Facebook Downranks News Feed Links To Crappy Sites Smothered In Ads (techcrunch.com)

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.

Comments

You should see Yahoo's news links

[magarity]

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.

"low quality site"

[roc97007]

> 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"?