Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Is Most Hated Social Media Company
Hugh Pickens writes "Inc. reports that Facebook, the most visited site on the Internet, is also among the most hated, scoring 64 on a 100-point scale, which puts the company in the bottom five percent of private sector companies and in the same range as airlines and cable companies, 'two perennially low-scoring industries with terrible customer satisfaction,' according to the results of a survey by the American Customer Satisfaction Index. 'Customers have shown that, so far, they have been willing to suffer through a poor user experience in order to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides,' according to the report. 'For companies that provide low levels of customer satisfaction, repeat business is always a challenge unless customers lack adequate choices, as in the case of near monopolies.' Overall, social media is one of the lowest-scoring industries measured by the ACSI — only airlines, newspapers, and subscription television services score lower. However, among social media companies, Wikipedia tops the list with a score of 77."
Opportunity is knocking for someone.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It is the biggest, most well known and therefore more people hate it.
they need to get zynga on board to port their games to G+ and that's close to 100 million users easy
So that's why facebook won't implement a "dislike" button... ;-)
Tell Mark Zuckerburg that he can get away with being an even bigger asshole. Thanks for that. This was a great idea.
Most people hate all the crap people send out for games that they have no interest in ever playing. I play a few games but hate the aspect where you need to bug other people for stuff. That is a reason many make alternate accounts so they can feed gifts and support to a main account.
Being unhappy with Facebook is probably being from a user being in the category of "just barely able to use it" so these people do not use Firefox with an ad blocker and they can't figure out that they can block Farmville posts from their walls so they instead unfriend someone that is excessive with requests and wall posts.
Facebook is not innocent, their interface changes enough that even savvy users get frustrated and some of the defaults have been something nobody would really want if they understood the consequences.
I Cater to the Needs of Stupid People. - from a coffee mug Christmas gift
I'm surprised to see Wikipedia listed as "social media".
How something if phrased is very important.
Given 64/100 for Facebook, and 77/100 for Wikipedia, how, exactly, do you define 'hate' and 'like'?
Facebook gets a lower score, but how does this equate to 'hate'?
Certainly, Facebook is liked a lot less than wikipedia. I don't like facebook (I closed my account there a long long time ago), but I don't 'hate' it.
(I also don't trust it, but that's another issue entirely)
For example, in the Internet Search segment, Google has a better ranking than Bing even though Google is more well known than Bing.
Haters!
Why use it if you don't like it? There are other means for communication, it's not like they have a monopoly...
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
'Customers have shown that, so far, they have been willing to suffer through a poor user experience in order to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides,'
"People on Facebook" aren't the customers, they're the product. Access to that product is what FB sells to their customers: advertisers. If you're not paying for it, you're not the customer.
Customers have shown that, so far, they have been willing to suffer through a poor user experience in order to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides
What you talkin' 'bout Willis? Facebooks customers are the advertisers and corporate partners. Oh, you mean the "users". The users are Facebook's *product*, not its customers.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
'Customers have shown that, so far, they have been willing to suffer through a poor user experience in order to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides'
What customers, it's a free service, paid for through advertising !!!!
The thing people need to keep in mind is that all of the services Facebook is being compared to (Cable, Airline, Newspaper) are services for which they pay. Facebook itself has not subscription or purchasing fees, their costs are covered by advertising and micro-transactions (i couldn't think of a better description for the Facebook "money" you can buy).
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
It could be that Google paid for that report to go out knowing that the numbers and topic are pure bullshit. That would help steer some people over to G+.
I would switch, but for some reason G+ won't let me have a non-public Google account profile setting or a limited version where only friends of my friends (like on facebook) can find me on a search.
As Google+ gets more popular, the stream will grow more and more inane. But, what's awesome, is G+ doesn't call people in your circles 'friends' so there isn't the emotional baggage associated with not being someone's friend. Moreover, you don't advertise your circles. You could add someone and then drop them and they would only see that you've added them. Moreover, they can add you without you adding them.
Those attributes will go a long way towards keeping my stream of a higher quality than is possible on Facebook.
Facebook has done a wonderful job in providing what people want and a central location where all your friends can communicate. Facebook has also pleased advertisers by sharing details about the users. Both sides love what Facebook has to offer.
However, users that are aware of them hate Facebook's business practices. In other words, Facebook is a typical arrogant company that feels nothing for their consumers, just their profits. Take a look around at the mega-sized tech companies around and you will notice they are just as horrible, why does this surprise you?
If anything, people should be flabbergasted by how well Google treats and stands up for their customers. Google isnt perfect but they are the only mega-company i know that actually tries to be ethical even if it hurts their bottom line.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Let's be clear - Facebook's customers are different from their "users". Just because you have a Facebook login and page, does not make you one of their "customers".
If you aren't paying for the service, you aren't a customer. At best, you are an asset or a product.
-ted
To put it in Facebook's terminology.
.... WTF... you waited for G+ to come out... now you might as well give up.
I'm certain I'm not the only one wondering this, but I honestly am curious as to how many people loathe Facebook (and other ilk of its kind) simply based on the fact that for reasons unknown, they don't allow a delete button within certain functions.
And yes, I'm well aware that many other options are available to mirror/archive/preserve any content that hits the 'net, but it's the sheer principle behind the whole Borg mentality that social media loves to embrace that tends to piss people off too.
You can have a profile where only your name is visible to the public, you can fine-tune every other aspect as to who can see it.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
As I said, I don't want anything public -- which includes my name and gender. I don't understand why this is so difficult to provide? Even FACEBOOK allows this for users and Facebook sucks at privacy.
People only hate businesses when they are stuck using them...no other choice. Facebook is hated, because until recently they had no competition. Hopefully competition will force Facebook to improve its policies, software and its regard for its users.
People also hate Facebook and social networks, in general ( none others are as successful as Facebook to be worth hating ) because of the price they are paying: their information, and their dignity in being able to control their information.
People look the other way at this price they pay in exchange for using Facebook, but it doesn't mean they like it.
Fair enough if you don't want that public, although given all anyone could gain from that is that you have a google plus account, I don't see it's a problem - and why would google provide that? They want people to be public, that's the point of the service.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
I was surprised to see Wikipedia listed as a "social media" site.
I love the "redundant" mod. I'm the only one to point to the dupe so far...
People bitch about dupes all the time. That's what's redundant.
What's funny is my pointing this out is also redundant. Heh.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Some of us maintain a separation of professional from personal life via the use of separate email accounts etc. LinkedIn and Facebook makes this easy to maintain. For example, being public on facebook means professional colleagues would know of that account and attempt to connect there which makes for awkward rejects of "friend requests." Yes, I could play with various circle settings, but that means a chance I make a mistake at one point in posting and that's not worth the risk.
The non-tech people actually do this quite often, something my colleagues at Google don't get since they don't experience a need for this separation in their professional world.
I'll stick with my 20 year old social networking engine, if you don't mind.
telnet://muon.mono.org
You say you could make a mistake - only as easily as you could with any other account. There is a reason those circle setting exist, they allow you to do what you want in an easier way.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Yeah, we know this. We've known it for years. Everytime there is an article about facebook at least 4 Slashtards point this out. But guess what? We don't care. We know it, but we don't care. You're like the guys who have to come on and talk about how a supernova that was detected last week didn't really happen last week. Yes, we know. We don't care. Please go away. Please stop acting like you're insightful or informative. Just go away.
At the end of the day, Google wants people to use it's service. Rationalizing that users could do x or y to make it acceptable, or to mitigate a stupid circle mistake doesn't change the fact that to some of us we don't want the headache. Facebook + LinkedIn work better for me under the current privacy designs of each service. Google's doesn't. Whether or not anyone at Google understands doesn't matter as it's what I (and many other non "silicon valley" professional types) want. Once google gets a large number of users I am sure they will relent on this privacy setting.
It was Facebooks walled private garden when I joined before it was open to non-Edu accounts that got me to use it over MySpace. Funny, Facebook allows for more privacy than Google+, who would have thought lol
If people hate your business, you are going to be out of business.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
At the very least a user is a client of the service, however from Facebook's POV they may as well be a customer. Every head that logs in to their site produces ad revenue, fairly efficiently targeted ad revenue if the person has bothered to enter in any amount of "likes" for various interests. Facebook's purchased currency, "points", is gravy by comparison.
...and why isn't there a +1 button on Slashot yet for these things?? I'm sure there's many Slashdoter's that want to make the switch over!
huh? there are no benefits to facebook.
Funny...they're also by far the most popular social media company. That couldn't have anything to do with it im sure.
I would switch, but for some reason G+ won't let me have a non-public Google account profile setting or a limited version where only friends of my friends (like on facebook) can find me on a search.
The first day of G+ I noticed that there's an option to make me/my profile "unsearchable." Is that what you want?
It's really prominent too, just hit "edit profile" and it's at the bottom, right there on your main profile page.
So they could have ended it with the decline of Facebook.
"You have what... 700 million users?"
"Thousand."
"Sorry?"
"700 thousand."
"Wow."
Mod parent up.
Facebook users are not Facebook's customers. Facebook's customers are their advertisers. Their users is what Facebook is selling.
If more Facebook users were clear on this they'd be less likely to gift their information to them, and more aware of exactly where Facebook's loyalties lie.
"Some of us maintain a separation of professional from personal life"
Well then your semi-public G+ account is in the name "Joe J. Blow." They aren't checking credentials.
I suppose Oracle, and Microsoft, prove that. I'll bet there are a lot hated businesses that are amazingly successful. Murdoch is probably doing okay, I wonder how BP execs are doing? How about Goldman Sach execs?
... Slashdot is populated by geeks, story at 11.
Thank you captain obvious and your team of common sense avengers.
I8-D
100% agree. The customers are the people placing ads and buying your personal information. Facebook might monetize your information, but you're not the one handing them cash.
If you aren't paying for the service, you aren't a customer. At best, you are an asset or a product.
Social media is an inherently annoying service. Facebook is the largest social network out there, thus it has more people hating it the same way more Americans hate the IRS than the Polish Ministry of Finance.
I do not have a sig. You are hallucinating.
As Google+ gets more popular, the stream will grow more and more inane. But, what's awesome, is G+ doesn't call people in your circles 'friends' so there isn't the emotional baggage associated with not being someone's friend. Moreover, you don't advertise your circles. You could add someone and then drop them and they would only see that you've added them. Moreover, they can add you without you adding them.
If you have someone in your circle and that person goes on your profile, it will tell them "X has you in one of their circles" or something like that. So if you add them then drop them, they will get a notification, but if they then go onto your profile after, they may be able to tell that you no longer have them in a circle. I don't know if this is stil true if you hide your circle information entirely though (there seems to be two options - either display a list of everyone in your circles, without saying who is in what circle or what circles you have - or not display who you have in any circle)
Interesting note about Google+ vs Facebook - go ahead and look, at the least, at the airlines/cable companies, which Facebook's rating is being compared to. They're hated because they're seen to offer 'homogenous products', or rather, it's that people have a beef with the whole airline/cable experience because of shared problems (Local Monopolies, substandard service, hidden fees, the TSA in the case of airlines) So, in all seriousness - what are the chances of Google+ picking up some of those 'destructive practices' that Facebook has? Privacy is probably not the biggest reason people hate it; spammy updates (From app developers), the whole social drama thing (Anywhere you have people, you have drama) and difficulty deleting data (Do you really think Google wants to delete your data eithe?) are 'traps' I can see Google+ falling into just as easily. The only thing I'm dead sure Google+ will do right that Facebook does wrong, is to not shuffle their UI every few months and reset all your settings. Considering how much of an advantage that gave hem in search over Yahoo and competitors ages ago, I doubt they'll ever forget. That said, I'll still join Google+ (I care about privacy), but, I'm not as sure you're going to see a mass exodus unless if the geeks like us drive it somehow - see the family photographer converting to G+ and pulling the family photos with them. Go ahead and do it yourself too if you can - we'll probably need it if we really want to pull people away from FB.
There are very legitimate reasons to dislike Facebook. The privacy issue, social game overload and crap UI changes to name a few. However, I fairly certain that the current antipathy towards Facebook amongst your average individual is motivated by little more than fad-fueled, herd-driven mentality. How many people truly know or care about privacy? I'd argue not many given how freely they share personal information. And for anyone who's just a little more savvy they'll know how to mitigate some of those problems or will simply decide that the social interaction is not worth the trouble. But the fact is people continue using Facebook. It's simply become the cool thing to put down the service.
It's the same kind of idiot mentality behind pop music and pop culture in general. Eventually all these people will migrate to some other service and infest that. They'll happily subject themselves to all the same problems, but it will be okay because it's a new bandwagon and not Facebook.
However, I tend not to think it's going to be Google+ that replaces Facebook. There are some things I like about it, but I'm not sold on it yet. Google might have already gotten to big for their own good anyway; at least in the eyes of the consumer. I don't think we've found the replacement yet.
"Google was at the top of the search portals and the search engines industry with a score of 80 out of 100, although that is down from 86 last year."
I8-D
They are preying on the Human psyche's insane need for a group hug.
They are hated because they are profiting on that.
Rick B.
If you have someone in your circle and that person goes on your profile, it will tell them "X has you in one of their circles" or something like that. So if you add them then drop them, they will get a notification, but if they then go onto your profile after, they may be able to tell that you no longer have them in a circle. I don't know if this is stil true if you hide your circle information entirely though (there seems to be two options - either display a list of everyone in your circles, without saying who is in what circle or what circles you have - or not display who you have in any circle)
I don't think it notifies if a person is removed from a circle (I haven't actually had to remove anyone yet) but there is a notification when you add that person to a circle. It doesn't tell them what circle though, so they may think you dropped them in "friends" when in reality you dropped them in "Stupid people I wish would just shut the fuck up". The only way they could infer what circle they're in is by who else is in that circle with them, but I have mine set so that everyone can only see my "Following" circle regardless of what circle they're in, because the only people I even have in there are Felicia Day, Wil Wheaton, and the few other celebs and industry big shots that have jumped on G+.
I guess that's another thing I like about G+ that I missed in FB due to having ran from it a while ago, the Circles thing. FB has similar functionality with their groups functions, but when I left they didn't. I had serious friend bloat, since everyone had to be friends with everyone else, and unfriending people inevitably turns into a huge nightmare of hurt feelings and everything else, regardless of the reasons a person does it.
Your gender complaint has been addressed.
Reply to That ||
I'll bet when they did the customer satisfaction survey they were confused and surveyed Facebook's products AKA users and not Facebook's customers the companies that buy the product data. I suspect that Facebook's actual customers are generally more satisfied with Facebook that Facebook's products are.
I'd mod him up if I hadn't say it myself in previous articles about Facebook. Unless there was a "+1 everybody says this, including me".
I thought it was just me. I find the Facebook UI is so unintuitive. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I've found I'm not the dumbest and if I can't figure it out then I'm pretty sure alot of others will probably not. Pages are not consistant. For example someone sent me a link to our 4th grade elementary school composit picture. For the life of me, i could not figure out how to add my comment after about 3 minutes of trying-- which was more than enough time to spend on a trivial item like that. It was not at the bottom of the rest of the lists of comments like on OTHER facebook pages. If i was Facebook, i would start to be scared.
This is not surprising. Facebook should not even exist..it serves no purpose other than to indulge the ego of self-important idiots. Seriously...if you're over the age of 17 and do facebook, you have issues...there's no reason for any adult to be on this teeny-bopper site.
So if you want absolutely nobody to find you whatsoever on there... as with every where else in existence with these requirements, it sounds like you want to use a fake name. Putting your real name anywhere on the internet and wanting it absolutely undetectable by anything whatsoever simply does not exist. Facebook says it's invisible to all. Except of course to advertisers, their databases, and thusly anyone who can get a hold of either of those sources of data. Just use a fake name and avoid the suffering.
Also, doesn't g+ have a box to check to make your name searchable? I'm not sure what exactly that does, but I imagine if it's unchecked, you're not searchable.
There are other social networks? It's easy to be "the most hated" when you are the only one.
Those aren't customers. They are the product. *Customers* are the people facebook sells your data to.
That's just unsearchable in Google search, not within the Google Plus search. You're still publicly listed by name and gender within Plus
I'll bet if they polled people they would also say they hate email, probably even more than facebook. Email sucks--its impersonal and most people don't have the level of skill to use it effectively (i.e. reading, writing and typing), but they do anyways and doing so inflict their ignorance on the world.
Email sucks, so does facebook. Google sucks too, the web is full of useless spam and so are their search results. In fact computers basically just suck in general and have a huge potential for improvement at the human-interface level. G+ already sucks too, but marginally less so than the alternatives which is still enough that people will be jumping ship like rats as soon as they open the floodgates.
Respect your decision. That said, at the point where the only thing you need to have is an initial for last name, so "John S" or what not works for John Smith AND you can opt the profile out of search, I think it is a very small circle of people who will have issues.
"...to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides" Benefits? I did not know that such a time waster and privacy bully site could have any benefits...
Google [had] a score of 80 out of 100, although that is down from 86 last year. Microsoft’s Bing search engine "makes a strong first showing with a score of 77," according to the report. It was followed by Yahoo (76), AOL (74), and Ask.com (73).
These don't match the press release from the second link at all:
All major competitors improve, with Google in the lead, jumping 4% to 83. While Google remains below its all-time high of 86 from 2008 and 2009, its present score is the highest among all e-business websites. One year ago, Google plunged 7% in ACSI, but the company now appears to have a better handle on its expanding range of Internet services. Microsoft’s search engine Bing, however, is close behind Google with a score of 82 following its 7% surge.
Surpassing even Bing’s sharp upswing, the 10% gain posted by Ask.com is the largest in e-business. With an ACSI score of 80, Ask.com is chased closely by Yahoo! and MSN—both showing sizeable ACSI advances of 4% to 79 and 78, respectively. Unlike other search engines and portals, Ask.com offers a question-and-answer format that garners a smaller, but increasingly loyal, following. As Ask.com, Yahoo!, and MSN rise, AOL is left behind, gaining a mere 1% to an ACSI score of 75.
Perhaps they used numbers from a year or two ago for the Inc.com article. In any case, is there, somewhere, a discussion of the methodology used and a summary of results that's not spoon fed to the press? These are almost arbitrary numbers to me, with a surprisingly small spread: 66% to 83% is the range from very low satisfaction to very high, out of 100%?
As Google+ gets more popular, the stream will grow more and more inane.
See, but the lack of games makes that process go much slower than it could be otherwise.
About a week ago, I posted something like this on my FB wall.
"I have Google Plus now, and will invite anyone interested. When the people on my friends list I care to keep in touch with all have G+ accounts, I'm deleting my FB account."
I deleted it about 3 days later, as the people I cared about had G+, and fuck the rest. I don't see looking back to FB any time soon...
Stone
Just open the "Games" menu of your OS's launch panel/bar. Yes, there exist many stand-alone social games.
Here is my 2cents on all of them including Facebook. It's all about the Pee Pee :-)
Twitter: I need to pee pee!
Facebook: I pee peed!
Foursquare: I’m pee peeing here!
Quora: Why am I pee peeing?
Youtube: Watch this pee pee!
LinkedIn: I pee pee well
New myspace: let’s dance while pee peeing!
Google+: Let's all pee pee in a circle
http://awesomize.me : HOW AWESOME DO I PEE PEE on Twitter, FB, Foursquare, Quora, youtube, LinkedIn, myspace and Google+
I understand Facebook's 64/100 is less "liked" than Bing's 76/100. But how did you conclude it is "hated"? The title is really mis-leading.
I come to slashdot for some insightful articles, not for this kind of BS!