Facebook: There must have been miscommunication with Limited Run

Lewton 13 years ago |

Their response focuses entirely on the issue of them charging them for a name change, and almost completely ignores the bot issue.

I personally don't see that as a big issue, it would make sense that they don't let pages change names willy-nilly. This response is peculiar

fooey 13 years ago | |

yeah, makes you wonder if there's someone internally who's been scamming companies

JonnieCache 13 years ago | | |

IMO it's more likely to be that they know full well those bots are skewing the figures underpinning their valuation and their general popularity with investors. They're trying to quietly move the narrative away from that part by focusing on the naming issue.

Kiro 13 years ago | | |

Or they simply ignore insubstantial and groundless accusations. The name issue is much more important, but not a big deal.

taligent 13 years ago | | |

You seem to forget that Zuckerberg owns majority voting stock.

He could turn Facebook into a porn site and there isn't anything anybody can do about it. So when you understand this you will see how ridiculous this notion is that Facebook is complicit in scamming advertisers.

Also do people not remember when this was (and still is) happening with Google ? It's like spam. You can manage it but never really get rid of it.

Retric 13 years ago | | |

If he did change FB into a porn site the minority investors would sue and most likely win.

JonnieCache 13 years ago | | |

I'm... arguing against that notion (that FB is behind the bots.)

austenallred 13 years ago |

There was a "miscommunication" about the name change. I'm a little bit more concerned about the whole "80% of our clicks were a sham" thing. But that could be just me.

digitalengineer 13 years ago |

No mention from FaceBook of bots and how they're planning on handling fake-accounts in the future. Is FB trying to deflect the issue by muddying the water with the "name-issue"? If so, bots must be a bigger problem for them than I thought...

mmcnickle 13 years ago |

The sad thing is that this highlights one of the biggest problems with dealing with big technology firms (Google/Apple/Facebook/PayPal). You need to gain substantial media coverage before you get anyone from the firm willing to address your issue.

loceng 13 years ago |

Isn't it always a miscommunication with Facebook, and always the user's fault - not abuse by Facebook - and us users simply don't understand that it's actually a feature they're so kindly providing us?

chris_wot 13 years ago |

When you consistently act in an unethical way, things like this ate even worse than normal. I suspect Facebook is going to crash - gut feel, of course.

w1ntermute 13 years ago |

It seems likely this was a mistake, and not the result of dishonesty or malicious intent. That said, such an enormous mistake should have never been made in the first place, especially by a company such as Facebook.

spaghetti 13 years ago | |

Can we please see some actual numbers! Given the advertiser's "popularity" it's possible they were over-charged something like $4 for a few hundred clicks in which case it's certainly not an enormous mistake.

ForrestN 13 years ago | | |

Err, I don't think people are up in arms over the damage done to this one company. The story has legs because it implies that this is happening on a larger scale, and that Facebook is making a significant portion of its revenue from valueless clicks. Facebook should have had a system to avoid charging for such clicks, and if it doesn't that's a huge nationwide story. And it wouldn't be because they didn't realize they needed one.

taligent 13 years ago | | |

The problem is that this is no different to Google.

It also earns a tonne of revenue through fraudulent clicks many by competitors. It's a big deal and Facebook needs to make attempts to fix it but the problem will never be completely solvable.

nl 13 years ago | | |

Read the original article - it was around $150 he wants refunded.

tytso 13 years ago | | |

That's incorrect. You're confusing the Limited Run / Limited Pressing story with the Wahanegi story, both of which hit HN very recently. I find the Wahanegi story more interesting since the OP has a much more concrete analysis about what was happening and why Facebook ads aren't as useful to advertisers.

nl 13 years ago | | |

Sorry, you are right.

(And yes, the Wahanegi was much more interesting, which I guess was why the number stuck in my head)

samstave 13 years ago |

>2. FB may or may not be involved in the ad-bots, but, they will drop their $ contingency on ad-rev for the name and payout these guys to shut them up.

This was predicted.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4313405

jack-r-abbit 13 years ago | |

uh... you made three fairly different predictions of possible outcomes. You were almost guaranteed that one of them would be true. I'm not sure that is all that significant.

samstave 13 years ago | | |

Not saying it was significant, only predictable.

Also I think this was the most likely outcome. Act like a minor mea culpa and pay them off.

halis 13 years ago |

They can't be that crazy, if they pulled that bot scam on just one customer, they risk alienating their entire user base. How could they possibly think they could get away with something like that? It doesn't add up.