The New Myspace. Seriously.

[Dana.]

I'll go one step further.

 

If you don't want something to stay private, you don't put it on facebook the internet. Pretty simple.

[timwat]

Which brings up a change in "worldview" I've noticed. The college students I teach have generally accepted the fact that online privacy is an oxymoron. It's just old farts like me who grew up with, say, Novell and token ring who still think it's possible.

[Michelle ggurl]

Probably going to get basted for coming to Facebook's defense, but the reality is, Facebook didn't "restrict your views" to 16%. The algorithm they use, EdgeRank, solidly and consistently has filtered page's views to 16% of its viewers all along. The only thing that is new is that one can pay to have a wider reach -- they essentially monetized allowing you to override EdgeRank.

 

Clonk

 

The authors cite their own, independent metrics for measuring page views that they had been running for some time. They are not just taking FB's word for it. I've been on FB since 2009, and when I think about this, it seems plausible. I never have seen every post any one of my friends or like pages makes. Sometimes EdgeRank gets my preferences horribly wrong. But that's been consistent.

 

The only unedited interaction I have is the activity ticker on the right side of the screen (used to be a text-only newsfeed, remember that? I actually liked that best).

 

I have no skin in this game, not really a fan-girl of FB and certainly don't trust them or any other social media site to safeguard personal data (so if it's too personal, it doesn't go up there), but I think, given widespread perception, this article was worth putting out there.

[PinkFloydDudi]

Probably going to get basted for coming to Facebook's defense, but the reality is, Facebook didn't "restrict your views" to 16%. The algorithm they use, EdgeRank, solidly and consistently has filtered page's views to 16% of its viewers all along. The only thing that is new is that one can pay to have a wider reach -- they essentially monetized allowing you to override EdgeRank.

 

Clonk

 

The authors cite their own, independent metrics for measuring page views that they had been running for some time. They are not just taking FB's word for it. I've been on FB since 2009, and when I think about this, it seems plausible. I never have seen every post any one of my friends or like pages makes. Sometimes EdgeRank gets my preferences horribly wrong. But that's been consistent.

 

The only unedited interaction I have is the activity ticker on the right side of the screen (used to be a text-only newsfeed, remember that? I actually liked that best).

 

I have no skin in this game, not really a fan-girl of FB and certainly don't trust them or any other social media site to safeguard personal data (so if it's too personal, it doesn't go up there), but I think, given widespread perception, this article was worth putting out there.

 

I figured there was more to it than just what I was seeing, but the end result is the same. If I specifically subscribe to some group or fan page, I want to see 100% of the stuff they post. If I don't, I can restrict it as needed.

 

The idea that they CAN override EdgeRank, and just don't because they want you to pay for it, bothers me to no end.

 

And it is still Facebook. You don't look at a Windows operating system and call out the design team that specifically created a certain method which is called to clean up your "unused desktop items" do you? I don't care what 3rd party is behind the stuff, it is still facebook to blame for the way it is implemented.

 

I did read that entire article though, and to be honest, I don't really believe it. My personal experience through my band page (which has a bit over 2000 fans, and I post MAYBE twice a week) did in fact see a drastic drop in user interaction as well as reach during that time.

 

IMHO, reach from a band page that people signed up for, should reach 100% of the fans.

 

Everyone knows that facebook's big issue was how to make it profitable without selling something. Then all of the sudden they come out with a money-making scheme and coincidentally at the same time reach drops for many many people?

 

I find that pill tough to swallow.

 

Bottom line for me is that facebook should not be selecting what I see on my page - I should. Because this isn't the case is why I agree facebook will decline and it does open a door for another website.

[Michelle ggurl]

I would prefer it if FB did not alter the streams. That's what I liked about it very early on. I wonder if they started filtering mechanisms long ago with the eye of going public; I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

 

That article points to another page owner who experienced what you did, a drop in activity ... I don't know if the article's explanation of that works for you, but I'm hearing that it does not. I would like to see more independent metrics run, but at this point they now wouldn't be retroactive, ie, before the monetizing option.

 

If anyone comes across any articles with independent metrics, please post them! I am very interested, as I'm sure others are.