem to understand about Facebook and Google, and why we're outraged at the recently legislative changes to what ISPs are allowed to do. Facebook and Google DO NOT SELL user information. They provide a platform for advertisers which allows advertisers to feed ads to users in a very targetted way based on the user information.
Facebook and Google selling user information would be like a patent troll trying to make money by
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. While Facebook is full of ads they aren't the abusive pop-over, blinky light, don't let the browser go, flashy gif autoplaying advert bullshit you see on so many sites now a days.
If even half the internet had ads like Facebook's we'd probably be in a better* place.
*Ads only, not tracking. If half the internet tracked like Facebook I wouldn't have the spare CPU cycles to render the page.
Re: (Score:2)
To quote George Carlin (out of context). "BULLSHIT! THAT'S OUR FUCKIN JOB!"
No more Links to Slahdot then... (Score:2)
I almost couldn't post this due the page janking up and down loading crappy ads.
there goes ESPN (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
So sorry Slashdot. I guess no Facebook love for you...
BTW, your floating ads and stealing of horizontal space for your shitty ads (are you aware there's a dumbass ad with an Edward Snowden hipster-lookalike on a scooter which is just laughably awful) are making this site suck. Some of the ads don't properly timeout and cause all kinds of scrolling issues.
Re:So sorry... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see any ads. But it's not because I have an ad blocker, it's because I gave Slashdot some money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Please Note: Buying or gifting of a new subscription is not available at the moment. We apologize for the inconvenience. This downtime though does not effect your current active subscription in any way. We will keep you posted on the latest"
TAKE MY MONEY
Re: (Score:1)
So sorry Slashdot. I guess no Facebook love for you...
BTW, your floating ads and stealing of horizontal space for your shitty ads (are you aware there's a dumbass ad with an Edward Snowden hipster-lookalike on a scooter which is just laughably awful) are making this site suck. Some of the ads don't properly timeout and cause all kinds of scrolling issues.
Ads? What ads? I don't see any ads.
Oh, you must be one of the dumbasses not using AdBlock?
Hack around (Score:3)
Ads? What ads? I don't see any ads.
Oh, you must be one of the dumbasses not using AdBlock?
Which is also going to be one of the techniques used by crappy web site owner :
if the webserver recieves a request from a IP within a known Facebook IP range, then serve instead an ad-less version.
Then it's basically a cat-and-mouse game, as makers of crappy sites try to find better way to detect Facebook's access and Facebook tries to be less obvious (retrieve content through external 3rd party servers, retieve content through the webapp running on the poster's local browser, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
https://pi-hole.net/ [pi-hole.net]
No need for a Raspberry. Run the damn thing in a VM if need be.
Re: (Score:2)
N/A (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't apply to my websites. ;)
Optimized for Lynx?
Re: (Score:2)
Optimized for Lynx?
I haven't used Lynx in 20+ years. I should check out my websites in Lynx. The static websites will probably fare better than the WordPress websites.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually not bad advice as a base exercise to start with for public sites that have to comply with accessibility laws. If it's not readable visually in Lynx, there's little to no chance for some poor blind sod who's limited to using screen reader software.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not readable visually in Lynx, there's little to no chance for some poor blind sod who's limited to using screen reader software.
That was a big controversy at my job when it was mandated that everyone had to use a custom website access a database and it had no accessibility features. As luck would have it, a blind programmer became a squeaky wheel and went to war on the web team. During the two months that it took to implement the accessibility features, the interface kept changing from day to day for everyone else.
Re: (Score:1)
I know the point you're trying to imply but in reality, that experience should merely serve as an admonishment against retroactively adding accessibility compliance to a site built from the ground up by people who neither understand nor care about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know the point you're trying to imply but in reality [...]
That was one of the lessons pointed out in the post mortem.
Re: (Score:2)
Most web designers are good at esthetics but have no concept of how the underlying HTML base actually works.
When I was software testing intern in 1997, I had to fix HTML code by hand because a table wouldn't line up correctly in Adobe Dreamweaver. Still hand code HTML to this day. Never got used to a WYSIWYG editor.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't feature ads, then they would never link to you.
I only have three ad slots on each page.
So all the GOP tabloids... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait for it in 10, 9, 8, 7... "Facebook blocks right leaning news on Facebook."
hmm, sounds like facebook won't link to self (Score:1)
So every time I visit a facebook page it pops up disruptive advertising about me logging in or signing up. I don't want to f'ing sign up for your sh***y site.
Re: (Score:2)
... every time I visit a facebook page ... I don't want to f'ing sign up for your sh***y site...
Than why do you visit it so often? I know it's geek or leet or whatever to say you hate Facebook, but own up to it, you're there every day because those are the only "friends" you have.
Re: (Score:2)
... every time I visit a facebook page ... I don't want to f'ing sign up for your sh***y site...
Than why do you visit it so often? I know it's geek or leet or whatever to say you hate Facebook, but own up to it, you're there every day because those are the only "friends" you have.
Because everyone in the world is on Facebook. Subject specific forums have become passe, and Usenet has long since become a vast echo chamber containing mostly Pr0n and a few old timers like, well, me. Last weekend I very reluctantly signed up for the Facebook version of rec.motorcycles.harley, because (it took me a long time to admit to myself) there was nobody there but me and the bot that posts the "how to post to RMH" weekly messages. Now that I write that, it seems like I need a life.
My daughter tel
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what kind of work you do, or who your circle of friends are. I do photography as a sideline, and no matter my personal feelings about Facebook, it's undeniably a way to keep in touch with my customers, share content, and promote my work. I wish it wasn't, but that's just the way things are.
Speaking of which... I have a friend who adamantly refused to sign up for Facebook, and his solution was to only choose friends who were accessible by ways other than Facebook, so he could maintain that h
Re:Cheap trick (Score:4, Informative)
With all the data mining and deep learning I'm surprised it isn't easier to flag horrible sites. Instead they resort to a pretty obvious and superficial criteria.
It would be extremely easy to get rid of links to shitty clickbait sites. But that would seriously cut into Facebook's revenue. Once again, Facebook is full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it? Facebook's main revenue stream is based on it's own ads not on redirecting a user to somewhere else.
You should see Yahoo's news links (Score:4, Interesting)
For a while now Yahoo's news has been polluted with the worst sort of clickbait adbombs. Facebook has their work cut out for them if they are trying to be worse.
Re: (Score:2)
For a while now Yahoo's news has been polluted with the worst sort of clickbait adbombs. Facebook has their work cut out for them if they are trying to be worse.
When your business depends on advertising (and you have no integrity) that's what you get.
So all the Leftist sites (Score:1)
I'm looking at you Salon, Buzzfeed, Daily Kaos... nice knowing ya!
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm... a few posts up, someone predicted that all the right leaning sites will be out now.
Maybe that means that all the political crap fake news sites will become unlinked? That could make FB finally relevant as a site that filters all the politically biased crap.
Why I have no FB on my cell phone (Score:3, Insightful)
Many web sites, and the FB app, have way too many ads, to the point that I can't even read the screen, and stop going to the site.
And, to be quite frank, it's why I removed FB from my cellphone.
Dudes. You can keep adding more ads, but if I can't see the text, I'm not going to read the site.
I don't care how interactive you make it.
I don't have time to remove twenty ads with close boxes that decide close X means link to site.
I get rid of it. Entirely.
Pennywise. Pound foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't have time to remove twenty ads with close boxes that decide close X means link to site.
A personal white hot hate of mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can install Firefox mobile with Adblock and Noscript and just add shortcut to desktop? As a bonus - if you switch to "Desktop view" you can even read messages without Facebook Messenger. So far I found 1 website that does not work with this combo - NewsThump...
"low quality site" (Score:5, Interesting)
> Facebook defines a "low-quality site" as one "containing little substantive content, and that is covered in disruptive, shocking or malicious ads."
The snarky side of me wants to say "Yeah, like most of the internet". But at very least, like a substantial amount of the Yahoo front page. (I hate listies and will not click on anything that looks like one no matter how interesting or provocative the title.) It annoys me that I can't scan for headlines on the Yahoo front page without discarding half of them in the categories of "they couldn't believe what happened next" (under a photo of a half naked girl) or "the ten ugliest squirrels -- number 7 will make you lose your lunch". Or the latest one -- "this 'white oil' will put oil companies out of business". It's LITHIUM, people! Lithium! For batteries. Get it? Oh dear, I spoiled the surprise.
Does anyone remember when the Seattle PI newspaper website was just swarming with full page popup ads and floating popovers and ads with animation and sound? The site had a tool where you could create your own survey.... and someone created a survey asking readers how much the site resembled a Pr0n site. (a) Not that much, (b) Somewhat (c) Enough to be really annoying (d) I'm expecting to meet LiveJasmine at any moment. They eventually toned down the ads. I wonder if it's because other sites were flagging Seattle PI as a "low quality site"?
Re: (Score:2)
No, YOU spread fake news. I give you alternate facts!
Sponsored content (Score:4, Insightful)
The vast bulk of this kind of ad infested crap I see on Facebook is from sponsored content (IE paid ads) that have nothing to do with my actual newsfeed (as in the friends and pages I have elected to follow). They are not viral things being shared, but content actively promoted by Facebook for money. Many of these sites are so polluted with ads and broken up into so many pages you have to click through that they literally are non-functional. I wonder if Facebook is going to reduce their revenue and prevent these kinds of sponsored content?
What about ads on 'legit' sites? (Score:1)
Some of the worst sites for being overwhelmed --to the point of freezing the computer, or groaning it so slow as to useless, are some older mainstream* news sources. Major newspapers and news magazines, and some tv networks.
Example, I live in Los Angeles and looking for local news on the LA Times would be nice. I'm limited to 5 free views a month or something, but it's near impossible for me to read anything there because it loads up so much other stuff. One of the results is such sites are probably losing
What happens next... (Score:3)
...will BLOW YOUR MIND!
Re: What happens next... (Score:2)
All I can tell you is, advertisers HATE it!
Likely to reduce "you'll never believe these 25" (Score:2)
Another upshot of this kind of change would be reducing the presentation of those "CELEBRITIES EATING FOOD - YOU WON'T BELIEVE NUMBER 10" sites that have a sentence of content per click through (and 20 ads).
I fail to see this as a problem.
Meh. (Score:1)
I perform a service (Score:1)
When I've got the time I do go to the clickbait sites. Then I find the link back to the Reddit thread they scraped and post it in the comments. I find it very satisfying to perform this service for people who are interested in the topic but not enough to click through all the pages and ads.