Slashdot Mirror


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.

51 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. In other words... by Frosty+Piss · · 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."

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:In other words... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:In other words... by roc97007 · · 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.

      I thought selling personal user info was a big part of their revenue stream.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re: In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    4. Re:In other words... by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 2

      My use of FB has dropped substantially since all the pages I followed had decided to jump on the sensational bandwagon. Funny how once I dropped George Takei my newsfeed went silent almost. No more "These 10 things...", or "I couldn't believe Number 5" showing up ten times a day and being recycled.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    5. Re:In other words... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, YOU spread fake news. I give you alternate facts!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:In other words... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:In other words... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      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 selling all its patents.

    8. Re:In other words... by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      To quote George Carlin (out of context). "BULLSHIT! THAT'S OUR FUCKIN JOB!"

  2. there goes ESPN by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    and Deadspin

    1. Re:there goes ESPN by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

      And Buzzfeed.

    2. Re:there goes ESPN by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      ...and nothing of value was lost. :-P

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  3. So sorry... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:So sorry... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:So sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    3. Re:So sorry... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      Get some:

      https://pi-hole.net/

      No need for a Raspberry. Run the damn thing in a VM if need be.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    4. Re:So sorry... by pop+ebp · · Score: 1

      Is subscriptions still available? They seem to have removed the subscriptions link from the front page.

    5. Re:So sorry... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "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

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:So sorry... by houghi · · Score: 1

      The scrolling issues are done on purpose, because you will click on it by accident. It would be easy to tell what space it would occupy. It has been part of HTML 1.0 or so.

      Unfortunately my work does not allow me to install an ad-blocker (and I do not understand they do not have one installed by default, but whatever)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  4. N/A by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    This doesn't apply to my websites. ;)

    1. Re:N/A by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      This doesn't apply to my websites. ;)

      Optimized for Lynx?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:N/A by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re: N/A by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If you don't feature ads, then they would never link to you.

      I only have three ad slots on each page.

    4. Re:N/A by Narcocide · · 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.

    5. Re:N/A by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:N/A by Narcocide · · 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.

    7. Re:N/A by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I know the point you're trying to imply but in reality [...]

      That was one of the lessons pointed out in the post mortem.

    8. Re:N/A by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      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.

  5. So all the GOP tabloids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait for it in 10, 9, 8, 7... "Facebook blocks right leaning news on Facebook."

  6. hmm, sounds like facebook won't link to self by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:hmm, sounds like facebook won't link to self by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      ... 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.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:hmm, sounds like facebook won't link to self by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ... 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 tells me that Instagram made Facebook obsolete. And Snapchat is making Instagram obsolete. I'm thinking blipverts will be next.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:hmm, sounds like facebook won't link to self by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      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 he didn't need Facebook (pretty much by definition).

      And then... and THEN... years later, he confesses that he's been on Facebook all along under a pseudonym (not in my friends list) and when he finally friends me... I find that he's doing all the facebook-centric stuff he had been complaining about all along. He posts pictures of his meals. He forwards memes. He "likes" other posts. (At least, he doesn't play Facebook games as far as I know.) And that's about it. No original content. (Unless you count a picture of breakfast as original content.)

      Now, I started Facebook early enough that I could get a custom URL that was just my name, mostly out of curiosity. I rapidly got tired of all the crap (Farmville!!!) and nearly quit, until I learned that you could fix most of them. Facebook lets you turn off game notifications. You *must* do that, or you're going to get frustrated very quickly. Plugins like Social Fixer will filter out most of the other crap. And then, you're at the mercy only of the people in your friends list. So, make sure you pick decent friends. (Actually, you can still stay "friends" with someone and not have them in your news feed.)

      And (this is the important point)... see... I was there when email was only for the military, some universities, and military contractors. I was there when Cantor and Siegel happened. I've had access to the internet since before Algore invented it. And as soon as it went commercial, we all had to learn how to filter our access to it, including really intricate email filters.

      Facebook is the same. It's an open pipe that gains access to a little helpful information and a lot of sewage, just like email. Just like most of the raw internet. And with Facebook, you have to protect your identity, your name and your sanity in much the same ways as you do with those other resources. It's not rocket surgery.

      The great majority of my posts (probably over 90%) are original content. My own photos (of which virtually none are food), and my own writings and opinions. (Why bother forwarding a meme when you can just state what your opinion is and why you feel like that?) I amuse myself busting hoaxes that others in my "friends" list have fallen for. This has cost me a few "friends", but the rest have learned (most of the time) to google a meme or "contest" or "type amen" before reposting, because they know I'll jump on it if it's a hoax.

      Facebook is just another conduit. How valuable it is to you depends entirely on what you do with it. Just like any other interaction with the internet.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  7. You should see Yahoo's news links by magarity · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:You should see Yahoo's news links by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      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.

  8. Re:Cheap trick by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, 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.

  9. So all the Leftist sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm looking at you Salon, Buzzfeed, Daily Kaos... nice knowing ya!

  10. Why I have no FB on my cell phone by WillAffleckUW · · 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.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Why I have no FB on my cell phone by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > 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.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Why I have no FB on my cell phone by jackharrer · · Score: 1

      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...

      --

      "an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
  11. "low quality site" by roc97007 · · Score: 4, 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"?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  12. Sponsored content by Dan+East · · Score: 3, 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?

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  13. What about ads on 'legit' sites? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 audience.

    * I tried thinking of a similar, more neutral word to describe old dinosaur news outlets, but quickly remembered this is /. It is impossible to post about anything without reductio ad liberal/snowflake/denier---pick you name calling.

  14. What happens next... by David+Gould · · Score: 2

    ...will BLOW YOUR MIND!

    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    1. Re: What happens next... by David+Gould · · Score: 1

      All I can tell you is, advertisers HATE it!

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  15. Re:Cheap trick by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Why would it? Facebook's main revenue stream is based on it's own ads not on redirecting a user to somewhere else.

  16. Hack around by DrYak · · Score: 2

    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.)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  17. Likely to reduce "you'll never believe these 25" by satsuke · · Score: 1

    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.

  18. Meh. by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    Screw Facebook. Glad I'm not on it.

  19. I perform a service by Rastl · · 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.

  20. No more Links to Slahdot then... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    I almost couldn't post this due the page janking up and down loading crappy ads.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.