Slashdot Mirror


Company Claims 80% of Facebook Ad Clicks Are From Bots

pitchpipe writes "A start-up company, Limited Run, claims that 80% of its ad clicks on Facebook have been coming from bots and will be deleting their page. Their Facebook page reads: 'Hey everyone, we're going to be deleting our Facebook page in the next couple of weeks, but we wanted to explain why before we do ... We built our own analytic software. Here's what we found: on about 80% of the clicks Facebook was charging us for, JavaScript wasn't on ... The 80% of clicks we were paying for were from bots. That's correct. Bots were loading pages and driving up our advertising costs.'"

70 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't have javascript, you're a bot?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Desler · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since the ads require Javascript to be visible, yes. If you don't believe me just disable Javascript on Facebook and watch as all the ads disappear until you reenable it.

    2. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Yaur · · Score: 5, Informative

      The percentage of real users with javascript disabled is much lower than 80%... so if these numbers are real It seems reasonable that the bulk of them are bots.

    3. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by boristdog · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA. They did the analysis. 98-99% of their direct-clicks had javascript. 0nly 20% of the ones from Facebook had javascript.

      Sorry if I RTFA. I'll try not to next time.

      Upshot: Facebook stock tanks again.

    4. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by MtHuurne · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nowhere near 80% of Facebook users has noscript active or otherwise disabled JavaScript; TFA says this number is about 1-2%.

    5. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they're bots with credit cards, who knew. Me thinks the SEC may find this interesting.

    6. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why? What are you trying to hide?

    7. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Murderer!!!!

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    8. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously that he's a mass murderer.

    9. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      on about 80% of the clicks Facebook was charging us for, JavaScript wasn't on

      You (a human) wouldn't be able to click on the ads if you couldn't see them in the first place.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    10. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or vagina?

    11. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since the ads require Javascript to be visible, yes. If you don't believe me just disable Javascript on Facebook and watch as all the ads disappear until you re-enable it.

      So, that's a feature, right?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    12. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      you've never used wget have you?

      1. Download the page the ad appears in
      2. Download the javascripts using the referral page
      3. grep the javascripts for links
      4. hit all the links
      Repeat.

      So if you want to burn a specific company, you only click their ads. Since Facebook is the beneficiary of the ads, this is clearly facebook's problem. Go back in time to the ad scam eFront ran"
      http://www.echostation.com/efront/
      http://news.cnet.com/A-question-of-numbers/2009-1023_3-255030.html

    13. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by godel_56 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Either a bot, or an intelligent user who won't read the adverts. Same result for the advertiser.

      You're saying 80% of Facebook users are that intelligent?

    14. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If this gets attention from other companies who pay facebook for advertising placement, it could make facebook's advertisment revenues fall quite a lot. Click fraud is a really big deal.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    15. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by boristdog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except FB charges for clicks.

      So they are charging for fake clicks, which means they are engaging in fraud if FB is behind the fake clicks.
      And even if FB is not behind the fake clicks, FB will have to severely reduce ad rates because they cannot deliver true clicks.

      I stand by my assertion that FB will tank.

    16. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Funny

      Upshot: Facebook stock tanks again.

      One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Facebook community when Limited Run confirmed that Facebook ad effectiveness has dropped yet again, now down to less than 20% legitimate clicks. Coming on the heels of a recent stock crash which plainly indicates that Facebook is losing investors' confidence, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Facebook is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    17. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly.

      Click fraud has been a huge problem. Even Google has had to put mechanisms in place to detect it and control it.
      But none of these ad companies have a real strong incentive to do so, other than to maintain a reputation for fairness
      among advertisers. Facebook? Fairness? Reputation?

      In my day job we were a Google advertiser, and on more than one occasion we started seeing huge spikes in clicks
      when we did nothing different on the web site or in commerce to warrant such an increase.

      I called Google about it, and they ran a review of the clicks and dropped the actual click count to below what
      it had been prior. They do respond, but you have to complain some times.

      They are especially good at catching bots.

      We've put a ceiling on the amount we will pay for these clicks, and when ever that ceiling is reached we get
      a notice from Google. Unless we just started an advertising campaign in the trade rags (or something to generate that
      increase in traffic), we usually just file another click fraud complaint to them and they invariably
      we are the target of another E-Gold "get paid to click ads" scam.

      (We always suspect, but can never prove that one of our competitors is behind this click fest to drive my ads off the
      search results by over-running our limits, because they always seem to happen when they launch a new product).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    18. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by zlives · · Score: 5, Funny

      just a murderer... for mass murderer i think the requirement is no FB page at all.

    19. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 5, Informative
      The fact that 80% users were coming in with JavaScript off was merely a clue. The company's staff were used to 1-2% of users coming in with JS off, which sounds fairly reasonable to me. The discrepancy raised a big red flag.

      They then decided to put a logger on the site to track where the users were coming in from and what they were doing. From this, they determined 80% of the clicks from FB were bots.

      Others have also done these types of analytics in regards to Facebook, with results in the 70%-are-bots range.

      Here's a quote from the LA Times blog article (admittedly, it is pretty poorly edited):

      In a Facebook status post as well as a blog posted Monday, Limited Run said it built its own analytics program, which found that 80% of its ad clicks were coming from users with JavaScript turned off, which makes it difficult for analytics software to verify clicks. The company added that in its staff's experience, only about 1% to 2% of clicks typically come with JavaScript turned off. As a result, the company built a page logger on its site, and that led the company to find that all those clicks were coming from bots.

      I suppose all of this could be bunk, but it sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    20. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by epine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why? This is a nonevent (even if it is true.) It's like proving that 80% of TV ads air when people are out of the room. It does nothing to change the basic equation of how advertisers decide whether to place ads, which is: place some ads, see if your sales go up enough to justify the cost; if so, buy more... and so forth.

      And your competitors can invent extra TVs in all your extra, unoccupied rooms, and when they do, your ad bill escalates. These scenarios are so identical you need a scanning electron microscope with the gain set to 11 just to tell them apart. Apparently.

    21. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      No. This would be like proving that 80% of TV ads cause voice-simulation-robots to dial the phone number on the screen. Your analogy also misses that the network is charging for the original ad, based on length and broadcast time, NOT per call about the advertised company/product.

      The difference is that someone, somewhere, for some reason, is artificially driving up per-click costs for companies that participate in Facebook's advertising schemes. You would be completely correct if the Facebook ad banner had a pre-determined, up-front cost, like TV and radio ads do.

      If it's mostly bots, then the amount advertisers are willing to pay will go down in proportion to how much bot "views" go up (or as people simply grow insensitive to the ads, or don't have enough disposable income to buy the product, etc etc).

      Market forces? Maybe over the long run, but that doesn't mean companies aren't getting SCREWED by this right now (it's blatantly unethical, and probably illegal). How many companies would just herp-derp along, paying 80% too much for their ad space? This company wisely put a very basic test in place (one that FB really should be implementing prior to sending the click; in fact, Google has been doing this for years).

    22. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      This meme isn't doing too well is it? Just keep trying.

      Yeah... vagina isn't doing to well on the Internet....

    23. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What happens when an antivirus scanner "pre-scans" the page at link to the Ad, in case the user clicks on it, in order to speed up their browsing experience?

      Technically, it's not a bot causing the page to be requested, it can just as well be a real person's user agent

    24. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Informative

      Google answers customers, not consumers.

    25. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Informative

      *psst* you missed the part where he's not a consumer, he's one of the people that actually gives Google money. They like money. They pay attention to the people who give them money. It's just the rest of us who are SOL.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    26. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by v1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The subtext here is that Zuck is setting up bots to drive his company revenues up.

      I've seen three popular explanations for "whose bots are they?" They're almost certainly a rented botnet composed mainly of compromised (usually windows) machines that are under remote mass control. I've read multiple expose where they show how you go to some .ru etc website and set up an account with them and rent out however many thousand machines you want to, and can do any of several offered services... ddos, backdoor installations, DNS redirects, proxy, and of course spam and click fraud.

      Click fraud is run for one of three reasons:

      1) drive up pay-for-click revenue for the site (facebook) - probably not a smart thing for them to do seeing as they're Suspect #1 because they have the most to gain, but already have a ton of cash

      2) competitors trying to cost you money by driving up your advertising costs

      3) competitors trying to cause you to hit your impression hit limit and stop displaying your ads

      2 and 3 don't necessarily have to be your competitors, they could be random criminals trying to extort you, "pay us or we screw up your marketing".

      I've seen several recent reports of (3) suspected due to finding a pattern of click fraud spikes at times when their competitors were doing a new product release. Renting botnets isn't free, and isn't without risk, and (2) probably doesn't have a very big net return. So (3) at the time of a new product release would appear to be a competitor's most prudent and effective time to buy some click-fraud.

      And numerous posts above asking to post the IP addresses. really? Aren't you embarrassed to suggest that those would be helpful to anyone here?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    27. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But none of these ad companies have a real strong incentive to do so, other than to maintain a reputation for fairness
      among advertisers.

      Actually, they have a strong incentive: staying in business. My wife runs her own business, and I help her with advertising. We track the source of every click through to a sale. Then we calculate the ratio of (ad expense)/(profit generated). For Google ads, this is about 1.6. For Facebook ads, it is about 0.2. Guess where we no longer buy ads?

    28. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by pluther · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's unlikely that that's the configuration used by 80% of Facebook users.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    29. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Mandrel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then we calculate the ratio of (ad expense)/(profit generated). For Google ads, this is about 1.6. For Facebook ads, it is about 0.2. Guess where we no longer buy ads?

      Just to confirm: you're saying that for your wife's business, Facebook ads are 8 times more effective than Google ads.

    30. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to confirm: you're saying that for your wife's business, Facebook ads are 8 times more effective than Google ads.

      Gack! Sorry, I got the ratio reversed. They are eight times less effective. Thanks for catching this.

    31. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      80%? you are gonna honestly claim that 80% of the visitors to a single site had that exact highly unlikely set of circumstances? I'm sorry but that just don't jive, I don't care how damned geeky the FB page was. Hell ask /. how many of their users have JavaScript disabled, this site is geek city and I seriously doubt you'd get even 45% with no JavaScript at all.

      And don't forget they were being charged for AD clicks which most folks that are running some kind of blocker are running ABP and aren't whitelisting shit, hence why you have sites that say "Please, we need the money, please whitelist us" because the default behavior (which all here know most users stick with defaults) is block everything and you have to actually go out of your way to change that.

      No something smells here folks, and I only hope that company makes the software they developed to find this out free and available for others to use so we can see how widespread this really is on FB. Be a nasty bit of new to FB stockholders if it turned out 80% of their "revenues" were just clickjacking bots.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    32. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is another option, FWIW. Whenever I see an advertisement on Google for a company I don't like, I click on their link. It's probably unethical, but it's oh-so-tempting.

      So over the years, I've probably transferred like $1.35 from Microsoft to Google as a result of my actions. Yay!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    33. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Surt · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you can have a page, the key is not to use it. I mean, how much 'mass' are you going to achieve if your updates look like:

      Just stopped at the Hillsdale Mall.
      Picked up a Wetzel's Pretzel Dog. Tasty!
      Killed this guy and his kids in the Nordstrom's bathroom.
      Checked out Victoria's secret. Do we really want our children to see the models they display in the window?

      It'll be hard to keep that up long enough to rack up a really good score without getting caught.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    34. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by Surt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, no. What percentage of real users do you imagine even knows there's an option to turn off javascript?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    35. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by geogob · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first thing I did after installing no script, was to white list all the ads... the internet is so bland without them.

    36. Re:If you don't have javascript, you're a bot? by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ads are not just invisible. The space allocated to ads on the page is released; ads are simply completely wiped from the page. There is no white space on the page with hidden links where ads used to be. So there is no chance to click on such invisible ads.

      And even if I would be able to click on such a non-exisiting link, I'd still be recognised as a real browser, as I do have Javascript enabled.

  2. Yes, but don't call them that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's rude.

  3. Re:WTF Apple?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't go there, porno image.

  4. Re:Javascript turned off? by Desler · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, but you also won't be clicking on the ads since they are no longer visible without Javascript.

  5. I'm not surprised. by Rob+from+RPI · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Facebook is a TERRIBLE advertising platform. I've tried it, and had nothing but rubbish. In fact, I read an article about it not long after I tried it, saying that Facebook Advertising just doesn't work, and the only way they keep it up is by new people going 'Well, all these other people are advertising, I'm sure I can try that too'. Then they give it up as a bad job, but not before someone ELSE sees it and goes 'Hmm. FB Advertising'...

    So, basically, I wasted $50, and learned that trying to appeal to the facebook crowd with something they have to pay for just doesn't work.

    1. Re:I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shut up, Mark.

    2. Re:I'm not surprised. by wmbetts · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to be rude or offensive, but you failed at it because you didn't know what you were doing. I know several people (for companies not themselves) spending six figures a month with facebook and generating sales numbers larger than that. It's working great for them. If I tried that I would have the same results as you until I learned what I was doing. To do it "right" it requires a custom software and understanding of all the analytics. I've asked them in the past about their budget for testing new ads and products. They will blow a couple grand just getting everything dialed in. Unless you're copying someone verbatim (and that would require hacking them and seeing everything on their back end not just their fb ads) $50 isn't even close enough to begin getting a campaign profitable.

      Something else they will do is literally upload hundreds of different ads with different pictures, text, etc. Then they'll choose the ads that have the highest CTR (click through rate). Apparently one of the metrics fb uses for click prices is the CTR. If you're getting a crt of around .1% or higher you'll be getting some great click prices. Which is why they upload so many creativities. They have software that will take images, titles, bodies and generate ads for all the permutations and set very specific demographics for each set (a set would be the total permutations) of ads then upload them to fb. That allows them to see which ads work best for which demographics.

      Click fraud is a huge problem though. A lot of ad networks will reimburse you for bot clicks if you can prove they were in fact bots and not real people. A lot of times it will be a small percentage and you eat the cost, because it's not worth the trouble of fighting for it. Think of it as theft if you were running a retail store, because that's essentially what it is. However, at 80% that's just crazy and this company has every right to be upset regardless of the amount they spent. They didn't get what they paid for.

      After saying all of that. I'm sure if you had the money to burn you could figure it out and make a nice side income. You would have to treat it like any business though and expect to lose money for a while until you learned the ropes.

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
  6. Re:Nice finding, hope some could confirm by Desler · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's easy to confirm. Disable Javascript on Facebook and the ads disappear. It's pretty unlikely most people are disabling Javascript then finding alternative means to click the ads anyway unless they're a bot.

  7. Re:WTF Apple?!? by s.petry · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can a mod delete that link please? This is most surely against TOS and may get people fired from work if using /. at work.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  8. Re:Cui bono? by Desler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Simple. Go to Facebook and disable Javascript. Ads are now no longer visible. How else other than through a bot or some extra effort do you guess that these ads are being clicked when the ads aren't visible?

  9. Re:WTF Apple?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    LOL. I wasn't going to click until I read your comment.. i saw porno and clicked. you should have been more specific.. its gay porno... not my thing.

  10. Re:WTF Apple?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can a mod delete that link please?

    No.. Homey don't censor... Learn how to tune out.

  11. Re:Cui bono? by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Informative

    "For the past week, I've been running a very successful small business via Facebook. It is called VirtualBagel and more than 3,000 people from around the world have decided they "like" it - despite the fact that it does, well, absolutely nothing. But in running this non-existent firm I have learned quite a bit about the value of those "likes" prized by so many big brands, and the usefulness of Facebook's advertising".> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18819338

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  12. Them bots sure are cheap by greg1104 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With some Facebook bots starting at $30 to $50 to build, of course people are doing that. Facebook has bigger problems than giving a crap about this company's complaints or requests. If our SEC wasn't a toothless corporate captive, the company would already have been halted for securities abuse.

  13. Re:WTF Apple?!? by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And only an idiot clicks on random image links when they are at work...

  14. I don't doubt it by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We use adwords from time to time and had similar experiences a few years back with the "content network".

    We analyzed our stats and even went as far as manually browse access logs. The hits we got were crap just like the sites most of the referrals came from.

    There is a huge sesspool of scum on the Internet funded by leeching off ad revenue wherever it exists.

    If companies are not on top of it and not careful about how they are spending their advertising dollars this kind of fraud could easily eat into a sizable chunk of their budgets and they might not even know it.

    Do your homework before you throw your money away.

    1. Re:I don't doubt it by Chemisor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is no cesspool of scum on the internet leaching off add revenue. A cesspool of idiocy is more like it. People who take your money are not the problem - you are the problem. Advertising does not work. In the age of the internet, if you want to sell something, all you need to do is make it easy to find. Advertising does not do that. Advertising clogs the pipes with crappy messages telling me to buy without telling me what you are selling. List the damn product on amazon. Sell it on eBay. Make it show up on a search. And tell me what the damn thing is and how much it costs. These two things are the only things I need to know to make a purchasing decision, and advertising goes to incredible amount of effort to hide them from me. Let me find it. Tell me what it does. Tell me what makes it different from the alternatives. Is it the cheap one? The best made one? The one with feature X? The one with feature Y? The locally made one? Give me the damn facts. Stop telling me what I should think about it. Stop buying goddamned ads!

    2. Re:I don't doubt it by PReDiToR · · Score: 5, Informative

      Someone modded this troll?

      So, how many times have you seen a vapourware product on this site and gone to their site to see:
      A) How much it costs
      B) Where to buy it
      and been REALLY FUCKED OFF to find that this information isn't available?

      Advertising, Slashvertising and posting 250 words over 6 pages of ad-infested blog wipe doesn't sell products. It sells hype and only marketing get rich off hype.

      Here is the perfect advert:

      For rent: NATALIE PORTMAN
      Comes with HOT GRITS, NAKED.
      NPORTMAN.COM, UPS delivery to continental US only, $200 per night. Availability is 1/per customer, per night, first come first served.

      And I think that makes the word "amirite" necessary here.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  15. Occam's Razor by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe the bots are genuinely interested in Mom's Old Fashioned Robot Oil.

  16. When I'm bored... by ebcdic · · Score: 5, Funny

    I google for "whiplash" or "loans" and click on all the ads.

  17. OMG!! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 80% of clicks we were paying for were from bots. That's correct. Bots were loading pages and driving up our advertising costs.

    Advertising on the Internet is based on click-fraud. Where have you been for the last 10 years?

  18. Follow The Money by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who profits from BOTS pumping the FACEBOOK advertising system?

    In practice it will be effectively impossible to identify the person-or-company who is *originally* responsible for this clickvertising pumping scheme.

    But I know who I'd be betting on.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:Follow The Money by tgd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who profits from BOTS pumping the FACEBOOK advertising system?

      In practice it will be effectively impossible to identify the person-or-company who is *originally* responsible for this clickvertising pumping scheme.

      But I know who I'd be betting on.

      Someone shorting their stock would be the top of my list ...

  19. Re:WTF Apple?!? by Desler · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a pretty simple fix for that issue. Don't click on random links while at work. Geeknet doesn't give two fucks that you did something that stupid.

    Each user, by using Geeknet Sites, may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Each user must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content.

  20. Lack of Analytics by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    However much truth there is in this story, there's one notable thing about Facebook's advertising. It's that they don't- or at least didn't the last time I looked into it (late 2011 IIRC)- provide any proper tracking or analytics service that you can easily integrate into your own website. Yes, they'd tell you how many clicks you got on your Facebook page, but so what?

    IIRC apparently they'd had some analytics/tracking code available at one point but *supposedly* they were worried about the data it provided being misinterpreted, so they withdrew it. They were still providing it, but only to their large corporate customers. Hmm.

    One could still use specialised third-party tracking solutions, but (e.g.) getting it to work properly with Google analytics proved more complicated than it might at first have appeared, involving faffing about with funnels and the like (which I still don't think I got working properly, as I was distracted by more important things shortly afterwards).

    Given that this was around the time stories were starting to come out explaining how Facebook- which everyone had assumed would be the holy grail of targeted advertising- was in truth delivering very poor results for advertisers, a cynic might assume that it really wasn't in Facebook's interest to make keeping close tabs on the effectiveness of its advertising easy for customers. This might or might not have been the case, but I'm pretty sceptical.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  21. Re:Or, You Know... by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure you could, but you are part of a small minority of users. A far cry from the 80% they are seeing.

  22. Re:WTF Apple?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe you mean rickholed.

  23. Seen this problem before by rgbrenner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've advertised on quite a few platforms (although have yet to try Facebook), and this is a common problem. In 2006, there were lawsuits against Yahoo and Google for click-fraud.. both were settled (I was included in the settlement for both.... got virtually nothing.. something like $20 refund for $100k in clicks.)
    http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/10294.asp

    Google does a pretty good job, which is probably a large reason why they control such a large portion of the online ad market. Yahoo, depending on their platform of the week, can be hit-or-miss. They usually do a good job, but there have been a few times when it is just terrible. When Yahoo announces a change to their search.. watch out. (Bing's ad performance has been pretty good over the past couple of years at least)

    I've seen some ad platforms that just ignore the problem, and it's easy to spend several thousand dollars and not get a single customer from it on those platforms. If facebook does nothing to control the problem, I'm sure there will be another class action.. probably won't cost them much to settle it, but might destroy the trust they have with advertisers, their stock price, and business.

  24. Re:WTF Apple?!? by pregister · · Score: 4, Funny

    How did you survive the days of goatse?

  25. Re:WTF Apple?!? by HarrySquatter · · Score: 4, Funny

    How dare you hold him accountable for his actions!

  26. Not against TOS here, but... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is not against the slashdot TOS, but it is against the imageshack TOS. Report to imageshack, the link breaks, and all is well again.

  27. Re:WTF Apple?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stretching exercises and a huge cork.

  28. FB doesn't require JS to display Ads by Maxmin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Disabling Javascript doesn't eliminate FB ads. Try it. Turn off Javascript for all sites, clear cache, and load www.facebook.com.

    I see ads, clickable ads that reach their destination. Looking at the page in the developer tools, there's no JS being executed (pause does nothing), and neither the Scripts nor the Resources tabs reveal anything resembling a script.

    Further, all the ads link through the same base URI, what is likely a FB redirector script: https://www.facebook.com/ajax/emu/end.php. I've written ad software for websites that doesn't use a bit of JS, and it appears that FB is capable of doing the same.

    Reenabling JS shows the ads have both the base URI AND a mousedown handler with function reference of a similar name: a.emuEvent1.fbEmuLink.image.fbEmuImage

    Finally, advertisers and the agencies that put their ads on FB don't have to rely on FB for click metrics, it's normal practice to redirect through a third-party agency that counts ad clicks.

    It's possible that this company didn't understand the incoming requests. I'd love to see their analysis of User-Agent signatures and client IP addresses.

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  29. Re:WTF Apple?!? by azalin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I always considered goatse, tubgirl and lemonparty to be some kind of initiation rite. Once you learned NOT to click on any link presented (or to deal with the consequences) you were considered a member of the internet and not just a tourist anymore.