Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-prefer-the-term-autonomous-agents dept.

A large portion of web traffic is due to bots, and has been for years.

How much of the [I]nternet is fake? Studies generally suggest that, year after year, less than 60 percent of web traffic is human; some years, according to some researchers, a healthy majority of it is bot. For a period of time in 2013, the Times reported this year, a full half of YouTube traffic was "bots masquerading as people," a portion so high that employees feared an inflection point after which YouTube's systems for detecting fraudulent traffic would begin to regard bot traffic as real and human traffic as fake. They called this hypothetical event "the Inversion."

[...] Take something as seemingly simple as how we measure web traffic. Metrics should be the most real thing on the [I]nternet: They are countable, trackable, and verifiable, and their existence undergirds the advertising business that drives our biggest social and search platforms. Yet not even Facebook, the world's greatest data–gathering organization, seems able to produce genuine figures. In October, small advertisers filed suit against the social-media giant, accusing it of covering up, for a year, its significant overstatements of the time users spent watching videos on the platform (by 60 to 80 percent, Facebook says; by 150 to 900 percent, the plaintiffs say). According to an exhaustive list at MarketingLand, over the past two years Facebook has admitted to misreporting the reach of posts on Facebook Pages (in two different ways), the rate at which viewers complete ad videos, the average time spent reading its "Instant Articles," the amount of referral traffic from Facebook to external websites, the number of views that videos received via Facebook's mobile site, and the number of video views in Instant Articles.

Can we still trust the metrics? After the Inversion, what's the point? [...]

Some metrics already measure the legitimate traffic as smaller than the bot traffic.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Nuke on Thursday January 03 2019, @01:20PM (5 children)

    by Nuke (3162) on Thursday January 03 2019, @01:20PM (#781456)

    It is just a matter of time before it is realised that advertising, and data for advertising, is worth no-where what is being paid for it at the moment. We are told that the ad industry earns and handles millions for this and billions for that, but that is only what is being received by entities at the top of the sales pyramid (like Facebook) in exchange for ad data and ad space. The money is being fed into the bottom by marks who are getting no-where near the value of what they are paying. When the marks realise this the whole over-inflated pyramid will collapse.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:02PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:02PM (#781463) Journal

    It is just a matter of time before it is realised that advertising, and data for advertising, is worth no-where what is being paid for it at the moment.

    There's probably two classes of advertisers. The first are the newbies trying out advertising because they heard it works. Those will be affected by a change in the perception of how effective online advertising is. There's the second group which knows it works because they already have ad campaigns that worked to generate business for themselves - metrics from self-interested advertisers be damned.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:14PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:14PM (#781468)

    I think this feeds in to the fact that companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi spend absurd percentages of their budgets on advertising. They know their product costs pennies to make as the scales they are making it at, so they simply drown out competition in a flood of marketing.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Thursday January 03 2019, @06:30PM (2 children)

    by crafoo (6639) on Thursday January 03 2019, @06:30PM (#781598)

    I think advertising works far better than most people realize. It's generally money well-spent.

    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:12PM (1 child)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:12PM (#781662) Journal

      Redbull doesn't make any products. Everything is licensing and advertising - seems to work for them.

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:07AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:07AM (#781932)

        A can of Redbull in Oz is about $3. There is an off-brand drink, that looks the same, has the same flavor, and comes in the same size can. It costs $1 and sells reasonably well, but nowhere near as much as Redbull.
        I used to work where the generic was sold, and it occasionally turned up in Redbull boxes.
        That's right, it was the same stuff, from the same factory, and people still paid triple for the name.