There is this unfortunate tendency here for grade schools and play schools to have a Facebook page, where they share a lot of school-related stuff.
This has been the case for my kid and I have told the admin that they just cannot assume everyone has a Facebook account, or a WhatsApp account for that matter.
The school has been good enough to text me when they send out a message on WhatsApp and share details via email.
The plus side is that a lot of home businesses can just put up a page on Facebook and share it, rather than investing in a website and worrying about reach.
I personally used Facebook probably for a couple of months before I closed my account a few years back.
Total lie, there is no way they have this number of users per month.
Probably count people that are logged in through OAUTH in another site, that's probably 1/2 the loggins per month.
Those people aren't really using FB directly though.
The fact Z boy waited that long before using those community, or promoting involvement in communities in any ways means he's obviously not sincere at all and he's just trying to milk the cow some more.
This kind of thing is something I thought FB would do 8 years ago and he's just woke-up now! No wonder people, even his now wife, first though of him as a slacker.
For DAUs and MAUs, they only count people who have logged in and visited their website (to include through mobile devices) or who have used the Messenger app (if they are a registered user).
Are you working for FB, sounds like you are by your tone. I don't trust that bozo Zuckerberg at all; he's extremely untrustworthy by his past actions.
No, I'm not working for Facebook. I was just conveying information about how MAUs are counted in response to your speculation in that regard.
That said, if you think that Facebook lies in its SEC filings on that point, then I'll not try to dissuade you from believing that.
Total lie, there is no way they have this number of users per month.
Probably count people that are logged in through OAUTH in another site, that's probably 1/2 the loggins per month.
Those people aren't really using FB directly though.
The fact Z boy waited that long before using those community, or promoting involvement in communities in any ways means he's obviously not sincere at all and he's just trying to milk the cow some more.
This kind of thing is something I thought FB would do 8 years ago and he's just woke-up now! No wonder people, even his now wife, first though of him as a slacker.
For DAUs and MAUs, they only count people who have logged in and visited their website (to include through mobile devices) or who have used the Messenger app (if they are a registered user).
Are you working for FB, sounds like you are by your tone. I don't trust that bozo Zuckerberg at all; he's extremely untrustworthy by his past actions.
No, I'm not working for Facebook. I was just conveying information about how MAUs are counted in response to your speculation in that regard.
That said, if you think that Facebook lies in its SEC filings on that point, then I'll not try to dissuade you from believing that.
Isn't it is a bit ridiculous, to be accused of working for Facebook if you clarify a point in favor of facebook? Same happens with GatorGuy, for clarifying stuff related to Google. Guess what happens when EU fines Google - The so-called Google employee(GatorGuy) takes a stance favoring EU (more or less), while the apple supporters(/employees??? - pun intended) end up supporting Google. I don't understand why people cannot stop these innuendos in this forum.
Total lie, there is no way they have this number of users per month.
Probably count people that are logged in through OAUTH in another site, that's probably 1/2 the loggins per month.
Those people aren't really using FB directly though.
The fact Z boy waited that long before using those community, or promoting involvement in communities in any ways means he's obviously not sincere at all and he's just trying to milk the cow some more.
This kind of thing is something I thought FB would do 8 years ago and he's just woke-up now! No wonder people, even his now wife, first though of him as a slacker.
For DAUs and MAUs, they only count people who have logged in and visited their website (to include through mobile devices) or who have used the Messenger app (if they are a registered user).
Are you working for FB, sounds like you are by your tone. I don't trust that bozo Zuckerberg at all; he's extremely untrustworthy by his past actions.
No, I'm not working for Facebook. I was just conveying information about how MAUs are counted in response to your speculation in that regard.
That said, if you think that Facebook lies in its SEC filings on that point, then I'll not try to dissuade you from believing that.
Isn't it is a bit ridiculous, to be accused of working for Facebook if you clarify a point in favor of facebook? Same happens with GatorGuy, for clarifying stuff related to Google. Guess what happens when EU fines Google - The so-called Google employee(GatorGuy) takes a stance favoring EU (more or less), while the apple supporters(/employees??? - pun intended) end up supporting Google. I don't understand why people cannot stop these innuendos in this forum.
There was NO CLARIFICATION. Just AFFIRMATION. See the difference.
There was no actual proof or study to say the opposite of what I was saying, which was clearly my opinion.
Yet, it posited to be authoritative.
I never hide the difference between opinion and what I deem factual; they're mostly pretty clear in my responses.
I'm averse to lies or uncertainty being peddled as truth.
Why the hell should I even believe a number Facebook reports, based on metrics that anyone who has dealt with those things are iffy at best.
There is truly no independent way to test those numbers. So, anyone who uses those argument straight up with a straight face sounds like an astroturfer's talking point.
Maybe they're not, but the tone is there.
As for Gatorguy, he's a notorious and plays thick, while he clearly is not.
Acting like he's not Android shilling 95% of the times makes me laugh and makes me think you're doing the same; playing a game.
You just have to put Android or Google in a thread or title and you're sure he'll appear.
Considering he's seemingly not touched a a Apple product in a while, he's probably just here because he likes to be a contrarian.
Total lie, there is no way they have this number of users per month.
Probably count people that are logged in through OAUTH in another site, that's probably 1/2 the loggins per month.
Those people aren't really using FB directly though.
The fact Z boy waited that long before using those community, or promoting involvement in communities in any ways means he's obviously not sincere at all and he's just trying to milk the cow some more.
This kind of thing is something I thought FB would do 8 years ago and he's just woke-up now! No wonder people, even his now wife, first though of him as a slacker.
For DAUs and MAUs, they only count people who have logged in and visited their website (to include through mobile devices) or who have used the Messenger app (if they are a registered user).
Are you working for FB, sounds like you are by your tone. I don't trust that bozo Zuckerberg at all; he's extremely untrustworthy by his past actions.
No, I'm not working for Facebook. I was just conveying information about how MAUs are counted in response to your speculation in that regard.
That said, if you think that Facebook lies in its SEC filings on that point, then I'll not try to dissuade you from believing that.
SEC and investors don't give a hoot unless it affects actual revenues, profits and valuation in a measurable way.
They only really care maybe that it has gone up X%, that profits per users have gone up X%.
They could systematically be off by a billion users and it would make no difference at all as long as they're consistent in their "bad reporting" over a long period (or at least the bias is systemically larger on the same side with time).
That a metric exists doesn't mean it is actually meaningful or useful (even if you trust them).
These numbers are only really reported because of the ever bigger race of reporting ever bigger numbers of different users by all platforms.
I suspect all the platforms are fudging numbers and the only consistency is in how they're all doing it; a kind of arms race of "reporting" user numbers.
Why? Because of my own experience.
I created (architect) a large transactional site in the 1990s that still exists though I don't work there anymore
and our reported numbers were also inflated partly due to limitations of the time and partly because which suited the CEO fine.
With time, the bias creeps up and well and you can't really go back to reality as the numbers diverge more; you're number of purported/reported users will crash.
So, I kept the creep in check as best I could even though it meant we were "losing" the "fakish" numbers game.
Cause, yes, there were also many other sites reporting big numbers.
Also, there is some marketing and valuation pumping fluff in SEC filings, there is "truth" and there is also "truthiness"
Why? Because the SEC is notoriously understaffed will only really act if investors lose money, or if info about the company is not propagated in an uniform way (meaning insider info).
As long as the little engine chugs along and they keep the valuation up, everyone's happy and nothing happens.
Total lie, there is no way they have this number of users per month.
Probably count people that are logged in through OAUTH in another site, that's probably 1/2 the loggins per month.
Those people aren't really using FB directly though.
The fact Z boy waited that long before using those community, or promoting involvement in communities in any ways means he's obviously not sincere at all and he's just trying to milk the cow some more.
This kind of thing is something I thought FB would do 8 years ago and he's just woke-up now! No wonder people, even his now wife, first though of him as a slacker.
For DAUs and MAUs, they only count people who have logged in and visited their website (to include through mobile devices) or who have used the Messenger app (if they are a registered user).
Are you working for FB, sounds like you are by your tone. I don't trust that bozo Zuckerberg at all; he's extremely untrustworthy by his past actions.
No, I'm not working for Facebook. I was just conveying information about how MAUs are counted in response to your speculation in that regard.
That said, if you think that Facebook lies in its SEC filings on that point, then I'll not try to dissuade you from believing that.
Isn't it is a bit ridiculous, to be accused of working for Facebook if you clarify a point in favor of facebook? Same happens with GatorGuy, for clarifying stuff related to Google. Guess what happens when EU fines Google - The so-called Google employee(GatorGuy) takes a stance favoring EU (more or less), while the apple supporters(/employees??? - pun intended) end up supporting Google. I don't understand why people cannot stop these innuendos in this forum.
There was NO CLARIFICATION. Just AFFIRMATION. See the difference.
There was no actual proof or study to say the opposite of what I was saying, which was clearly my opinion.
Yet, it posited to be authoritative.
I never hide the difference between opinion and what I deem factual; they're mostly pretty clear in my responses.
I'm averse to lies or uncertainty being peddled as truth.
Why the hell should I even believe a number Facebook reports, based on metrics that anyone who has dealt with those things are iffy at best.
There is truly no independent way to test those numbers. So, anyone who uses those argument straight up with a straight face sounds like an astroturfer's talking point; so it comes down to tone.
As for Gatorguy, he's a notorious and plays thick, while he clearly is not.
Acting like he's not Android shilling 95% of the times makes me laugh and makes me think you're doing the same; playing a game.
You just have to put Android or Google in a thread or title and you're sure he'll appear.
Considering he's seemingly not touched a a Apple product in a while, he's probably just here because he likes to be a contrarian.
No need to get worked up so much!!! I was just calling out the downside of accusing someone as Employee of X/Y/Z company just based on few posts in an online forum. Agreed, you are entitled to your opinion.
sflocal said: Your opinions on their diabolical intents with all that user data, or how you feel their groups are set up does not negate the issue.
I don't think the diabolical intent is exactly opinion.... just how diabolical that intent is. YOU are the product. FB sells you to marketers. That's the intent. Diabolical?
But, then consider their 'charity' work, for example in India, where they want to give people 'free' 'internet' access, which basically means a pipe into Facebook (not the Internet). Diabolical? Absolutely!
Or, how about their push to get publishers to put articles within FB, rather than on their own websites or on news sites? Diabolical? Absolutely. Dangerous? Absolutely.
There's also this issue of Facebook breaking the open web, which John Gruber ranted about, quoting Dave Winer's article.
Avinash Koushik, Google's digital marketing evangelist, cautions repeatedly against giving primacy to Facebook presence over that of the company web site or blog. Coincidentally, his latest article exhorts people to stop all social media activity, albeit in a business context.
Yes, this is a huge concern. We need to be very, very careful how much we give over to Facebook. I'm old enough to remember AOL and Compuserve, but I fear the majority of Facebook users, aren't. And, then there's governments and 'powers that be' who'd just love to concentrate all the communication within some entity that's happy to comply.
What is amazing is that people use a site like Facebook with such a horrible interface and with a brutan negative impact on productivity.
Yea, many have to use it for business reasons, and I'll admit that it has helped me keep up with a few friends/family over the years that I otherwise wouldn't. But, I really have to resist doing much there but checking in from time to time (or conducting business there). It's designed to be addictive and a time-suck.
And, as I stated earlier, it's one of the worst platforms as a 'forum' for community discussion.
There is this unfortunate tendency here for grade schools and play schools to have a Facebook page, where they share a lot of school-related stuff.
This has been the case for my kid and I have told the admin that they just cannot assume everyone has a Facebook account, or a WhatsApp account for that matter.
The school has been good enough to text me when they send out a message on WhatsApp and share details via email.
The plus side is that a lot of home businesses can just put up a page on Facebook and share it, rather than investing in a website and worrying about reach.
Oh man, yes, this is so bad. I can't believe the number of organizations and companies that think Facebook is a good website replacement. Now, I suppose I could be accused of being biased, as I create websites. But, it's totally annoying to be sent to a service to get info for which you don't have an account.
It's also really annoying that many of these organizations don't understand how to setup the info so that it's not being made available to people who shouldn't have it. (Let alone the fear of a data breach, or Facebook changing the rules down the road, or who they might be selling the data to, etc.)
re: home businesses - Yes, but it's a really, really short-sighted idea to do that!
"...connecting the world..."
Directly to our data mining algorithms and then to advertisers. Finally...profit!
No doubt. I was actually skeptical when FB started selling ads. It wasn't that I didn't realize the power of their data collection, but I just didn't think anyone clicked on or followed an ad on Facebook. Apparently I was wrong? (At least some claim it one of the most effective ad buys now.)
I guess what I actually underestimated, was that the average human would be glued to FB 24x7, and apparently, actually click on ads from time to time.
"...connecting the world..."
Directly to our data mining algorithms and then to advertisers. Finally...profit!
No doubt. I was actually skeptical when FB started selling ads. It wasn't that I didn't realize the power of their data collection, but I just didn't think anyone clicked on or followed an ad on Facebook. Apparently I was wrong? (At least some claim it one of the most effective ad buys now.)
I guess what I actually underestimated, was that the average human would be glued to FB 24x7, and apparently, actually click on ads from time to time.
How else do you get videos of kittens.
i would rather use Facebook any day than ITunes or the Music App now that Apple is stuffing their Music Service down are throats.
No need to get worked up so much!!! I was just calling out the downside of accusing someone as Employee of X/Y/Z company just based on few posts in an online forum. Agreed, you are entitled to your opinion.
No one's getting worked up. You made a point, there was a rebuttal. A darn fine one, I might add.
Gator's been on this site longer than me, and I've been here a number of years. Give him credit for being by far the subtlest and slickest contrarian here. While I rarely agree with his comments (and share suspicions about his motives), watching him do his thing, and how he does it, is oddly fascinating.
Total lie, there is no way they have this number of users per month.
Probably count people that are logged in through OAUTH in another site, that's probably 1/2 the loggins per month.
Those people aren't really using FB directly though.
The fact Z boy waited that long before using those community, or promoting involvement in communities in any ways means he's obviously not sincere at all and he's just trying to milk the cow some more.
This kind of thing is something I thought FB would do 8 years ago and he's just woke-up now! No wonder people, even his now wife, first though of him as a slacker.
For DAUs and MAUs, they only count people who have logged in and visited their website (to include through mobile devices) or who have used the Messenger app (if they are a registered user).
Are you working for FB, sounds like you are by your tone. I don't trust that bozo Zuckerberg at all; he's extremely untrustworthy by his past actions.
No, I'm not working for Facebook. I was just conveying information about how MAUs are counted in response to your speculation in that regard.
That said, if you think that Facebook lies in its SEC filings on that point, then I'll not try to dissuade you from believing that.
SEC and investors don't give a hoot unless it affects actual revenues, profits and valuation in a measurable way.
They only really care maybe that it has gone up X%, that profits per users have gone up X%.
They could systematically be off by a billion users and it would make no difference at all as long as they're consistent in their "bad reporting" over a long period (or at least the bias is systemically larger on the same side with time).
That a metric exists doesn't mean it is actually meaningful or useful (even if you trust them).
These numbers are only really reported because of the ever bigger race of reporting ever bigger numbers of different users by all platforms.
I suspect all the platforms are fudging numbers and the only consistency is in how they're all doing it; a kind of arms race of "reporting" user numbers.
Why? Because of my own experience.
I created (architect) a large transactional site in the 1990s that still exists though I don't work there anymore
and our reported numbers were also inflated partly due to limitations of the time and partly because which suited the CEO fine.
With time, the bias creeps up and well and you can't really go back to reality as the numbers diverge more; you're number of purported/reported users will crash.
So, I kept the creep in check as best I could even though it meant we were "losing" the "fakish" numbers game.
Cause, yes, there were also many other sites reporting big numbers.
Also, there is some marketing and valuation pumping fluff in SEC filings, there is "truth" and there is also "truthiness"
Why? Because the SEC is notoriously understaffed will only really act if investors lose money, or if info about the company is not propagated in an uniform way (meaning insider info).
As long as the little engine chugs along and they keep the valuation up, everyone's happy and nothing happens.
I wasn't commenting on the usefulness of the metric, nor was I making an assertion about the accuracy of it. Facebook itself acknowledges that there are challenges in trying to measure such things.
I was clarifying what the metric is - i.e., what it tries to measure - as that was something you were speculating about.
Comments
There is this unfortunate tendency here for grade schools and play schools to have a Facebook page, where they share a lot of school-related stuff.
This has been the case for my kid and I have told the admin that they just cannot assume everyone has a Facebook account, or a WhatsApp account for that matter.
The school has been good enough to text me when they send out a message on WhatsApp and share details via email.
The plus side is that a lot of home businesses can just put up a page on Facebook and share it, rather than investing in a website and worrying about reach.
I personally used Facebook probably for a couple of months before I closed my account a few years back.
That said, if you think that Facebook lies in its SEC filings on that point, then I'll not try to dissuade you from believing that.
Isn't it is a bit ridiculous, to be accused of working for Facebook if you clarify a point in favor of facebook? Same happens with GatorGuy, for clarifying stuff related to Google. Guess what happens when EU fines Google - The so-called Google employee(GatorGuy) takes a stance favoring EU (more or less), while the apple supporters(/employees??? - pun intended) end up supporting Google. I don't understand why people cannot stop these innuendos in this forum.
>100mil?
>200mil?
>300mil?
But, then consider their 'charity' work, for example in India, where they want to give people 'free' 'internet' access, which basically means a pipe into Facebook (not the Internet). Diabolical? Absolutely!
Or, how about their push to get publishers to put articles within FB, rather than on their own websites or on news sites? Diabolical? Absolutely. Dangerous? Absolutely.
Yes, this is a huge concern. We need to be very, very careful how much we give over to Facebook. I'm old enough to remember AOL and Compuserve, but I fear the majority of Facebook users, aren't. And, then there's governments and 'powers that be' who'd just love to concentrate all the communication within some entity that's happy to comply.
And, as I stated earlier, it's one of the worst platforms as a 'forum' for community discussion.
Oh man, yes, this is so bad. I can't believe the number of organizations and companies that think Facebook is a good website replacement. Now, I suppose I could be accused of being biased, as I create websites. But, it's totally annoying to be sent to a service to get info for which you don't have an account.
It's also really annoying that many of these organizations don't understand how to setup the info so that it's not being made available to people who shouldn't have it. (Let alone the fear of a data breach, or Facebook changing the rules down the road, or who they might be selling the data to, etc.)
re: home businesses - Yes, but it's a really, really short-sighted idea to do that!
I guess what I actually underestimated, was that the average human would be glued to FB 24x7, and apparently, actually click on ads from time to time.
i would rather use Facebook any day than ITunes or the Music App now that Apple is stuffing their Music Service down are throats.
Gator's been on this site longer than me, and I've been here a number of years. Give him credit for being by far the subtlest and slickest contrarian here. While I rarely agree with his comments (and share suspicions about his motives), watching him do his thing, and how he does it, is oddly fascinating.
I was clarifying what the metric is - i.e., what it tries to measure - as that was something you were speculating about.